Mark Halperin has been printing the list of the "five most important people" who can influence the election, the economy, the orbit of the earth...for weeks at this point.  Never mind that we're racking up hundreds of individuals who are supposed to be the most important people ever, today's list is particularly hilarious.

 

Titled in the usual manner, of course: the five most important people who can....

 

There are only four items on the list today.

Halperin's take: the five most important people. Oops. Left one out.

This is a reposted and expanded upon comment from the Election Central Roundup:

 Eric Boehlert has an interesting examination of how the press, after being accused of favoring Clinton in the election 1992, developed quite a combative relationship with Clinton even before he took office. The "honeymoon" with the media was declared over practically before Clinton was sworn in.

Election Central reported that the McCain campaign was sinking a decent amount of cash into showing the now-infamous Britney/Paris ad around the country. I know that I'm supposed to understand that this ad is a genius ad, with all the subtle imagery included in it, and it might be, but I have some questions about it. 1. Why did the McCain take ownership of this? The RNC should have done it. McCain has provided Obama with a nice opportunity to keep saying "McCain keeps running ads about Britney Spears, and I'm out here trying to help you. Who do you want as President?" He'd have less of an opportunity to make that point had the RNC run the ad. 2. Who were the focus groups? There's a short story in today's McClatchy claiming that the ad might be hurting Obama, but when you read it, there's just not much there. The study says:

But the results that may have been most telling were the changes in whom the participants would vote for and suggested that such advertising could have an impact, especially among independents. Before viewing the ad, 75 percent of the Democrats said they would vote for Obama. After viewing the ad, that percentage was 72, while undecideds rose from 13 to 15 percent and those favoring other candidates rose from 3 to 4 percent.

So 75 to 72? And it goes on:

Similar results were recorded for Republicans and Independents. Republican support for Obama dropped from 8 to 6 percent, while McCain's percentage remained unchanged at 74 percent. Undecideds rose from 16 to 18 percent, however. Only among independents did the drop in Obama's percentage, from 44 to 43 percent, accrue to McCain, whose support went from 33 top 34 percent.

In other words, the ad had no effect. This is a tiny study (N = 300+), and maybe the ad will have a cumulative effect, but right now, I don't see the advantage for McCain. He's spending money to show this, he's tied directly to it, it provides a great soundbite for Obama, and the effectiveness of it remains in question.

Jonathan Martin has the story.  The statement begins with:

"John McCain's new ad is dishonest and shameful, and I say that as the former Chief of Medical Operations. "

Zing!  Thank you for being so straightforward, Colonel.

Perhaps this is the start of some pushback on that dreadful ad?

Maybe traditional media might mention this?

Sure.

And tomorrow, I'll wake up and find out that I've won the lottery....

Here's the whole story:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Former_Ramstein_medical_chief_denounces_McCain.html?showall

Some Times' columnists I simply loathe (Maureen Dowd).  Some I have mixed feelings about.  Bob Herbert is one of those.  At times, he seems to overreact, and, to echo conventional wisdom.

Today, though, his column on John McCain is a must-read.

He summarizes, in a single column, everything that voters should be deeply worried about with respect to a McCain presidency.  He lists the persistent slip-ups with respect to foreign policy, describing the gaffe about Iran training al Qaeda like this:

"Mr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe LiebermanMr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe Liebermanv"

All the slip-ups are there.

Most importantly, however, is the fact that Herbert focuses on the one thing that should send shivers up people's spines: his temper.  Pete Domenice is quoted as saying he decided he didn't want McCain near any trigger.

The entire column is a devastating critique of John McCain.  Hopefully, some of it will stick in the minds of the voters.  I highly recommend reading it, and e-mailing it to as many people as you can.

I don't know how to do links in blog posts, so I'll just include the address here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The opportunity to offer your favorite worst song of all time.  To get you started, think of these:

We had joy we had fun we had seasons in the sun....

You're having my baby...What a lovely....

But I've never been to me...

For those of you over 40, some of these should make you cringe.  (Ok, they make me cringe, at least).

But just for fun, offer your own in the comments...

And if you want to share the pain, click recommend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

Enjoy.

If you liked this post (link, really), please click recommend....

Or, we can consider this:

<blockquote>Why don't we try "he is/she is" for a change? Both Democratic candidates represent diversely layered demographics--ones that describe our future. Clinton is a strong, determined, immensely resilient woman; Obama is a culturally amalgamous, quietly brilliant, elegantly intellectual man. They are both tremendously well educated, making all of us the lucky beneficiaries of affirmative action policies that have reconfigured the playing field to include the two of them.

Now we need to direct our attention where it belongs. As President, McCain would do away with what's left of affirmative action, Roe and habeas corpus. He has been schooled for war and more war. He is committed to and implicated in almost all the domestic and economic lunacies of the Bush Administration. It would be tragic if he strolled in for a touchdown while the rest of us were playing card games in the end zone.</blockquote>

Patricia Williams, in the most recent <i>Nation</i>

If you have the time to chime in on every post about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (and face it, a lot of us apparently do), then you owe it to yourself, the Democratic Party, and to both candidates to take the time to read the entire piece:

<A HREF="http://http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/williams">Some extremely wise advice from Patricia Williams</a>

 

Thanks.  And pass this along, will you?

that this is EXCELLENT NEWS FOR ATRIOS!