We all know what's kept McCain going throughout his life:

1. Personal ambition
2. Love of beautiful women
   

Now, he told us that personal ambition was why he ran in 2000.

He might have decided to run in 2008 for the same reason, initially, but by the time he had to pick his running mate he realized a couple of things:

1. He was old and tired.
   
2. His campaign had been screwed up (he let it be screwed up in the name of his ambition).
3. The Republicans screwed up so badly that he was probably not going to win, no matter what he did.

It all appeared that his #1 motive just wasn't going to be fulfilled, so his #2 motive kicked in... Cindy obviously wasn't getting any younger and another wife switch would have been a bad idea this late in the game. But he should be allowed to have just a little more fun before he retires and/or dies. The country owes him at least that much. So he picked Palin.

I thought about this long ago, even before the actual Palin pick, but now there's video proof: watch it, it's hilarious.

Barack Obama's grandmother Madelyn Dunham has died at the age of 86, one day before election day...

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/11/obamas_grandmot_1.html

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbcVNOMqSk

John McCain was widely criticized after the first two debates for never mentioning the middle class. So during the last debate he came up with what seems to be a way of mentioning "middle class" without really talking about the middle class.

Meet "Joe the plumber", the subject of much of last night's debate. When you hear his "name", you immediately imagine the middle class, even the lower middle class. And he'd be paying a 3% higher tax under Obama? How can Obama put a higher tax burden on a plumber? If he does that to a plumber, surely clerks, janitors, cab drivers and other middle class folks would be affected as well...

However, Joe is an exceptional plumber, being able to buy the business that's making at least $250.000 a year. That's certainly good for Joe, but it means that through his successful hard work he has managed to move out of the middle class and into the top 5%.

So the subject of much of last night's debate was actually Bush/McCain's tax breaks for the upper class, which is nothing new. But by referring to this borderline case, McCain has, I think pretty successfully, sold it as "helping the middle class".

And I think this caught most people by surprise, including Obama, who seemed to fall for the trick and continued talking about "Joe" instead of saying: "Hey, that's upper class, they're doing just fine already and will continue to do so. Now let's talk about the middle class, the hurting majority!"

Pundits seem to have missed it as well. And I think McCain will continue to get credit for this instead of it being recognized as something that could well be called another deception (albeit a more clever one than most).

Here's something I totally don't understand. It has somehow now become "common sense" that Palin could win the VP debate, not by being better than Biden, but by being just a bit better than she's expected to be, which is very very bad. You can hear this argument seriously made in the MSM all the time: "The expectations are very low for her". This means: Everybody KNOWS that she's clueless and they're making this into an argument FOR HER?!?!  And this message is conveyed in all seriousness by the MSM!?! I'm just wondering, HAVE PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA LOST THEIR F*#KING MIND?!?!?!

If anyone really believes that this is a valid argument, then let me illustrate the absurdity through some examples:

* If I'm taking a test at school and I haven't studied and I know absolutely nothing, should the teacher give me an A if I manage to score better than 0%? And should those who studied for months get a D if they score anything less than 100%?

* If I have an interview for the job of, say, a reporter, and I appear to be illiterate, am I immediately hired and promoted to the chief editor if I manage to read a few words?

* If the cops stop me while I'm driving obviously totally drunk, should they let me go if I manage to walk five steps before collapsing?

* If I swim versus Michael Phelps, do I win the race if I manage at least not to drown?

* If a monkey would debate against Palin, would he win because his expectations would be even lower?

Just in case this doesn't ring a bell, let me explain about expectations. Expectations can be lowered when comparing subjects of different categories, yes, but expectations can never change the final outcome, much less the ranking order!

For example, if a lightweight and a heavyweight boxer were to have a match, expectations for the lightweight one would be lower, and if he managed to land a few good blows, we could say that he fought better than expected, even if he lost in the end. But that would not change the fact who in the end knocked out whom.

In this case, the two are competing for the highest offices in the country, so they're both the highest category, so even the expectations for both should be the highest possible. But if people insist in giving Palin some slack due to obvious cluelessness, that should not change the final verdict of who would be the better (vice-)president. Remember, the comparison is between Palin and Biden, NOT Palin and her miserable expectations.

Just like Nathan suggests, and I completely agree, immediately after the annoucement of Sarah Palin the Dems began to pounce on her like there's no tomorrow. We seem to have completely forgotten the hugely successful Dem convention (huh? what convention?).

And not just that. We don't seem to be pouncing only on the stuff that's relevant for a VP position, but mostly anything we can get our hands on, kitchen sink included. I know, after all the Obama smear the neocons deserve to taste some of their own medicine. But let's not forget who we are: we're Dems. We care about people. We care about the future of the Country and the World. We despise personal attacks. And we judge politicians by what's really relevant: policy, solutions and positions on issues.

So while we're pouncing on Palin, let's at least pounce on her positions. Our best friend Nate at FiveThirtyEight has done the analysis for us. Let's check it out and pounce on that (btw: although her position on creationism is apparently "mainstream", that's surely not the case among the internet population, so I think it's safe to pounce on that too).

Then, after we're done, we should refresh our (and other people's) memory of all the great stuff that happened at the DNC convention.

Ted Kennedy speech
Michelle Obama speech
Hillary Clinton speech
Bill Clinton speech
John Kerry speech
Joe Biden speech
Al Gore speech
Barack Obama speech

Remember, almost all of these speeches brought tears to our eyes (at least mine). Let's not let this great and inspiring stuff be forgotten.

It's now become pretty obvious. The McCain camp is doing a really big push to divide the Democrats against each other - Hillary supporters against Obama supporters. It's really stupid, if you think about it, it's like saying that members of the Olympic basketball team should play against each other, because they played for different teams in the NBA.

Anyway, the McCain camp recently produced this ad, which criticizes Obama for not picking Hillary, as if trying to say: "Dear Hillary supporters, Obama doesn't support your candidate, but WE support her." Riiight...

What's also interesting are the comments to the video. They're all like: "We love you Hillary! McCain '08". Now while real people who feel that way certainly do exist, they're no more than a couple % at best. But there was a ton of such comments, all voted up very highly, before many people have even seen the video (it had only had around 200 views last time I checked). It's all completely disproportionate.

It would be interesting to do an analysis of the "users" who posted these comments, but even without that it's safe to say that the McCain camp has a fair number of paid trolls, and his latest tactic is also very obvious.

I sure hope Hillary puts an end to it once and for all.

Some people say that McCain's not knowing how many houses he has is not a big deal - he's just rich and there's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's the American dream.

As AnitaBee points out in this post, it's not being rich that's his problem, it's that he's old, forgetful and generally clueless.

I'll add to that a couple other points:

1.) He's out of touch with _everything_ - even his own property! (Either that or he doesn't know how to count to 10.) How can such a man be in touch with the whole country, its people and the entire world?

2.) If he doesn't know the number of his own houses, how could he possibly know the vast amounts of economic, financial, political, geographic, historical data needed to make good domestic and foreign policy decisions? He barely passed the navy academy when he was young, how will he learn now, at the age of 72?

3.) Everything needs to be done for him, even basic things like shopping and computer usage, let alone running his campaign. He constantly needs to be babysitted, "kept on message" and corrected. All he does is confuse himself all the time and make gaffes as soon as he steers off message that others prepared for him. He's his own worst enemy. How can such a man run a country and foreign relations in a credible way? And more importantly, if he got elected, who would _really_ be running the country? Certainly not anyone elected.

4.) He forgets his own policies, positions and past votes. This is not the first time he said something like "I'll have my staff get back to you." Beside the recent viagra/birth-control awkwardness, there was also a less known exchange on the Straight Talk Express when he's asked about a similar topic and eventually says: "I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."
So he's either: a) really forgetful, b) votes on issues he knows nothing about (e.g. to please Bush), or c) if the public knew his positions on subjects like birth-control, he'd lose a lot of moderate voters, so he rather plays dumb.

It's pretty clear that McCain never really took care of himself and solved real problems. He was born into a family where both his father and grandfather were navy generals, which provided for his career in the navy, until his father died and his career hit a dead end. Luckily he married the rich heiress just the year before, so he was taken care of for the rest of his life.

Now that was certainly a good thing for him, but it also means that he never had to work OR think particularly hard, solve real problems and have real responsibility. And as we know, brain, just like muscles, deteriorates if it's not exercised. Evidently his brain is in a very bad shape and belongs more in a senior home than in the White House.

As president, the best he could do is be a puppet. But God forbid that he ever finds himself alone and has to make an important decision on his own, without his trusty brain surrogates like Lieberman, Schmidt, Cindy, Gramm etc.

We used to think of John McCain as a candidate who could use the 3 A.M. phone call ad to a great advantage. But can you imagine him now, such as he is, answering a real such phone call?
His answer would probably sound something like:
"GODDAMMIT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS!?! ... What, a crisis? Tell me about it, my friend, we MUST win! ... Who, Putin? Wait, he's the president of Germany... or is it Czechoslovakia? No, he's someone more dangerous, I know it. I think he's that terrorist leader from Al Qaeda... I also think he's Sunni or Shi'ite, but I'll ask Joe and get back to you. ... What, he invaded Georgia? We must help Georgia, they voted for me! We must win! ... What, Georgia's in Europe? Wait, I'm confused... I'll have my staff get back to you... Oh wait, never mind, just bomb Iran!"

(But of course, while McCain may be clueless in almost every respect, he can always tell you one thing: "My friend, you know I was a POW, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME?! Now leave me alone and get off my lawn!")

[Note: This post is written in a slightly humorous way, but the premise is quite serious.]

Okay, so we've all noticed this pattern in the MSM. They don't seem to be doing their homework. They seem to be "reporting" about Obama smears much more than anything else (even the more liberal ones), while there are many other interesting things happening that are not Obama smears. This is quite troubling, so I tried to think up the reasons for it.

I ruled out the possibility of all MSM being "evil", i.e. right-wing or anti-Obama. I've heard them say good things about him in the past, so they must not be inherently against him.

The next reason seems more likely: fatigue or perhaps laziness.

Let's try to imagine a MSM guy, e.g. Wolf Blitzer, and his typical day at work.

He arrives to work and realizes he hadn't done his homework. Thinks: <i>"Uh, I need to make a show, quickly... Now, what are the hot topics today? ... Turn on Fox News... Aha... Obama is a flip-flopper... And he has a pastor problem! ... OK, I think we've talked about this already, but it looks like it's still a problem. Let's put it on."</i>

Perhaps not his exact thoughts, but I think something along these lines happens a lot. Because let's face it, two years is just too long to cover a presidential campaign every day and always come up with something fresh and interesting. People who do it at work (and not for fun, like us) are probably sick and tired of it by now, and they're taking every possible shortcut.

So what's the easiest and safest way to make a show or an article? Well, to repeat what everybody else is talking or writing about. So the MSM echo one another. But if they do that, where does the original content come from? You guessed it: Fox News. Fox News is the ultimate indispensable news source. It has the ability to continuously produce spectacular news, even if nothing ever happens. It doesn't need events, it's self-sufficient. And it never repeats after anyone, because it can repeat itself indefinitely. It's like perpetuum-mobile.

Now that's a real problem. We can see the MSM no longer doing much other than repeating conservative talking points. The MSM reporters just don't have the energy to match that of Fox News, and they're being mentally assimilated...

So who has the energy to counter Fox News? That's right, WE DO! We The People, who've seen how much damage one administration such as Bush's can do to the entire world, and are determined to do everything in our power to prevent it from happening again.

So let's gather up some good facts and some good stories that the MSM forgot to publish, and let's send them to journalists of the MSM (or even smaller media). Let's spam them! But in a nice way. Let's help them do their homework.

For example, the current MSM "hot story" is "Barack's flip-flopping", which is OUTRAGEOUS, considering how much McCain has flip-flopped and it's barely been mentioned. There was a great post several days ago at TPM, with an enormous compiled list of McCain flip-flops: <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mccians-recordsetting-flipflop.php">McCian's record-setting flip-flop record</a>. That's the kind of material the reporters should be spammed with. And I think they'll be grateful, because they'll finally have a story that will not be just an echo of another MSM story...

I also came across a HuffPo article addressing this same topic:
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/ignoring-the-rocks-in-gla_b_111099.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/ignoring-the-rocks-in-gla_b_111099.html</a>
It also has links to a few McCain flip-flop lists at the end.

Why don't we send such material to reporters in response to their "OMG, Obama has flip-flopped!"?

And while we're at it, we should also explain to them that while Obama may have shifted a few of his positions towards the center, which is expectable and even desirable (since he'll be the president of all people, not just Democrats), McCain has flip-flopped mostly to the right, which is "less desirable" from the viewpoint of all citizens.

Some of us may be a bit tired of this topic already, but let's face it: The FISA issue is just too good to let go and forget. EVER!

Therefore I predict that there will soon appear a number of dedicated sites with angry FISA protesters declaring that they will now vote for McCain.

Here's a list of sites that are likely to appear:

demsagainstfisa.com
save-our-freedom-stop-obama.com
barackobamadoesntspeakforme.com
justsaynofisa.com
activistsagainstobama.net
obama-sold-out.biz
obama.betrayed.us
demsagainstpussies.com
middle-is-for-losers.org
johnis44.com
no-big-ears.com (my personal favorite)

Most of these domains are still available, so feel free to grab some of them before others do.

I just came accross this article which made me think:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/when-mccain-drops-out_b_107236.html

What do you think, is it possible?

Here's what I think...

I believe this is entirely possible. By now it's become clear that conservatives don't like McCain. In fact, no constituency is enthusiastic about him. The only thing making him "popular" is that some people don't trust Obama because he's new. And those who do genuinely like him, like him because of what he used to be (i.e. a moderate and a maverick), not for what he is now. He won the primaries by winning the republican-leaning independents, but once he clinched the nomination, he flip-flopped on almost every issue to make his policies as Bush-like as possible. A lot of people still don't know that and still like him for his old views. So the irony is: he is still somewhat popular because people don't know him (they think they do). But that's gonna have to change, as the campaign goes on, he's gonna have to state his views clearly, and it seems like with every statement he makes, he drives away some of his supporters (either moderate or conservative). So as people get to know Obama and McCain, Obama will be gaining popularity (as people will no longer think of him as an unknown radical elitist muslim), while McCain will be losing it (the popularity at least). So it makes sense to swap him with someone else.

If he drops out gracefully, e.g. because of his health and age, it won't seem like primary voters are being disregarded (unless this becomes known as the Republicans' plan) and it may even invoke a lot of sympathy, which could enable him to "transfer" his supporters to the replacement candidate.

Also, McCain can in such case very well be used as a throw-away prototype (a term used in software development). He has during his campaign said and done a lot of things, some of which worked and some did not. And some of the things made permanent scars on his popularity (clearly flip-flopping and being clueless being among them). Thus by now the Republicans have a pretty clear picture of what works among voters and what not and what voters simply don't tolerate. So they could start anew with a brand new candidate who will start with a "fresh" policy and will do everything right, right from the start, without flip-flopping.

I think this definitely is a viable option for the Republicans that they are no doubt considering, so we should keep an eye on this. It would be nice if the media reported on the idea, because people won't fall for it so much if they know it was planned.

What do you think?

Hillary Clinton has just asked people to advise her about what to do now, at the end of the primaries. Perhaps a good advice to give her is to organize a joint event with Obama and have a joint speech about their shared goals and common democratic values. Because most of their values and policies are essentially the same, but the current public perception is somewhat as if the two are like polar opposites and mortal enemies. That's just nonsense and has to end! The public needs to finally realize that Obama will fight for Clinton's values and the values of her voters, just like she would have fought for his values! Because they're the same values! This is a really important message for democratic voters, so it has to be a big public event!

If you agree, please recommend this post and go to hillaryclinton.com and send her a message along these lines.

As you might have heard, Obama is trying to raise one million dollars in a single minute, scheduled to happen tomorrow at exactly 1 PM EST.

Here's the NYT article:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/million-dollar-minute/

And this is where you can check the progress or contribute yourself:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/AnObamaMinute

So far his hat has remained relatively empty (just over $23.000 currently), but I think the majority is supposed to donate at the exact minute, with possibility of "early doning" for those unable.

If he succeeds, that will undoubtedly prove that he is an elitist hot-shot, which is good for his opponents as well.

There's been a lot of complaints over the ABC's moderators in the recent Pennsylvanian presidential debate, as well as some other moderators in other debates. But I did not get a particularily bad impression from the debate, even though I really don't tolerate nonsense and unfair attacks. It's true, a lot of the questions were uncomfortable, either about alleged "scandals" (gaffes), or about real issues, but forcing the candidates into a Yes/No type of answers (and we all know there are no simple answers to complex issues). But still, I didn't find the debate particularly unfair, and seeing all these complaints (some of them very harsh), I asked myself: why didn't it bother me more? Here's what I came up with.

The thing is, I think, that people naturally wish that topics which can potentially hurt their favorite candidate would be mentioned as little as possible. Of course, if you like a candidate, you don't want them get hurt. So if someone comes up with such a topic, people often see it as nothing but an unfair attack on their candidate. But I don't see these "attacks" during debates as attacks at all, but rather as an opportunity to respond and to explain.

These topics are bound to come up one way or another. Even if moderators were compassionate enough not to bring them up, somebody else would. But if they talk about it in a debate, I believe it's actually good for the candidates. A lot of these "attacks" are really non-issues or at least highly exaggerated, and it doesn't take a lot from a candidate to respectfully explain them and put them away. As we could see from the viewers' barometer chart, there was mainly positive response to both candidates' answers, even when the questions were uncomfortable. And the next time people hear these same topics in real attacks they will simply say "Yes, we've heard this before, and it's such an issue as they're trying to make it seem."

Compare that to the same kind of attack appearing as a story in a hostile talk show, where a hostile moderator hosts hostile pundits and says something like "Do you think this latest SCANDAL will hurt the candidate?" and they respond "Oh, absolutely, this is something voters definitely aren't going to forget..." etc. And then they all talk about how huge a scandal this is for days before the y give the candidate a chance to respond in a few minutes, after which they conclude "Yeah, as expected he/she's making excuses and relativizing." And then they beat it to death for a couple more days.

So really, I think the candidates can only wish to be "attacked" during debates as much as possible and as early as possible, so they can put the nonsense to rest long enough before an election. As most of these attacks are really non-issues, they can only have a serious impact if they appear just days before an election. Hopefully all of them will have been used long enough before the general election, so that people will ultimately vote based on what's really important and not some blown up or even made up stories. But in case a scandalous story does appear during the last days before the general (definitely possible), people should know that it can not be anything other than a swiftboat attempt and should not fall for it.