Is McCain Ready?

Obama, yesterday:

He warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said....

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said.

As you may remember, on May 30th I noted that McCain was underestimating Obama in this election. A few days later, Mark Halperin at Time noted the same thing, and even offered up a list:

1. The astonishing enthusiasm that Obama inspires in his supporters — and how much it contrasts with the respect, but not passion, McCain enjoys from his own backers. (And the size of Obama’s crowds…)

2. The “Major League vs Little League” difference between Obama’s infrastructure and his own.

3. The inherent difficulty/sensitivity of running against two figures at once. McCain will have to 1) explicitly criticize a sitting Republican president before Republican audiences and 2) prevent the historic event of electing the nation’s first African-American president that many in the country (and the media) desire.

4. The ever-present danger on the trail that he might evoke Bob Dole with a Bob Dole-like misstep (fall off a stage, sound like a Washington fossil, seem angry and out of touch).

5. How little most Americans care about foreign policy (beyond the Iraq War) when the economy is in the tank.

6. How many voters (even Republican stalwarts) dread the idea of a virtual third Bush term.

7. How many members of the media dread the idea of covering a virtual third Bush term (and how much they buy Obama’s argument that McCain is an extension of Bush-Cheney).

8. The extent to which McCain’s lack of an economic message could make Obama (who also is challenged in adequately addressing the economy) seem like Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton, and Lou Dobbs all rolled into one.

9. That many of his party’s wiseguys and wisegals see polling data suggesting his chances of winning are no more than 30% (and how much it infects their cable TV appearances).

10. That in modern America, perception is often reality and style often beats substance.

11. That age is only a number unless it’s a really high number — then it’s a liability.

12. How old he looks when he is acting “presidential” on the stump – and how incongruous it makes his message of change appear.

13. How powerful debates might be when the allegedly inexperienced Obama of allegedly questionable judgment goes toe-to-toe with McCain, even on national security, and is therefore deemed of sufficient strength and stature to be president by many.

14. How valuable Obama makes voters feel (”we are the change we have been waiting for”) – while McCain’s campaign instructs and lectures voters.

15. How forcefully Obama will now move to the center as a mainstream, optimistic candidate celebrating both change and America’s greatness.

I would add to this list one very important thing: that Obama won't be a pushover like the last two Democratic candidates.

John Kerry was good with the pushback, but sloooow. I think it took him two weeks to respond to the SwiftBoat attacks. He barely sent any Democrats to the RNC convention to provide a countermessage to all the attacks. Kerry was very capable of the counterpunch, you saw him wipe the floor with Bush during the debates, but on the campaign trail he just wasn't on the ball.

Al Gore was, let's be honest, too smug and overconfident. He figured that because Bush was an idiot (true) and didn't have any sensible policies (true) that the American voters would see through him. But you can't take any votes for granted, you have to fight for them. And you do that by punching your opponent until they are bloody in the face.

I don't think that will be a problem with Obama. McCain is like a bloated old pugilist who is used to knocking down his chump opponents with the first blow. But now he's going up against a real opponent, someone who gets back off the mat and punches back, and McCain isn't sure how to take it.

It's definitely taking a toll on him. Inside, he wants to unleash his venom and anger, to blow up at Obama and deliver a few choice 4-letter words. But he can't do that, he knows he has to remain calm, so instead he sputters almost incoherently about how Obama "has no experience" or "wants to surrender" or "represents Jimmy Carter's third term". It's all very weak and pathetic. McCain spews these prefabricated, dusty old attack lines but never backs them up. He doesn't understand Obama, he doesn't understand Obama's positions, so how can he deliver a stinging rebuttal? He can't.

McCain wants this kid to take a fall, and the kid won't, and McCain doesn't know what to do about it.

Obama is ready to bring it in this election, and he's got the resources he'll need. Obama is a student of history, particularly recent history, and the fact that he was outside Washington for the Clinton years and Bush's first term gives him a unique perspective that McCain doesn't have. McCain has never run a close race in Arizona, he gets his ass kissed all over Washington, the pundits love him when he goes on their Sunday shows, and by the way who the fuck is this new guy trying to steal his spot?

Hillary didn't understand it, maybe she still doesn't. McCain doesn't understand it, and he probably won't until the day after the election, if then. These people have been living on the top of their little mountain for so long they think they are on Everest. In reality it's nothing more than a little hill, eroded by the Bush years, by their own compromises, by their own corruption. Obama has built himself a much bigger hill, a real mountain, with the help of millions. It didn't take long, but sometimes the greatest upheavals happen in the shortest of times.

I wonder if McCain knows what's coming. Right now, it sure doesn't look like it.

McCain Hates Our Freedoms

In response to yesterday's historic ruling about habeus corpus and the freedom to challenge your arrest in federal court, McCain finally came out swinging -- on the side of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the rotting corpse of the unitary executive.

"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," McCain said.

Remember, this is from a guy who says he wants to close Guantanamo and stop our government from torturing prisoners. When it comes to putting his money where his mouth is, he always winds up siding with Bush. Unbelievable.

The stakes in this next election couldn't be any higher. Glenn Greenwald:

Three of the five Justices in the majority -- John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) -- are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.

John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It's not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.

John McCain voted for the bill that stripped habeus corpus rights from the prisoners at Guantanamo. He has voted against a bill to outlaw waterboarding. He talks a big game about being against torture and in favor of human rights, but when push comes to shove he folds like a limp dick.

The reality is clear. John McCain thinks that the U.S. government should be allowed to strip prisoners of their rights. He thinks torture is perfectly legal. He thinks the U.S. should attack, invade and occupy any country that looks at us the wrong way. But he also feels that his own moral character is so impeccable, so wonderful, that if elected he might restrict his own awesome powers and toss crumbs to the enemies at his mercy.

I've been following McCain's career for over ten years and I still don't know what the hell is going on in his head. He's a bad mixture of crazy and stupid, and electing him would be one of the biggest blunders this country could make.

John McCain, Too Dumb To Use a Computer

When a guy graduates 894th in a class of 899, when he is a C-student, when he continually gets his facts mixed up, and when even one of his biggest fans, Andrew Sullivan, thinks he isn't that smart, it's not good to admit that you are even dumber than we realized.

John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.

Pathetic.

Tim Russert, Rest In Peace

This is really terrible and sad news. Tim Russert has died today at the age of 58, of an apparent heart attack. Our condolences go out to his family and loved ones.

This is a heavy blow to the media and political world, as Russert was basically the number one figure in Sunday morning talk shows. Although I had grievances with him over his choice of guests and occasional acquiescence to Republican spin, I do think he was one of the few interviewers who relished in confronting his guests, whether they be Republicans or Democrats. His interview of President Bush in 2004 was a classic.

He'll be missed.

McCain Agrees, He Will Be Bush's Third Term

Check it out:

Moron

It doesn't get any stupider than this.

Nikki and I have decided that now is a good time to get this overwith. Barring a DREAM TICKET scenario or a scenario in which HILLARY WINS THE NOMINATION, which we see as unlikely at this time, we endorse John McCain for President.

This was a VERY tough decision, those of you that know me know I am extremely passionate about our party. I feel that it has moved away from me. We will not campaign for John McCain, but we will vote for him, and urge others to do the same.

It takes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, grudge-holding, and, well, total stupidity for a hard core Hillary Clinton supporter to suddenly endorse John McCain for president.

Cody Eliff's reasoning, from what I can discern from this letter, evolved from the tear-Obama-down "kitchen sink" strategy of the Hillary campaign. Let's break his reasons down one-by-one.

1. Hillary and McCain have enough experience to be commander in chief, but Obama doesn't.

Altogether, John McCain has been in the military and Congress since 1954. That's right - his five-plus decades of "experience" started when Hillary Clinton was 7 years old. Hillary's experience? She traveled to a bunch of countries while First Lady, and she has served on the Senate Armed Services committee during her seven years in the Senate. If years of experience is so important to you, why would you have supported Hillary in the first place? Clearly McCain should have been your guy from day one. And if you are a Democrat, maybe you could have supported Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson, all of whom have much more experience than Hillary Clinton.

2. Hillary and McCain are foreign policy experts, Obama not so much.

If your idea of foreign policy expertise boils down to a vote in favor of the Iraq war, then I guess Hillary and McCain are interchangeable on this one. Of course, Clinton promised to pull all of our troops out of Iraq within two years, while McCain wants to keep them there for 100 years. Kind of a big difference.

This moron Cody Eliff also hangs his hat on the false idea that Obama wants to attack Pakistan. What Obama actually said, of course, is that he would take action against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the government there failed to act. Maybe if you support John McCain's policy that we ignore Al Qaeda, I guess this makes sense. But if you were supporting Hillary Clinton, who also promised to kill Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, then you are just an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

3. All of these negative, sexist attacks against Hillary are Obama's fault.

First, you must ignore the long record of Hillary attacks on Obama. Next, you make your presidential decision based on what someone who claimed to be an Obama supporter once said to you in Iowa. Third, you ignore the fact that Obama was actually quite classy towards Hillary during the entire campaign, and avoided any sort of "kitchen sink" strategy against her personal and professional history. Fourth, you pretend that the Republican party is a classy organization that would never smear Hillary in any way.

And finally, you throw your support behind the guy who called Chelsea Clinton "ugly" and who laughed when a support called Hillary Clinton a "bitch", and who voted to impeach and convict Bill Clinton.

Very smart.

4. The elders of the DNC stole the nomination from Hillary.

First you claim that Michigan should have put Hillary Clinton over the top, even though she herself said that the Michigan vote wouldn't "count for anything". Next, you ignore that Hillary lost the popular vote when this Michigan election that doesn't "count for anything" does not count. Finally, you ignore that this was a delegate race, that the Clinton campaign always admitted it was a delegate race, and that Obama won the most delegates.

You also conveniently ignore the fact your candidate, Hillary Clinton, started off the primary with a 100 delegates more than Obama and a 20 percent lead in the national polls. The only reason she lost was through bad strategy, a mismanaged campaign, and poorly managed funds. (In other words, Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, and Patti Solis Doyle)

And let's be honest -- if you were an undecided superdelegate on June 3rd, would you really want to cast your lot with the person $20 million in debt?

5. Because Obama lost the primary election in a few swing states, he can't win those states in the fall.

Hillary won the primary campaign in Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Ohio, and Florida, so she would definitely win them in November. Except....McCain won the Republican primary in those same states, meaning that he will definitely win them in November.

Does not compute...repeat...does not compute.

This line of thinking is totally lacking in logic or common sense. And why would Obama's chances in November make you vote for McCain? "I think Obama will lose in November, therefore I won't support him." It sounds to me like this person is a fair-weather voter who only wants to go with the winner. But his track record is bad and about to get worse. According to current polls, Obama is doing better against McCain than John Kerry ever did against George W. Bush.

6. The media has been in the bag for Obama, so his election isn't valid.

Not so much:



You also must ignore studies showing that Clinton's press was just as positive as Obama's press, which is surprising considering that she was mathematically out of the race by early March.

7. Issues don't matter.

Apparently, you don't care about the issues, because John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the polar opposites on just about every issue facing the country in the next four years. How can you go from wanting a more progessive tax code one day, then throwing your weight behind McCain's regressive tax code the next day? How do you go from supporting a careful withdrawal of troops from Iraq within two years, then endorse the guy who wants to keep them there for 100 years?

On issue after issue, there is a major gap between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Anyone who switches their allegiance between the two, for such shoddy reasons as those provided above, must not care about what the President will actually do when elected. This person has fallen into the Ralph Nader mindset, the one that stated there was no real difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Anyone who still believes that in 2008 is beyond redemption.

Obama vs. McCain On Taxes

In my view, we shouldn't cut taxes for anybody until the war is over and our budgets have been balanced. But it's hard to win an election on that platform, and let's be honest, we can afford a tax cut for the middle class IF we cut waste in the government, end the war in Iraq, and hike taxes on the super-rich.

Which seems to be exactly what Obama's plan is. It's basically a return to the Clinton approach, which you may remember turned massive deficits into a surplus and fostered a roaring economy.

Today, CNN broke down the differences between the Obama and McCain tax plans. Check out the tax cuts that McCain wants to give to the super-rich. He really is Bush's heir apparent.



Critics argue that both plans would increase the national debt. That's true, when looked at on their own. But McCain's plan would increase the debt three times faster than the Obama plan. Also, since McCain is planning 100 years in Iraq and he wants to bomb Iran, whereas Obama wants to end the war in Iraq and pursue tough diplomacy instead, I can see Obama making up for some of these deficits with cost-saving policies.

On this issue, as with so many others, McCain is pushing the loser argument.

McCain Proves He Is An Idiot

McCain today, responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision giving habeus corpus rights to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

McCain also voiced his concern for today’s Supreme Court decision which allows terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. “These are unlawful combatants,” McCain said. “They are not American citizens.” But he also reiterated his stance that the prison should be closed. “I always favored closing Guantanamo Bay, and I still think we ought to do that,” McCain said.

The first thing you notice is the ol' Double Talk Express, where McCain argues both sides of every issue. He disagrees with today's ruling, he says, but he also thinks Guantanamo Bay is wrong and should be shut down. These are contradictory positions, folks, unless McCain thinks that a new Gitmo should be created in some other location.

But what really struck me is the first line. McCain thinks that since these prisoners are not U.S. citizens, they shouldn't have any rights. But McCain is forgetting that the Constitution applies to the actions of the United States government, regardless of the citizenship status of the detainees. Just more proof that McCain is a total moron in just about every subject, whether it be foreign policy or economics or, in this case, the Constitution of the United States.

The Incredible McCain Girl

BarelyPolitical, the makers of "Obama Girl", have now come up with their McCain version. Good for a laugh.



I like the idea that McCain's supporters have uncontrollable, exploding tempers, just like their favorite candidate. Seems appropriate. But I'm not sure what's harder to believe -- that this young woman can turn into a green hulkish monster, or that anyone under 35 would be a fan of McCain.

Supreme Court Restores Habeus Corpus

Big news today:

The Supreme Court today rebuked the Bush administration for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.

By a 5 to 4 vote that brought strongly worded and remorseful dissents from the court's conservative justices, the majority held that an alternative procedure designed by the administration and Congress was inadequate to insure that the detainees, some of whom have been imprisoned for six years without a hearing, receive their day in court.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

If John McCain is elected, he will replace one or two of those liberal judges with conservative hard-liners. Such a court would overrule today's decision, setting up a system whereby the government can arrest anyone for terrorist crimes, ship them overseas, and never let them see the light of day.

This is yet another reason why we really, really need to beat McCain in this election.

So what did McCain's favorite judge, Scalia, have to say on this topic?

"America is at war with radical Islamists," Scalia wrote, adding that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

What kind of cretin thinks that our Constitution should be suspended during wartime, especially a war as phony and amorphous as the "War on Terror"? Did Scalia make these same arguments during the Cold War, when we were in much greater danger? Does he think habeus corpus should be suspended in drug cases, since we are in a "War on Drugs"?

And I'd really like to know how a fair trial in the United States puts American lives at risk. Seems to me that trashing the reputation of America does much more damage to our interests and our security. Scalia and his right wing pals must be fans of the justice systems in Third World dictatorships, where the military is all-powerful and you have zero rights.

Let's not mince words here. Scalia is a scumbag. If we could somehow yank him off the Supreme Court for his extremist views, we should. At the very least we should pass a Constitutional amendment limiting Supreme Court terms to 25 years.

Fox News: Moronic, Racist, Putrid Garbage

WTF?


So a young black woman, the daughter of a utility worker and a secretary, does good for herself by attending Princeton and Harvard. She marries a fellow Harvard graduate, has two children, and gets a job as the VP of the University of Chicago Hospital.

And yet, to the chyron writers of Fox News, she is just a "baby mama".

This is, to put it lightly, disgusting. It is also racist and, as if that weren't enough, ignorant. A "baby mama" is a woman who gives birth out of wedlock, and obviously that does not apply to Mrs. Obama.

Fox News not only needs to apologize, they need to expose the person who wrote this chyron and fire them immediately.

Combine this with the ludicrous "terrorist fist jab" bullshit from last week, and Fox News is really setting a new low for themselves.

McCain's Poll Headache Continues

More bad polls for McCain:

ABC News
Obama: 47
McCain: 41

Gallup
Obama: 48
McCain: 42

Rasmussen
Obama: 49
McCain: 44

The election is a long ways away, and these numbers will fluctuate. Although I think Obama's worst days are behind him, I could always be surprised. I'm sure we will see future polls with McCain ahead of Obama, but I'm also convinced we will see at least a few polls showing Obama with a 10-15% lead, probably in August or after the DNC convention.

None of these numbers mean much. It's the numbers on election day that matter. But still, a good sign that Democrats are beginning to unite against the disaster of a McCain presidency.

YouTube Will Be McCain's Undoing

I should really teach myself how to use Final Cut Pro, or at least iMovie. I've got lots of YouTube ideas, but neither the time nor the energy to learn the software needed to actually make them. I was an Adobe Premiere expert about 10 years ago, but my lifestyle hasn't required any video editing skills in many moons.

That said, I think John McCain is setting himself up to be the first victim of YouTube in presidential politics. Imagine if we had YouTube in 2000 or 2004, what we could have done to George W. Bush. It would have been devastating. In 2000 we had to rely on the news media for Bush's gaffe tapes and quotes, and of course they weren't interested in giving them to us. They replayed Al Gore's sighs over and over again, but ignored Bush's idiocy and incompetence. Once in a while you'd get a viral email providing all of the recent Bushisms, that was about it.

In 2004 we had Fahrenheit 9/11. It was the first time many Americans got to see the real, uncensored Bush. YouTube didn't exist until Feb. 2005, so F9/11 was all we had. It definitely hurt Bush's standing and opened a lot of eyes, but mostly it preached to the choir. Not enough undecided voters went to see the movie; it was mostly hard core Dems who didn't like Bush already.

But now, for the first time in a presidential election, Americans have every crucial video clip at their fingertips. We don't have to rely on the networks, Michael Moore, Jay Leno, David Letterman, or the Daily Show. We can get the clips ourselves, and if you've got the chops you can actually make the clips yourself.

YouTube has been a mixed bag for Obama. On the negative side, all those clips from his ex-pastor didn't do him much good. But Obama is also very charismatic and photogenic, with lots of adoring fans, so he's benefited from the YouTube phenomenon as well.

For McCain, it has been nothing but bad news, and will only get worse as the year progresses. All of his TV ads suck, his speeches suck, and during every unscripted appearance he makes yet another horrible gaffe or misstatement. Jed Report thought he struck it rich with Tuzla. Wait until he sinks his teeth into McCain during the months ahead.

Already, I can see someone putting out a three minute video composed solely of McCain's mental gaffes and blunders from just the past year. 100 years in Iraq, more wars, Sunni vs. Shiite, bomb Iran, whether we've drawn down to pre-surge levels, "it's not important" if our troops come home, he wants to veto every beer, President Putin of Germany, the list is truly endless.

If I had the technical chops and the free time, I'd put it together myself. But luckily we have Brave New Films, Jed Report, TPM's Veracifier and others to do the dirty work. Maybe if John McCain knew something about computers, he'd know what kind of disaster is awaiting him as he tries to plod his stumblemouth self towards the presidency.

79

Today marks 81 days until John McCain turns 72 years old.

Only two presidents in our history have reached their 70s while in office. Ronald Reagan (our oldest president ever) turned 70 during his first year. Dwight Eisenhower turned 70 during the last few months of his presidency.

But no first term president has ever been elected while already in their 70s, much less nearing their mid-70s like John McCain.

Let Me Repeat: John McCain Is Too Old

John Aravosis at Americablog puts up a great post today:

There seems to be an unexplored aspect to this media debate as to whether Obama is "playing the age card" against McCain. Namely, maybe McCain is too old, has been acting confused, and thus it's not a card.

We need to stop pretending that age is the same thing as gender or race or whatever. It's not. When you're 90 years old, for example, you're not fit to be president of the United States. When you're black, or a woman, you are - or at least your race and gender have no impact on your job performance. It's all well and good to be polite little PCers and pretend that it's age-ist to talk about McCain's mental and physical health, but anyone who has ever had a family member in their 70s knows that they start to show some wear and tear in that decade. Hell, I'm starting to feel some wear and tear in my decade. We've all seen the photos of how a president ages so much in office. And we all remember how out of it Reagan was by the end of his second term. Your age is an indicator of your health, and once you hit your 70s, I'm sorry, but it's a fair question to ask if you still have what it takes to be president of the United States of America.

Not to mention, McCain has been confused. Very confused. So whether or not the "age question" is nice, facts are facts. McCain isn't all there of late. And he's certainly less there than he was when he ran for president 8 years ago. Perhaps he's always been a bit confused, and we never noticed. Perhaps. But let's stop pretending that his age isn't relevant, and that it's wrong to even ask the question.

Even if the media doesn't want to bring this up, trust me, voters will. John McCain is running to be the oldest first term president in history, so giving voters a chance to assess his mental awareness is pretty important.

And what does McCain say on this subject? He's already said that discussions about his age are "fine with him".

Yes, concern trolls in the media may whine every time McCain is criticized for his mental confusion and gaffes, and of course the McCain campaign will express phony outrage from now until November, but McCain's advanced age is and will continue to be a major problem for him.

The guy is just too old for the job. Period.

McCain Doesn't Care When We Leave Iraq

Today, John McCain once again confirmed that he has no problem keeping our soldiers in Iraq for decades. After the 100 years remark, the media tried to pretend that St. McCain really wants to bring our troops home soon, maybe even by 2013! Wishful thinking.



"No, that's not too important." Let's try to unpack what McCain is saying here, because this isn't a gaffe or a misstatement. This is what he really believes, because he has made this same case many times.

John McCain basically does not care when or if the troops ever come home. In fact, to date he has not presented a single scenario by which that would happen. If the war continues at its current pace with casualties mounting, McCain wants us to stay there, and if necessary would probably send even more troops. Any withdrawal while such fighting is going on would be, in his eyes, "surrender". This is the "no surrender" scenario.



But what if a miracle happened and Iraq turned into postwar Japan or postwar Germany? What if the insurgency dried up, Al Qaeda packed their bags and left, and the Sunnis and Shiites started sprinkling flower petals on the troops instead of epithets and IEDs? In such a scenario, could our troops finally come home to a hero's welcome? Not if John McCain has anything to do with it. This is the "100 years" scenario, where we stay in Iraq for a century because some Islamic terrorists are over there.



Don't let yourself be fooled by the desperate, nonsensical spin coming from the McCain campaign. We've looked at his statements in context. We've listened to his evaluations of the war and where it should go over the next few years. McCain's position is very clear.

McCain will not pull our troops out. He thinks our enemies in the Middle East are just as dangerous as the Soviet Union, and for that reason will not even consider directing our attention elsewhere.

Stumblemouth McCain

I noticed during his speech last week, that McCain kept stumbling over words, mixing words up, combining words together as he lost his place. It makes for some funny sound bytes.

Here he is today, promising to veto....beer!

The McCain Girls Are Back Again!

Oldie But Goodie

Obama Slams McCain On Economy

Jump-starting his two-week whistlestop tour on the economy, Obama took McCain/Bush to the woodshed:

Senator Barack Obama, with the Democratic stage to himself for the first time, began a two-week assault on Senator John McCain’s economic policies in a series of battleground states on Monday, moving to focus on the ailing economy as the central theme of the general election campaign.

In his most pointed and sustained attack on Mr. McCain’s economic agenda, Mr. Obama said that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of President Bush’s faltering economic policies. And he highlighted his own proposals to aid economically beleaguered Americans: tax cuts for middle-income families and retirees, a $50 billion economic stimulus package, expansion of unemployment benefits, and relief for homeowners facing foreclosure....

Here's a link to the full text of the speech. A few choice excerpts:

But when it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush’s policies. He says we’ve made “great progress” in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he’s passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq – policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.

George Bush’s policies have taken us from a projected $5.6 trillion dollar surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration to massive deficits and nearly four trillion dollars in new debt today. We were promised a fiscal conservative. Instead, we got the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. And now John McCain wants to give us another. Well we’ve been there once, and we’re not going back. It’s time to move this country forward....

John McCain takes great pride in saying that he’s a fiscal conservative, and he’s already signaled that he will try to define me with the same old tax-and-spend label that his side has been throwing around for decades. But let’s look at the facts.

John McCain once said that he couldn’t vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn’t afford them. Well, nothing’s changed about the war, but something’s certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.

Think about that. At a time when we’re fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can’t afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we’re paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn’t just irresponsible. It’s outrageous.

If John McCain’s policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn’t fiscal conservatism, that’s what George Bush has done over the last eight years.

Check out McCain's weak response:

McCain: “Senator Obama says that I’m running for a Bush’s third term. Seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.

Jimmy Carter has been out of office for what, thirty years? So McCain once again demonstrates his age by making attacks that only resonate with the 50+ crowd.

Jimmy Carter obviously wasn't a perfect president, but he inherited a terrible economy from Nixon/Ford and had to take serious measures (including higher interest rates) to get the country on track. But Carter was also quite ahead of the curve regarding the coming energy crisis, and he made a strong push to increase fuel efficiency in our vehicles. Maybe if Ronald Reagan hadn't rescinded those fuel efficiency standards, we wouldn't be in the crisis we are today.

But let's get real here. This election, more than anything, will be a referendum on George W. Bush and his policies. Trying to bring up Carter will not change the dynamics of the race, it will only make Old Man McCain look, well, old.

I've long believed that no Republican, not even John McCain, can win this election in this environment. If McCain slams Bush, he alienates Republicans. If he praises Bush (as he is doing) he will alienate the 70% of the country that thinks Bush is a total failure. McCain's only chance is that Obama somehow drops the ball, and so far it just doesn't look like that will happen.

Double Talk McCain

As we discussed here before, John McCain is the opposite of a straight-talker. He'll say one thing today, then he'll say the opposite tomorrow. Sometimes he'll answer a question with an internally contradictory answer. Sometimes he'll dodge the question. You thought John Kerry was a flip-flopper? Give me a break. John McCain is a real flip-flopper.

Recently, McCain has been flopping back and forth on Bush's warrantless wiretapping scheme. Time's Ana Marie Cox tries to pin down McCain's position, but fails even after asking McCain to clarify himself:

The most generous interpretation of his position is that warrantless wiretapping MIGHT have been illegal when Bush did it, but that it should be legal in the future. From a civil libertarian point of view, that's pretty much the worst possible position for someone to hold: i.e., not only will we NOT determine if the government overstepped its bounds in the past, but we will broaden its authority in the future, which implies a kind of ever-expanding approach to government power.

Yet McCain insists his position hasn't changed. When I spoke to him last week (in an interview that was mostly on a totally different topic), he claimed, "I haven’t deviated in the slightest …. As I’ve said before, there’s a delicate balance protecting rights and national security." He blamed the stalling of new FISA legislation on partisan gridlock and argued, "I’m not trying to give anyone blanket immunity for anything, I’m saying we need sit down and review the issue with the interests of our national security first in mind." But then he also said that what came out of the Senate was totally fine, implying negotiation (or at least compromise) was unnecessary: "I don’t think Jay Rockefeller or any of the Senate Democrats that agreed to [the FISA legislation] would have agreed to something that was unfair." I guess that depends on whether you think "blanket immunity" (which was in fact part of the Senate bill) is fair.

And when I asked him about conservative commenters who have applauded what they see as a shift towards embracing the Bush view on executive branch powers, he said, "I haven’t changed my position on that at all," and that he still pledges, "I will never use a signing statement."

Now, I admit that my understanding of FISA is pretty pro-am, and that it's also possible that McCain's absence from the Senate means he's not up to speed on the latest kinds of compromises that are being discussed, but, honestly, I can't make sense of what he's actually believes among all of these statements. For every straightforward declaration, there's a weirdly squishy backstep.

"Squishy backstep", aka double-talk express, aka flip-flopping, aka lying about his positions, aka total confusion about where he stands. However you interpret this, it doesn't look good for old man McCain. This is not smart politics.

McCain Lies Again, Press Doesn't Notice

Is John McCain really a serial liar, or is this yet another "senior moment"? Whatever the case, the press needs to get on this guy for his neverending whoppers.

[Update] Jonathan Martin at Politico notices:

John McCain told Newsweek that he did not deliver a portion from the prepared text of his speech last Tuesday chiding the media for not giving Hillary Clinton her due. But video from McCain's address shows him giving the line as written.

"The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans," McCain said in a nationally-broadcast speech in Kenner, Lousiana. "And she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometime received."

Asked about this statement in an interview last week with Newsweek's Holly Bailey and Jon Meacham, McCain interjected, "I did not [say that]—that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]—I'm not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage."

Presented with video showing that the GOP nominee did in fact read the remarks as they were prepared, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Newsweek's account of McCain's answer is "paraphrased and unclear."

Rogers said he was not questioning the magazine's transcription, but pointing out that they included brackets.

But, given that he was responding to a direct question about a portion of the speech, it's unclear what else McCain could have been alluding to when noting twice that he "did not." That he also pointed out that the same section had been "in the prepared remarks" only clarifies that he was referring to the passage in question.

How long until McCain develops a reputation for lies and double-talk? It's becoming more and more frequent. The real liability, of course, is if McCain does this during a debate and Obama catches him on it.

McCain's Poll Plunge Continues

Obama continues to pick up former Hillary supporters:

Obama: 48%
McCain: 42%

Obama has consistently held a lead of five to seven percentage points each night since it was reported that Hillary Clinton intended to suspend her campaign. These represent Obama's strongest showing versus McCain to date in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of registered voters' presidential election preferences. For much of the time since Gallup began tracking general election preferences in mid-March, McCain and Obama have been in a statistical dead heat.

This is Obama's largest lead of the year in the Gallup Daily Tracking poll. In my opinion it is still too close for comfort, but is a good sign considering that Obama has already weathered some major smear campaigns (Rev. Wright, bittergate, etc.).

As we saw on last Tuesday, many pundits and commentators were shocked at how lame McCain's speech was. McCain has been out of the news for almost four months, and people have forgotten what a listless campaigner and speaker he is. Already the right wing is calling for a speaking coach to help McCain prepare for the RNC convention. Good luck with that.

Obama is firing up his general election campaign, while McCain's is still sputtering. Obama has a lot of upside in the coming months (his two-week economy tour, a major overseas visit to Iraq, campaign appearances with Clinton and Gore, his VP choice). McCain will probably get a good boost from his VP pick, depending on who it is, but otherwise has very little room to make his comeback.

Ultimately, McCain's only chance in this election is to destroy Obama by going into full-on smear mode. You can see this already starting here. Expect it to get worse.

Obama's Speech to AIPAC

From all reports, his speech went over like gang-busters.

Two days after John McCain paraded his tough-guy image in front of 7,000 supporters at the annual meeting of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Barack Obama delivered his own version of the Israeli national anthem this morning. For Obama, the AIPAC conference seemed like a tough room to work. But, by all indications, he wowed 'em....

Before the speech I wandered around, speaking to a couple of dozen AIPAC attendees. What I heard was uncertainty, nervousness, anxiety--and almost none of it was based on Obama's actual views. It was just, you know, a feeling. "I don't trust him," said Menachem, from Illinois. "I don't go according to what people say. I am using my intuition." Said Alan, "We went to lobby him last year, and he seemed, well, I don't know. It's his body language." Many AIPAC'ers said Obama would talk to terrorists. Diba, from California, said: "I don't think Obama has taken a strong stand for Israel. He is saying all the right things, but I don't think that he means it."

After the speech, it was a different story. "Did he make the sale? Oh, absolutely!" said Abe. "He addressed the rumors. He spoke from the heart. For me, he settled it," Lisa, from Michigan,said. Said Jay, from Washington, "Obama had to describe himself for this crowd. And I think he came across well. People were listening very carefully, and I think they believed him." A young man from Los Angeles, still undecided between Obama and McCain, said: "He really made me think. He surprised me. He made the point that Israel is weaker and less safe after eight years of the Bush Administration's policies."

That latter point was central to Obama's address at AIPAC, which was interrupted numerous times by standing ovations, cheers and thunderous applause. Obama blasted McCain for his fealty to the "failure" of Bush's bull-in-a-falafel-shop approach to the Middle East, which, he said, (1) allowed Hamas to take power in the occupied territories, (2) allowed Hezbollah to make major gains in Lebanon, (3) strengthened Iran's power in the region, (4) turned Iraq into an unstable state, and (5) isolated the United States from its friends and allies in the region, especially among the Arabs. By proposing a "responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq" ("we will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in") and by offering incentives to Iran if they abandon their nuclear program, Obama said that he will make Israel safer and more secure.

If you were listening for Obama to say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, well, that will be in a different speech.

It's my opinion that Republicans are making a mistake in thinking that Obama's so-called "Jewish problem" will hold up until election day. When Jewish Americans are exposed to the real Obama, as opposed to the viral version pushed by the right wing, they will agree that he is the best candidate for America and Israel going forward.

Obama Rallies His Staff For the General Election

This video is 13 minutes long, but presents a fascinating inside look at Obama's organizational style and ability to rally his staffers for the endgame.



Don't dismiss what Obama and his people just accomplished. They came from nowhere to beat the biggest brand name in Democratic politics, despite starting at a huge disadvantage in name recognition, fundraising and polling numbers. The Clinton folks are still stumbling around in a state of confusion, not sure what hit them. That's why Hillary didn't concede on Tuesday -- she still couldn't believe she lost!

John McCain and the GOP better watch out, because Obama is going all out for the general election. This guy knows how to fight, he knows how to organize, and he knows how to win. Nightline looked at the campaign's success story just a few days ago:



Get this -- Obama hired one of the founders of FaceBook to set up his internet operation. If that's not smart campaigning, I don't know what is.

McCain will need a lot more than stolen logos and lime-green backdrops if he wants to stay competitive in this race.

Iraqi Leaders Want U.S. Out

This past week, a pair of parliamentarians from Iraq testified before the U.S. House of Representatives. It's worth reading, because they basically destroy McCain's arguments on Iraq.

Spencer Ackerman has been all over it. Check it out.

Sunday McCain Roundup

Americablog asks: Why is John McCain getting $58,000/year in tax-free disability from the U.S. government?

You'd think that someone who argues that the new G.I. Bill is too generous to our veterans would himself eschew such lavish government welfare for himself. McCain owns 8 or 9 houses, his wife is worth over $100 million, and his "disabilities" have never prevented him from holding a job.

Obama's poll bump begins:

Rasmussen Presidential Poll 6/8/08 (5/29/08 results):
Obama: 50 (42)
McCain: 43 (47)

That's a 13 point turnaround in the last week. We'll see if a similar bump occurs in Gallup or in the state polls. But you can see why McCain's campaign is so desperate to pull away Clinton supporters during this critical time.

The Daily Mail slams McCain for his callous abandonment of his first wife:

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

.....

But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.

‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.

‘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.’

Right wing attempts to further trash Trinity United Church of Christ are backfiring:

Thanks to Hewitt, I can see that there was a lot to commend the church to ordinary non-radical believers like Obama. The week-to-week business of the church, as suggested in the Hewitt excerpts, was to carry out the best of the Christian tradition: encouraging kidney donations, praising college students who, instead of partying during spring break, helped rebuild New Orleans; shining a light on Darfur; alerting the poor members of the congregation to the earned income tax credit or the new Medicare prescription drug program; giving shout-outs and encouraging "high fives" to the members of the congregation achieving advanced degrees; and so forth. The emphasis is on praising those who shun hedonism in favor of less materially rewarding work. The personal attributes of congregants singled out for praise by Wright are essentially little "c" conservative virtues.

The Hewitt posts, intentionally or not, seem to corroborate Obama's claims (which to many seemed a bit implausible