Unless. You. Are. Gay.

Then you can't legally be married, adopt kids, or pursue your life, liberty or happiness as other Americans are free to do.

Just let the record show: On the same night America elected its first Black president, four states voted to legalize discrimination in their states. Add that to the 41 other states who've already legalized discrimination and you've got yourself an America that falls very short of its sacred creed.

So the interlinks are buzzing today about an ad that John McCain will air during Obama's acceptance speech tonight. Well, not during, as I'd doubt the networks will cut to commercial while he's speaking, but probably during the COVERAGE it will air.

McCain flack Jill Hazelbaker said this:

I think this is the first of its kind. Senator McCain is going to speak direct to camera to Barack Obama. I'm not going to give away many more details than that. But suffice to say it's going to be a very exciting ad, and I think it's going to get a lot of attention.

So here's my theory/prediction. A lot of folks think its going to be an "attack" ad. I don't.

What if John McCain actually congratulates Barack Obama on his historic nomination, instead of attacking him for it?

I think its a smart move.

This would re-enforce McCain's "mavericky"/honorable image to the low information voters who don't know the kind of swiftboating McCain is engaging in.

Hey, if he's congratulating Obama on national tv, he obviously isn't questioning his patriotism or American-ness like he's been accused.

Plus, wouldn't it be seen as bad form for the man who voted against honoring MLK to rip Obama apart on his historic night, and on the anniversary of the March on Washington?

Of course, this is all speculation on my part. Who knows what the ad contains, or even if there is an ad. We'll just have to wait and see. I just wanted my prediction on the record in case I was right.

And if i'm wrong, well....it certainly won't be the last time.

Thoughts?

Even on the night his wife is supposed to be the star, Bill can't help but complicate matters.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose for example you're a voter. And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?"

Kind of makes you wonder what, exactly, he's going to say tomorrow night...

So i was reading this story on how John McCain is using his POW status as an excuse as to why he doesn't know how many houses he owns.

What I found interesting was the paragraph at the end.

Obama's house in the affluent Chicago neighborhood of Hyde Park is worth more than $1.5 million, and he has made millions from the publication of two autobiographical books.

What's so strange about that? Well. I read the story three times just to make sure I didn't miss it, but .that came out of nowhere. There is no mention of the worth of the McCains' homes, or the fact that his wife spends $250,000 a month on credit cards (hey, gas isn't cheap for private jets these days).

If they had disclosed McCain's worth, then I'd say it would be fair to mention Obama's assets.

But that's not what happened.

All it says-ALL it says, is that his wife is "a wealthy heiress to a beer distributorship."

So if we're using the same rules, all they should have said about Obama is that he "made a some money from his two bestselling books."

It's not just that he loses count of how many houses he owns...it's not just the "your only "rich" if you make 5 million dollars" comment, it's not just that his top economics advisor thinks we're all whiners, it's not just that John McCain thinks the economy is in good shape, it's not just that he wants to give BILLIONS in tax breaks to companies with the largest profits in the history of mankind, while continuing to spend 10 Billion dollars a month in Iraq for the next hundred years...it's that he does it while claiming Barack Obama is an out of touch elitist.

So Today, I sent Senator Obama's campaign ten dollars, one dollar for every house McCain owns.

If you wanna follow my lead, go right ahead.

Ten Dollars for Ten Houses





Oh, and this guy has a really great idea.

CNN's Jack Cafferty has been known for his forcefully blunt opinions. He's like the one guy on CNN who is actually allowed to express an opinion. And he makes sure he uses that opportunity to full effect. He'll call a spade a spade whether or not it's politically correct or seen as "impolite". He's old school that way, and sometimes I hate him for it. But most of the time, i absolutely love him for it.

Well, he's done it again. This time questioning John McCain's intellectual depth (or lack thereof).

Now, some highlights.

It occurs to me that John McCain is as intellectually shallow as our current president. When asked what his Christian faith means to him, his answer was a one-liner. "It means I'm saved and forgiven." Great scholars have wrestled with the meaning of faith for centuries. McCain then retold a story we've all heard a hundred times about a guard in Vietnam drawing a cross in the sand.

Asked about his greatest moral failure, he cited his first marriage, which ended in divorce. While saying it was his greatest moral failing, he offered nothing in the way of explanation. Why not?

Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day.

He was asked "if evil exists." His response was to repeat for the umpteenth time that Osama bin Laden is a bad man and he will pursue him to "the gates of hell." That was it.

He was asked to define rich. After trying to dodge the question -- his wife is worth a reported $100 million -- he finally said he thought an income of $5 million was rich.

One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none.

I'm reposting this to correct formatting errors. Site mods, feel free to delete the other post of the same title.


How many anti-Obama arguments can McCain's campaign undermine with one press release?

Let's find out.

In a statement in response to Barack Obama's ad, McCain flack Tucker Bounds said the following:

"In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to 3 billion dollars in new giveaways to Big Oil – a terrible policy that John McCain opposed," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "The truth is Barack Obama’s plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security and small businesses.”

First of all, I thought Barack Obama always put his party ahead of his country.

Senior McCain advisor Steve Schmidt said in a memo released to reporters. “We have seen Barack Obama forced choose between principle and the interests of himself and his party. He has always chosen the latter,” Schmidt wrote.

But if he votes with Bush "nearly half of the time" wouldn't that mean that he votes AGAINST his party nearly half the time?

Secondly, Obama is supposed to have the "most liberal voting record" in the Senate, even more liberal than the Senate's Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

"All I said was his voting record is more to the left than the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont," Senator McCain said according to a video of the interview posted online.

But how can he vote with Bush nearly half the time, AND be the most liberal senator in history? Did GW Bush turn into a flaming liberal while no one was watching? Hmmm...

Finally, Tucker says Obama is in "lockstep" with Bush because he voted with him "nearly half the time". So wouldn't John McCain be in super-lockstep with bush? After all, McCain voted with Bush nearly 95% of the time. A number considerably larger than "nearly half".

Someone, perhaps one of our friends in the corporate media, should ask Tucker Bounds about these, ummm, inconsistencies.

How many anti-Obama arguments can McCain's campaign undermine with one press release?

Let's find out.

In a statement in response to Barack Obama's ad, McCain flack Tucker Bounds said the following:

<blockquote>“In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to 3 billion dollars in new giveaways to Big Oil – a terrible policy that John McCain opposed," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "The truth is Barack Obama’s plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security and small businesses.” </blockquote>

First of all, I thought Barack Obama always put his party ahead of his country.

<a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/26/mccain-camp-obama-puts-himself-first/">Senior McCain advisor</a> Steve Schmidt said in a memo released to reporters. “We have seen Barack Obama forced choose between principle and the interests of himself and his party. He has always chosen the latter,” Schmidt wrote.

But if he votes with Bush "nearly half of the time" wouldn't that mean that he votes AGAINST his party nearly half the time?

Secondly, Obama is supposed to have the "most liberal voting record" in the Senate, even more liberal than the Senate's Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/19/2308539.htm">"That's his voting record.</a> All I said was his voting record is more to the left than the announced Socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont," Senator McCain said according to a video of the interview posted online.

But how can he vote with Bush nearly half the time, AND be the most liberal senator in history? Did GW Bush turn into a flaming liberal while no one was watching? Hmmm...

Finally, Tucker says Obama is in "lockstep" with Bush because he voted with him "nearly half the time". So wouldn't John McCain be in super-lockstep with bush? After all, McCain voted with Bush nearly 95% of the time. A number considerably larger than "nearly half".

Someone, perhaps one of our friends in the corporate media, should ask Tucker Bounds about these, ummm, inconsistencies.

Cause you know, John Edwards had an affair two years ago...

And then there's that important demostration of world peace, cooperation and goodwill that is the olympics...wouldn't want to ruin that...

Douglas Mackinnon wrote something over at the Politico in which he takes issue with something Obama said:

“We know what kind of campaign [Republicans are] going to run. They’re going to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’”

Mackinnon seems to think Obama is unfairly painting the GOP as a racist organization. But his argument seems to boil down to nothing more than "I, myself, am not a racist, therefore the republican party isn't racist."

Other than his relative inexperience and some of his stated policy positions, I have zero problems with Barack Obama. His age does not bother me, his name does not bother me and the color of his skin most especially does not bother me. Quite the opposite. I’m proud of what he’s accomplished precisely because of the color of his skin. I’m proud of what he’s accomplished precisely because of his disadvantaged youth. His is an inspirational story, and his historic campaign has made America a better place to live.

 Mackinnon goes on to talk about how he's got "black friends" and has a great respect for "black america".

As a Republican with a conservative point of view, I have written more on the greatness of black America, and the need for my party to reach out to that community, than just about anyone I know. Many of the single black moms I knew were some of the most “conservative” people I had ever met. They were death on a cracker when it came to law and order, going to church, staying in school, right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and it was and is my belief that their “real-life” success stories could only make the Republican Party a better and less hypocritical entity.

While I don't doubt that Mr. Mackinnon is sincere in his respect and admiration, that doesn't mean his party shares those feelings.

First, there was something called "the southern strategy". Sure it was employed by republicans to play on racial tensions in the south to keep republicans (and white people) in political power, but that's certainly not racist, is it?

The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

More recently, and more relevantly to this campaign, there was Republican State Senator Kevin Bryant who posted a picture on his website claiming that there really was no difference between Barack Obama, Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, and Osama Bin Laden, mass-murdering fuckhead.

At the Republican Convention in Texas they sold buttons asking if we could still call it the White House if Obama won. Surely, that had nothing to do with Obama's race.

And in Tennesee, the GOP seems to think that not only are attacks on candidate's spouses apparently ok, but so is bringing up the spector of a white woman with a black man. Because, as we all know, the GOP is not racist.

Other examples could be cited, and I invite you to do so in the comment section. But for now, I beleive i've proved my point so I'll stop.

Allow me to vent my frustration at the corporate media.

I live in ohio. I don't care about a category 1 hurrican in texas and yet, its nonstop coverage of it all day on the cable channels.

I mean, it wouldn't be so bad if the storm actually warranted such coverage. But this isn't Katrina we're talking about here.

Dolly should probably be mentioned in the news because its happening. but it's not a national story that deserves 45 minutes of coverage every hour.

Its a storm. It's a weak one, at that. A little rain, a little wind, a little flooding. Hey, we get those conditions here in ohio too. they're called thunderstorms. ANd nobody does national coverage everytime it rains here.

Big hurricanes, Andrew, Katrina, etc...deserve non-stop coverage. But every hurricane to make land fall certainly doesn't.

Its this lack of distinction every single hurrican season that drives me nuts.

anyway...that's just reason number 1029231313 why i think the corporate media is completely messed up...

What's the difference between a timetable and a time "horizon"?

If you can answer that question you're smarter than me.

It seems Bush-McCain want to neutralize Iraq as an issue for the election because they know its a loser for them. So...declare victory and get out?

But why? With polls showing Obama with a 20 point lead on economic issues, the only thing really holding him back is voter's worries about his national securtiy credentials.

If the republicans take Iraq off the table as an issue by declaring victory before Novemeber, all that would leave is domestic and economic issues, where Obama absolutely blows McCain out of the water.

Asked whom they trust more to handle the economy, 54 percent named Obama, while 35 percent said McCain. Obama also holds double-digit leads on dealing with the federal budget deficit and on immigration. On social issues such as abortion and same-sex civil unions, 56 percent prefer Obama, 32 percent McCain.

So what's the deal here? Is this a "genuine" effort to try to bring this war to an end, or is this just a bait and switch? Tell the voters your position is the same as Obama's so it neutralizes a bad issue for you only to reverse course and change your mind once you've been elected? Is this like Nixon's "secret plan" to win the war?

In a statement to Andrew Sullivan, the McCain campaign decided to "clarify" what their candidate meant to say when he said:

I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

According to his campaign, when he said he doesn't "believe in gay adoption" he really meant, "its a state's issue".

"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue.  He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible.  However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes.  McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."

But John McCain's answer to the question didn't include even a mention of federalism or state's rights. So how, based on what the candidate said, can you claim that he was really talking about the issue of federalism?

Ah...but there i go again judging the candidate based on what he actually said and not what his campaign claims he meant three days later.

And btw, this whole "gay issues are states problems" is the biggest dodge I think i've ever seen on the issue. He doesn't want  to deal with it so he passes the buck and the responsibility onto the state.

If we had left voting rights to Alabama and Mississippi, black people would still be having trouble voting.

And if you think Alabama and Mississippi are anyway near ready to recognize my rights as a human being, let alone my right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" you're delusional.

Gay rights is and should be a federal issue. I'm not worried about the Californias or the Massachusetts that are out there. It's the states with a long history of discrimination and bigotry i'm worried about.  

The South Carolinas and Mississippis and Alabamas of the world are NEVER going to find their way to equality unless we have federal leadership.

But John McCain wants to leave it to the states because he thinks its ok that a gay person in Tennessee can be legally discriminated against. And he doesn't want to change that fact.

On this issue, John McCain is a coward.

John McCain has criticized Barack Obama's Iraq policy by suggessting that Obama would rather win an election than a war.

So I went to John McCain.com to see what his plan for winning in Iraq was. Surprise! There wasn't really a plan. Just more of the same tired talking points, rationales, and "stay the course"-isms that we've come to expect from the man seeking George W Bush's third term.

John McCain's website doesn't say what a "win" would be. But it does say that:

it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people.

So the standard is the ability of the governement to govern and to protect its people. Well...I could go on about how our own governement is unable, 233 years after our founding, to "govern itself" effectively, but that would be adding snark into what should be a serious discussion about foreign policy.

So I'll say this instead. The Iraqi's now have a sovereign government. A democratically elected sovereign government. And American troops should not be held hostage to the Iraqi's inability to get past their own partisan gridlock. Surely, partisan gridlock is something we Americans are VERY familiar with. Can you justify keeping someone's father, someone's son, someone's brother, someone's mother, someone's friend in Iraq until the Iraqi government is able to get past it?

Oh yeah. And the democratically elected sovereign government of Iraq wants to know when we're going to be leaving.

And of course, John McCain being John McCain, no discussion of Iraq would be complete without mentioning everyone's favorite boogeyman, "al qaeda in Iraq".

It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively.

First of all, I feel compelled to point out that there was no "Al Qaeda in Iraq" until America went into Iraq. We're staying there to fight off a problem we created by going in there in the first place.

Secondly, this article from march of 2007, talks about AQI's presence in the percentage of attacks they were responsible for:

 

To describe AQI's presence, intelligence experts cite a spectrum of estimates, ranging from 8 percent to 15 percent. The fact that such "a big window" exists, says Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, indicates that "[those experts] really don't have a very good perception of what is going on."

It's notable that military intelligence reports have opted to cite a figure at the very top of that range. But even the low estimate of 8 percent may be an overstatement, if you consider some of the government's own statistics.

So even if we concede that AQI must be dealt with, there are obviously far greater concerns.  Indeed, as of March 07, at least 85% of the violence was caused by some other group or faction.

So I would say, on our list of priorities AQI is pretty low on the list when you look at the numbers.

Thirdly, John McCain shows a surprising lack of grasp on this issue. Never in the history of the world has an occupying force defeated a guerilla army. AQI is a guerilla army. We cannot defeat them. We can harm them. We can pursue them. We can hunt them down and make their lives miserable, but to somehow think you'll ever fully defeat an institution thats willing to strap bombs to themselves. They are not afraid of death. And they can hide among a population that looks like them, speaks like them, and shares many of the same customs and traditions.

It's Vietnam all over again.

But there I go again, learning lessons from history.

Fourthly, we've been training Iraqi security forces for five years. I mean, we won World War II in the time its taking us just to train a "competent, trained and capable" security force. At a certain point, you have to wonder if the Iraqi's are really putting as much into this as we are.

It seems John McCain's plan really only amounts to one word: "STAY". Because staying, in John McCain's eyes is the solution, and not the problem.

Finally, the Iraq section of his website (a whopping 17 paragraphs! really, it is nice to know that the man who wants us to stay for 100 years has thought about it to such an extent as to warrant 17 whole paragraphs) concludes with this:

But I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for President that they cannot keep if elected. To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility.

Al Maliki, acting at the height of irresponsibility and without regard to the calamitous consequences of the Iraqi people when he says:

"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal."

John McCain wants to "win" in Iraq, regardless of whether or not the Iraqi's want us to "win". But he doesn't even have much of a plan except continue what we've been doing.

That's change you can beleive in!

Sam Stein at The Huffington Post wrote a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/hagees-revenge-videos-of_n_111373.html">story</a> about how all of John "Hitler was an agent of God" Hagee's videos have been removed from Youtube, just days before a summit where Holy Joe Lieberman himself will be attending.

Go figure.

But i found this quote particularly interesting:

"Anything that showed John Hagee giving a sermon - because he films and markets those as well - were taken down because they were considered copyright infringements."

Doesn't this run contrary to every thing Christianity, as a religion, is about? Aren't you as a christian, supposed to spread the word of god to us heathens and savages who've yet to accept Jesus Christ as our savior?

In the end, if John Hagee wants to control the content he created, its his right to do it. But if he's interested in prosthelaytysing (spellcheck, anyone?) what better place than Youtube? Hundreds of millions of people go there every day. Seems like if you want to get your message out and save as many souls as possible, then the Youtube would be the place to do it.

Of course, that's the downside for John Hagee. He'd only be getting his message out, he wouldn't be profitting from it.