Media Matters is taking the media to task for their hypocritical treatment of Cindy McCain.

As I wrote a few days ago, the media heaped huge amounts of scrutiny–and scorn–on Theresa Heinz-Kerry in 2004 due to the role her wealth played in her husband’s Presidential campaign.

Now–just four years later–the media can’t seem to muster the same skepticism when it comes to Cindy McCain.  McCain is an heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, which is worth well over $100 million.  In addition, Anheuser-Busch was one of John McCain’s biggest and earliest supporters–he owes much of his political career to their financial support.

This is just another sad, shameful case of “It’s okay if you’re a Republican.”  A Democratic Presidential candidate gets massive amounts of scrutiny for benefitting from his wife’s personal fortune, while a Republican Presidential candidate who does the same gets barely any notice.

When is the shameful double standard going to end?

Last night’s ABC debate was pretty much a travesty:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.

And then there’s this:

[Radical right-wing radio host Sean ] Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama’s connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this

[...]

In the debate last night, Stephanopoulos asked a question that mirrored almost word-for-word what Hannity pressed him to ask

This is ridiculous. There are so many issues facing the American people today–Iraq, the economy, health care, global warming, the mortgage crisis–yet the political press wastes it’s time focusing on trivial nonsense. These wealthy, influential pundits don’t have to deal with the rest of the issues we all have to deal with, so the jettison the important policy-based issues in favor of trivial, culture war nonsense.

We’ve spent eight years suffering under a President who–eight years ago–showed that he was completely incompetent, but who the press fawned over because of his regular-old-guy schtick. Haven’t we learned anything since 2000??

I want a President who can fix our country. I don’t care about their pastors, I don’t care about their bowling scores, I don’t care about what they drink or eat, I don’t care about which sports teams they like, I don’t care if they hunt or fish or not. I care about if they can solve our nation’s problems.

When is this nonsense going to end?

UPDATE: Well, it’s not all bad:

Sen. John McCain yesterday offered sweeping rhetoric about the economic plight of working-class Americans, promising immediate assistance even as he spelled out a tax and spending agenda whose benefits are aimed squarely at spurring corporate growth.

In a speech billed as the most comprehensive summary of McCain’s economic vision to date, the candidate proposed to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, slash corporate income tax rates and offer a grab bag of other business breaks. His most direct proposal for relief to working-class voters was a call to suspend the federal gasoline tax for the summer driving season.

[...]

As the U.S. economy slides toward a possible recession, McCain has struggled to find the right pitch for his economic proposals. When he first suggested the government should not rescue speculative lenders or reckless home buyers, he was greeted with withering criticism from Democrats who accused him of insensitivity in the face of a housing crisis. When he tacked to the left to suggest he did favor government intervention, he was called a flip-flopper.

[...]

But much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader’s dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development.

He promised to remove the “myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair and inconsistent with a free-market economy,” but he offered no specifics.

Isn’t it sad when the media taking a politician to task is the exception, not the rule? Then again, when you’re John McCain, the rules don’t apply to you…

I just can’t understand how any Democrat can support Hillary Clinton anymore.

The latest line of attack coming from her campaign is–get this–that Barack Obama is an elitist.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton is using one of the most tired, overplayed but ubiquitous right-wing smears against a fellow Democrat. Thankfully, her attacks aren’t playing well among Democrats in Pennsylvania, but it’s still a dangerous line of attack.

Back in 2000, the right-wing tried to portry Al Gore as a nerdy, intellectual elitist. Back in 2004 they tried to do the same to John Kerry; Kerry was born to a middle-class family on a military base in Colorado, while George W. Bush was born into one of the wealthiest, most poweful families in America. Yet it was Kerry–not Bush–who got painted as elitist. More recently, the right-wing tried to portray John Edwards as elitist; John Edwards, who was born into a poor southern family, who was a self-made man who earned every single cent he ever had in his life.

If anyone in this Presidential election is elitist, it’s not Barack Obama. Obama went from being a low-paid community organizer and part-time professor to being a state senator and then a U.S. Senator; the only major source of income he’s ever had were his bestselling novels. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have both penned bestselling novels of their own, and I’m sure Bill’s speaking fees alone have provided the Clintons with more income than most Americans hope to earn this year.

But then there’s John McCain.

You might not know this, but John McCain is one of the wealthiest man in the Senate. His wife, Cindy McCain, is the heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, a family inheritance worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, Anheuser-Busch was one of McCain’s earliest and biggest political supporters. What does this mean? Well, for starters, McCain and his wife own no fewer than eight houses.

Take a look for yourself:

Budweiser, then NASCAR’s official beer, is brewed by Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc., whose products have made Cindy McCain and her family a fortun

[...]

The McCains’ marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains’ ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.

As heiress to her father’s stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career — even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm’s-length distance between McCain and his wife’s assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

[...]

Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 House race, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money — tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts — helped him survive.

Anheuser-Busch’s political action committee was among McCain’s earliest donors. Cindy McCain’s father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain’s campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign’s bills.

[...]

Cindy McCain’s assets go beyond the family beer company.

She and her children own a minority stake in the Arizona Diamondbacks. The professional baseball team’s chief executive, Jeff Moorad, and former majority owner Jerry Colangelo are McCain fundraisers. Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, a former Diamondback player, appeared in a New Hampshire campaign advertisement for McCain.

Assets held by Cindy McCain alone or with her children also include Anheuser-Busch stock; two condominiums along the California coast worth a total of at least $3 million and Arizona investments in rental medical offices and a parking lot, according to property records and John McCain’s latest financial disclosure reports.

John McCain has seven ch1ildren: two stepsons and a daughter from his first marriage, and two sons, a daughter and an adopted daughter from his second. McCain’s financial disclosure reports do not identify the children who share assets with Cindy McCain.

Arizona is a community property state, so McCain may share possessions his wife didn’t inherit, such as their primary home. Cindy McCain, through a family trust, sold the family mansion in Phoenix for $3.2 million and bought a $4.6 million Phoenix condo in 2006. The couple may also jointly own a condo in Arlington, Va., assessed at $847,800. McCain’s campaign and Hensley declined to say whether the couple has communal property.

John McCain held a barbecue recently for reporters at a two-story cabin near Sedona, Ariz., that sits on 15 acres owned by his wife’s family trust and a real estate partnership in her name. The property includes four single-family homes and is worth nearly $1.8 million.

If anyone’s an elitist in this election, it’s John McCain. The sad thing about Hillary’s misguided attack is that McCain is now echoing her remarks, trying to portray a self-made man like Barack Obama as an elitist. But at the end of the day, John McCain will fly home to one of his eight houses on his wife’s corporate jets.

It’s time for Hillary Clinton to drop out; at this point, she’s throwing fuel on a fire that’s going to be hard enough for we Democrats to fight as it is.

The pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, made some controversial comments in several of his sermons. This is the church that Barack Obama was baptized into, the one he regularly attends with his family.

When some of those controversial statements got publicized, the resulting scandal dominated the national media for well over a week. Political pundits parsed Wright’s statements, going out and finding more, obsessing over their effect (real or imaginary) on the Obama campaign.

But how did this story become so dominant? These weren’t statements Obama himself made or endorsed–in fact, he specifically denounced Wright’s controversial remarks. And Wright’s symbolic role in the Obama campaign was quickly terminated when these statements came to light. So why did Obama get tarred with these statements? Why was the media so willing to engage in guilt by association?

Why is this even news? There are real issues going on, there are real controversies in this campaign going on, but the media is complacent to try to tar Obama by tying him to the pastor he freely and readily denounced.
While this Wright controversy was burning, Hillary Clinton severely hurt her national security credentials by lying about a trip to Bosnia, making her visit seem far more dangerous than it really was and inflating the trip to make her seem more experienced.

Recently, John McCain ruined his image as an opponent of special interests by fostering inappropriate relationships with lobbyists; most of his top campaign advisers are lobbyists, some whom even lobby their clients while on-board the Straight Talk Express.

McCain also severely hurt his foreign policy credentials by repeatedly making a massive gaffe on Al-Qaeda and Iran; he demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, and that he doesn’t understand that Iran is Shiite while Al-Qaeda is Sunni.

Google “Obama Wright” and you’ll get over 1.2 million hits.

Google “‘Hillary Clinton’ Bosnia” and you’ll get 210,000 hits.

Google “John McCain Iseman” and you’ll get 217,000 hits.

Google “McCain Iran Gaffe” and you’ll get 416,000 hits.

This is just an example of our twisted media culture, where mistakes and bad judgment on the part of actual candidates are stuck on the back burner and ignored, while the media obsesses over a muckraking scandal, pushed heavily by biased conservative interests, drummed up entirely to throw dirt on a popular politician.

We need to get ready for more bias like this. We need to be ready to push back against smear stories like this, and we need to be ready to call for fairness and balance in the media. If you haven’t already, bookmark both Media Matters and FAIR; read their websites regularly and keep up with the misinformation being pushed in the media.

UPDATE: I agree with Chuck Todd:

This was not a one-time slip and so, you know, this just shows you how much bank — how much of the foreign policy experience stuff [McCain's] got in the bank, because had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over, and would have absolutely hurt them politically.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

First, a disclaimer: Eliot Spitzer deserved what he got. He broke the law by soliciting high-priced prostitutes. He hurt his wife and his family with his infidelity. Most of all, he was a hypocrite–cultivating a clean image by going after the corruption of others and hiding his own. It bothers me that Eliot Spitzer had to resign while another prostitute-loving hypocrite–David Vitter–gets to stay in office, but I prefer the double standard remain intact and Spitzer resign.

With that said, there’s something fishy about how Governor Spitzer was caught. The problem wasn’t that he got caught–he deserved that, and more–but that the way in which he got caught was extremely unusual; in involved numerous exceptions-to-the-rule.

This started as an IRS investigation of Spitzer’s finances. Legally, financial transactions of $10,000 or more will automatically trigger federal scrutiny. In order to avoid that scrutiny, Spitzer paid the prostitution ring with a series of smaller transactions. The problem here was that paying someone a series of small transactions to avoid triggering a federal investigation is illegal; it’s called ’structuring.’ Spitzer’s shady transactions tipped off at least one bank–Capitol One–who in turn tipped off the IRS. So this began with Capitol One flagging Spitzer’s finances to the IRS; that’s sensible enough in and of itself.

But why did the IRS to for the DOJ? How did this turn into an FBI sting operation? We’ve been told that the feds looked at Spitzer’s finances and suspected there was bribery going on, which lead them to start a wiretap on the Governor. But that charge doesn’t make sense–Spitzer is the heir to a large family fortune, so there’s no reason for him to take bribes, particularly bribes of such small amounts. Why would a millionaire take bribes of a few thousand dollars? Plus, what raised suspicion was money moving out of Spitzer’s accounts, not into them–that means they couldn’t have suspected him of taking bribes. Did they suspect him of making bribes? To who? He’s the Governor of New York; who would he need to bribe?

So, we don’t know why the inquiry went from the IRS to the DOJ. What we do know is that once the investigation began, the feds found out that Spitzer was involved in a prostitution ring. Now, in most jurisdictions the solicitation of a prostitute is a misdemeanor; these cases are almost always prosecuted on the state level, since they’re seen as relatively minor crimes. Yet, the FBI and DOJ set up a sting to catch Spitzer in the act; only after he was caught did this story leak to the press.

This just doesn’t make sense.

Paul Campos does some digging, and he comes to the same conclusions:

Be that as it may, it’s far more probable that what happened was something like this: An IRS office is tipped off by officials at various banks that Spitzer is depositing a few thousand dollars in different accounts within a day or two. Realizing it has a potential political tiger by the tail, the IRS then contacts the Department of Justice and the FBI.

At the DOJ, the Public Integrity Section launches an investigation. This unit itself has come under intense criticism during the Bush administration for investigating nearly six times more Democratic politicians than Republicans. Furthermore, many of the section’s investigations have seemed timed to coincide with elections and the like.

With a little digging, the feds soon establish that Spitzer is seeing high-priced call girls. This is a petty misdemeanor in most jurisdictions, but the DOJ goes ahead and constructs an elaborate and costly sting operation, for the express purpose of catching one of the country’s most powerful Democratic politicians committing a petty crime.

In the course of the sting, Spitzer makes a really big mistake: He pays a call girl to travel from New York to Washington. This puts him in technical violation of an 85-year-old federal law, the Mann Act, which has a long history of being used for politically motivated prosecutions of the worst sort, such as those of the boxer Jack Johnson and movie legend Charlie Chaplin.

Only then is the existence of the investigation leaked to the media.

[Emphasis Added]

The Wall Street Journal also picked up on the idiosyncracies in this case:

It isn’t clear why the FBI sought the wiretap warrant. Federal prostitution probes are exceedingly rare, lawyers say, except in cases involving organized-crime leaders or child abuse. Federal wiretaps are seldom used to make these cases; search warrants usually suffice. Wiretap applications generally are reserved for serious crimes, such as drug, weapons and terrorism-related cases. There typically are no more than 1,400 wiretaps in use nationwide at any given time.

[Emphasis Added]

Remember, the DOJ is controlled by Republicans. And Spitzer was a thorn in the side of a lot of conservatives–not just corrupt politicians, but wealthy interests like CEOs, corporate executives and Wall Street financiers. In short, a lot of wealthy, well-connected conservatives had a high stake in taking Spitzer down.

And politically-motivated prosecutions are nothing new to the Bush DOJ; remember Don Siegelman, who was knocked out of the Governorship of Alabama because of a politically-motivated ethics investigation triggered by Karl Rove. And remember that a key part of the U.S. Attorneys Scandal was that many of the attorneys were fired for not aggresively prosecuting Democrats enough.

Simply put, this case leaves a lot of questions unanswered–why did the IRS turn the case over to the DOJ? Why did the federal government devote so much time, effort and money to investigating Spitzer? Why did they use a wiretap instead of a search warrant? And once they figured out he was involved with prostitution, why did they set up a sting instead of allowing the state to prosecute this, as they normally do? Why were there so many exceptions made in this one case?

Someone needs to answer for this. Because if any part of the investigation into Spitzer was politically motivated, then someone at the DOJ deserves to be punished just as much as Spitzer does.

UPDATE: The New York Times has more on this:

Bradley D. Simon, a veteran Justice Department trial lawyer who was federal prosecutor in Brooklyn throughout the 1990s, said that although it was rare for the department to use so many resources on the workings of a prostitution ring, the involvement of such a high-level politician must change the equation.

“If they’ve got some evidence of a high-ranking public official involved in violations of federal criminal code, it may not be unreasonable for them to pursue it,” he said. Still, he said, “I don’t think prostitution has been a high priority at the Justice Department.”

[...]

In defending their handling of the case, officials said that in the end, investigators chose to monitor his conduct but made no effort to set up a sting, or an arranged situation in which Mr. Spitzer might implicate himself. They did not surreptitiously record his activities inside the hotel or seek to obtain DNA evidence. It was not necessary, as Mr. Spitzer proved to be easy prey, according to the affidavit, which was signed by an F.B.I. agent.

It indicated that on Feb. 13 federal agents staked out his hotel in Washington, and it contained recorded conversations that amply demonstrated that he willingly had a sexual encounter with a prostitute. Afterward she was recorded on a wiretap telling an Emperor’s Club employee: “I don’t think he’s difficult. I mean it’s kind of like, whatever.”

On March 10, when Mr. Spitzer was first identified by name by The New York Times on its Web site, the affidavit was widely used by news organizations to describe graphic details about his conduct.

Several current and former federal prosecutors and prominent defense lawyers who reviewed the document said the inclusion of such salacious details about Mr. Spitzer’s encounter with the prostitute went far beyond what was necessary to provide probable cause for the arrests and for searches, the purpose of the affidavit.

The government has not accused Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, of any wrongdoing

[...]

Mr. Simon said it was unusual for the department to bring criminal charges in a prostitution case in which there was no allegation of the exploitation of children, human trafficking or some far more serious crime.

He said that in his eight years in the Brooklyn office in the 1990s, he could not recall a single major criminal case that centered on prostitution charges. “There were a lot of serious crimes — organized crime, narcotics cases, major financial crime investigations,” he said in an interview. “Prostitution was not a high priority.”

Law enforcement officials said the F.B.I. has about 450 active prostitution cases under investigation, almost all involving enterprises and some using techniques like wiretapping. In addition, since 2005, the F.B.I. has led an initiative known as Innocence Lost, which investigates prostitution involving underage women.

Justice Department officials insist that it has a strong record of breaking up large prostitution rings around the country, but many of the cases they cite involve case brought several years ago, especially before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks; after that, the department vowed to focus its attention on national security threats.

And for years, they acknowledge, the department has rarely, if ever, prosecuted or even identified the clients of a prostitution ring.

UPDATE II: TPM brings us this piece from McClatchy:

Almost four months before Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in a sex scandal, a lawyer for Republican political operative Roger Stone sent a letter to the FBI alleging that Spitzer ”used the services of high-priced call girls” while in Florida.

The letter, dated Nov. 19, said Miami Beach resident Stone learned the information from ”a social contact in an adult-themed club.” It offered one potentially identifying detail: The man in question hadn’t taken off his calf-length black socks “during the sex act.”

Stone, known for shutting down the 2000 presidential election recount effort in Miami-Dade County, is a longtime Spitzer nemesis whose political experience ranges from the Nixon White House to Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign. His lawyer wrote the letter containing the call-girl allegations after FBI agents had asked to speak to Stone, though he says the FBI did not specify why he was contacted.

There’s something incredibly suspicious about the investigation into Eliot Spitzer. With so many exceptions to the rule–along with the Bush administration’s history of politicizing the Department of Justice–this definitely warrants further investigation.

How can we get that to happen?

Easy–contact Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and demand an investigation into the DOJ’s takedown of Eliot Spitzer:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-3976 (phone)
(202) 225-4099 (fax)

The New York Times thinks so:

Top aides to Gov. Eliot Spitzer said Tuesday morning that they expect the governor to resign his office, although the timing of the resignation remains uncertain.

Lt. Gov. David A. Paterson and his staff have begun laying the groundwork for him to take over as governor and are reaching out to members of the Legislature, the aides said.

[...]

As the governor pondered his decision, Assemblyman James Tedisco, a Republican and the Assembly minority leader, said he would begin moving to have Mr. Spitzer impeached if the governor did not step down within 48 hours.

[...]

Mr. Spitzer has not been charged with a crime. But one law enforcement official who has been briefed on the case said that Mr. Spitzer’s lawyers would probably meet soon with federal prosecutors to discuss any possible legal exposure. The official said the discussions were likely to focus not on prostitution, but on how it was paid for: Whether the payments from Mr. Spitzer to the service were made in a way to conceal their purpose and source. That could amount to a crime called structuring, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

We’ve been hearing rumors about Spitzer’s resignation since the story broke yesterday, but so far nothing has happened. It’s likely that Spitzer is using his office to bargain for a more lenient penalty, offering the prospect of resignation as part of his punishment.

While he hasn’t yet been indicted, it’s possible that he will be–not for hiring or transporting prostitutes, but for structuring his payments to the prostitutes in a way designed to avoid federal scrutiny of his expenses.

Once again, I can’t help but make the comparison to David Vitter–both men contradicted their clean public images by cavorting with prostitutes; the only difference is that Spitzer’s cost more. The double standard is a major issue here–the GOP (and, to some extent, the media) turned the other way when David Vitter got caught with prostitutes and shrugged it off, yet they’re going into an apolopectic rage and threatening impeachment when Spitzer does the same thing. And while I think stepping down is the right thing for Spitzer (and Vitter) to do, the double standard still bothers me a lot.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: CNN brings us this headline:

A top legislative staffer says N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who is linked to a prostitution ring, is holding transition meetings

UPDATE II: Congresswoman Kirsten Gilibrand, a freshman Democrat from upstate New York, has released the following statement:

“This is very grave and sad news. My heart goes out to the governor’s family…if these serious allegations are true, the governor will have no choice but to resign.”

Gilibrand campaigned with Spitzer in 2006.

Bill Gillespie, who’s challenging Republican Jack Kingston in GA-01, has released a new video focusing on Kingston’s hypocricy; Kingston likes to criticize Democrats for not wearing American flag lapel pins, even though he doesn’t bother wearing one himself.

The lapel pin line is a stupid attack, a way to score cheap shots against Democrats; Kingston’s hypocricy underscores just how stupid of an attack it is.

Here’s the video from the Gillespie campaign:

Gillespie is an Iraq war veteran and a fighting Democrat, and he’s definitely worth our support. You can view his site here, and you can contribute to his campaign here.

Today was a big day in politics, so let’s get down to it.

NUMBERS:

The latest Rassmussen poll shows Clinton and Obama virtually tied in Ohio–Clinton now has 47% to Obama’s 45%. In addition, Reuters/Zogby show Obama widening his lead over Clinton in Texas, now carrying 48% to her 42%. ARG shows Clinton leading in Ohio, 50% to 45%, but trailing in Texas, 51% to 44%.

It’s clear that Obama is closing the gap, and by every indication he seems to be leading in Texas and trailing by a relatively small margin in Ohio. With just 4 days left until VOTR Day, Clinton is going to have to start making up ground–and fast–lest she walk away the loser.

DOLLARS:

It’s the last day of February, and the campaigns are releasing their monthly fundraising statistics.

Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in February, a considerable haul nearly equal to what Obama raised in January.

Obama’s exact fundraising numbers are unknown–they haven’t been announced yet–but his campaign advisers have said that it will be “considerably more” than $35 million.

And John McCain trails both Democrats, picking up a pathetic $12 million in February. After his victory on February 5th, it was clear that he would be the Republican nominee–after that, the floodgates were supposed to open up and he was supposed to start raking in the cash. Instead, it looks like the deep pockets and big wallets in the GOP haven’t opened up to him yet–possibly because of his shaky support among conservatives or his numerous scandals. Still, if he can’t start tapping into bigger reserves of cash–and fast–he’s going to get buried by the Democratic nominee.

Of course, even raising money at this point might be a problem for McCain–until the FEC releases him from public financing, he’s still technically in the system, and that means he can only raise and spend $54 million until this summer. Since his last FEC report shows him with over $53 million, it’s imperative for McCain to release his February expenditures as soon as possible–if he violated the $54 million, McCain’s campaign could very well end up in court.

SPIN:

In the wake of their flagging poll numbers, the Clinton campaign has released some of the most ridiculous spin I’ve ever read:

Clinton Campaign Chief Strategist Mark Penn today released a memo to the media, though, with the subject, “Obama Must-Wins.”

“If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem,” Penn writes. And not only does he have to win, they have to be “decisive,” according to the memo.

“Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear,” Penn continues, “Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.”

Obama has more delegates. Obama has won more states. Obama has raised more money. Obama has the support of a majority of Democrats nationwide. But if he fails to win every single state on VOTR Day, then Clinton should be the nominee?

This doesn’t make any sense. It’s well known that if the Clinton camp doesn’t win at least Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her candidacy’s basically over–and, in fact, Clinton campaign surrogates like James Carville and Bill Clinton have already said as much. TX and OH are her campaign’s self-declared firewall, and have been for weeks. But now, when it’s likely that they’re going to fall short of their goal, they declare that Obama has to win every single state? What kind of sense does that make?

And as I wrote about earlier today, the Clinton camp is trying to muck up Texas by filing a lawsuit over the Lone Star State’s delegate selection rules. Glenn Smith at Burnt Orange Report–a great Texas-based blog–tells us why:

There is method to the Clinton campaign’s mad preemptive sword rattling over the Texas primary/caucus. They want to delay and disrupt the reporting of the delegate count. They hope that if they win the popular vote, they can avoid, at least for one news cycle, news reports that even if they do so they will very likely lose the delegate fight in Texas and fall further behind Obama in the national delegate contest.

This is not speculation. This has been the subject under discussion. While I have not been part of that discussion, plenty of sources last night and this morning confirmed this as the core of the dispute.

It is widely assumed that Obama’s organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually “reserved the right to challenge” Texas law and Democratic party procedures.

Throw the Texas delegate results in dispute, and win or lose the popular vote, they will have advanced their case that the contest remains close and should go all the way to the convention if necessary.

[...]

The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.

The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.

If Clinton loses Texas, it’s going to be over for her. The classy thing to do would be to drop out, let Obama assume the mantle as the nominee and focus on salvaging her political career. If her campaign continues to rely on ridiculous spin and tries to solder on, despite falling short of goals they themselves set, then there’s going to be a huge outcry (as well as significant damage to Clinton’s overall political career). We will not have a brokered convention, and I certainly hope the Clinton camp won’t force us any further down that road than we need to go.

Today, Obama picked up the support of West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller today; that makes an even dozen sitting Senators in the Obama camp, while Clinton has the support of 13 Senate colleagues.

And in response to the John Hagee flap–where John McCain accepted the support of radical, bigoted preacher John Hagee–McCain released this tepid statement:

“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.

“I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”

In other words, McCain will be glad to take the support of Hagee and his extremist followers, as long as he also gets to distance himself from Hagee’s more radical statements. Too bad he can’t have it both ways–either he sides with Hagee and his bigotry, or he denounces him and rejects his support.

Finally, the Roadblock Republicans are hard at work blocking funds to help communities struggling with the mortgage crisis as well as an independent Congressional ethics panel. They’re going to need a lot of spin to explain these decisions away before November.

Let’s get to it.

In response to Texas’ convoluted primary system, the Clinton campaign is threatening to file a lawsuit challenging the delegate selection rules:

The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an “imminent” lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats’ effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained there were no plans to sue before the March 4 election.

“It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party,” Dunn said in the letter, obtained by the Star-Telegram. “Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process.”

Democratic sources said representatives from each campaign had made it clear they are keeping all their options open but that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

This is just like the lawsuit filed by a pro-Clinton union to shut down some caucusing sites in Nevada, and it should be dismissed for the exact same reasons. The rules for the primaries and caucuses were set months ago; there has been plenty of time for people to challenge the process. The time for that isn’t less than a week before the election. Just like in Nevada, the time has passed; any lawsuits filed now would serve no other purpose than to disrupt the election. This is going to make the Clinton campaign look desperate, and that’s not what they need right now.

I don’t blame Clinton for being worried–according to Pollster, Obama has widened his lead in Texas and is now beating Clinton 47.8% to 44%. In addition, Obama is also catching up in Ohio and now trails Clinton by just 7.4%. It’s clear that Obama has major momentum as we head into the weekend; Clinton’s latest assault hasn’t stopped his momentum one bit, she’s just spinning her wheels. If Clinton can’t pull it off on Tuesday, the pressure on her to drop out will be enormous; everyone will treat Obama as the nominee, even if she keeps running.

I’m not ready to write Hillary 08’s eulogy yet, but some people already are–Harold Ickies, who helped Bill Clinton win re-election in 1996 and who helped Hillary Clinton get elected to the Senate in 2000, is laying the blame at the feet of Mark Penn:

Harold Ickes definitely doesn’t buy the argument that Mark Penn isn’t responsible for everything that has happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“Mark Penn has run this campaign,” said Ickes in a brief phone interview this morning. “Besides Hillary Clinton, he is the single most responsible person for this campaign.

“Now, he has been circumscribed to some extent by Maggie Williams,” said Ickes, who then pointed out that that was only a recent development.

When asked about the assertion by one senior Clinton official the campaign was effectively run by committee, diluting Penn’s authority, Ickes was incredulous.

“I don’t know what campaign you’re talking about,” said Ickes. “I have been at meetings where he introduces himself as the campaign’s chief strategist. I’ve heard him call himself that many times, say, ‘I am the chief strategist.’”

Asked if Penn preferred the title of chief strategist to pollster, Ickes said, “Prefer it? He insists on it!”

When asked if Penn was therefore responsible for the campaign’s strategy, Ickes said, “It’s pretty plain for anyone to see that he has shaped the strategy of the campaign. He has called the shots.”

“Mark Penn,” he said, “has dominated the message in this campaign. Dominated it.”

Penn doesn’t know what he’s doing, and he’s largely repsonsible for driving the Clinton campiagn into the ground. He’s been responsible for their stilted, discordant and often off-putting messaging; he was also an advocate of going fully negative against Obama, which has brought the Clinton camp no success.

If Clinton loses on Tuesday, expect a lot of finger-pointing and buck-passing. There will be a lot of eulogies written, a lot of post-postmortems and analyses; I fully expect Penn to get much of the blame, and for good reason.

Bottom line: Obama’s hot, Clinton’s not; let’s move on to John McCain:

McCain recently announced that he was ‘very honored’ to receive the support of Pastor John Hagee. Who is John Hagee?

Demonstrating how wildly out of the American religious and political mainstream Hagee’s views are, McCain’s acceptance of Hagee’s endorsement was condemned today by conservative William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Calling Hagee a “bigot,” Donahue said the right-wing pastor has waged “an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church” by “calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’”

Hagee holds many other radical beliefs. In a 2006 address to CUFI, Hagee declared:

The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

Speaking to the 2007 AIPAC conference, Hagee compared supporters of a two-state solution in the Middle East to Nazis. Hagee also echoed right-wing Israeli politician Binyamin Netanyahu, telling the audience that “Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler.”

Obama was called upon to repudiate the support of religious extremist Lous Farrakhan, despite the fact that Obama didn’t seek out his support, didn’t want his support, and was all too happy to reject and denounce Farrakhan.

So why isn’t the media calling on John McCain to repudiate Hagee’s support? Especially since McCain sought Hagee out, praised him and accepted his support? How can the media allow such a huge double standard to exist?

Oh, and there’s also a corruption angle to the McCain-Hagee relationship:

Hagee’s tv show, “John Hagee Today,” is also broadcast on Cornerstone Television. In 1999, McCain wrote to the FCC on behalf of campaign contributor Lowell “Bud” Paxson, urging a deal that would have made $17.5 million for Cornerstone.

Will McCain do the right thing and denounce Hagee? Or will he let intolerance, extremism and corruption come to define his campaign? And will the media do the right thing and demand McCain denounce Hagee? We’ll have to see.

In more McCain news, the House is opening up an investigation into Rick Renzi, a McCain campaign Arizona co-chairs who was recently slapped with a 35-count federal indictment:

The House ethics committee said Thursday it was beginning an investigation into the conduct of Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., who was indicted a week ago on conspiracy, extortion and other charges.

The panel said in a statement it had created a four-member subcommittee to determine whether Renzi violated any laws, rules or standards of conduct with respect to any of the matters for which he was indicted.

Renzi was one of McCain’s biggest supporters in AZ; this incident it speaks volumes about McCain’s poor judgment.

We’ll leave off today with a quote from John McCain himself, trying to outline his beliefs:

“I’m a proud, conservative, liberal Republi — Hello! Easy there.”

John McCain, in his own words–conservative, liberal, Republican. When, exactly, does the straight talk kick in?

UPDATE:Clinton has released a new ad; unfortunately, it’s the same kind of visceral fearmongering that we’ve come to expect from Republicans, not Democrats:

“It’s 3:00am and your children are asleep,” a voice over says in the ad. “There’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.”

“Whether someone knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?” the ad concludes.

Obama responds:

Addressing a group of veterans at an American Legion post in Houston, Obama said: “We’ve seen these ads before. They’re the kind that play on peoples’ fears to scare up votes.”

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos

Two days ago I wrote about the right wing’s latest attack on Barack Obama–basically, that he’s unpatriotic because he doesn’t wear an American flag lapel pin.

Some key excerpts:

Of course, anyone with $2 in their pocket can wear an American flag pin, regardless of what they believe. In fact, how many politicians have worn that pin while tearing down nearly everything this great country stands for?

Patriotism isn’t defined by what we wear–it’s defined by what we do. And through his actions, Barack Obama has shown us what true patriotism is

[...]

So, Barack Obama doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin. But you know what? Neither does Mitt Romney. Or John McCain. Or Mike Huckabee. Or John Boehner. Or Mitch McConnell. Or RNC Chair Mike Duncan. And neither did Newt Gingrich. Or Tom DeLay. Or Bill Frist. Or even Ronald Reagan, for that matter.

Well, today GOP Congressman Jack Kingston ressurected the smear:

On MSNBC’s Live With Dan Abrams last night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) said it was okay to “question” Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) patriotism because he doesn’t regularly wear an American flag lapel pin. Kingston claimed that “everybody” in politics “wears them.”

Here comes the hypocricy:

Asked by Abrams if he was wearing one, Kingston had to admit he wasn’t

In fact, Jack Kingston has made a habit of not wearing his American flag lapel pin–he’s not wearing one here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. Or here. By Kingston’s own logic, then, I should be questioning his patriotism.

I won’t, though–it’s just plain stupid to judge someone’s patriotism on whether or not they wear a $2 flag lapel pin. This all just shows how desperate Republicans are to attack Obama–they don’t have legitimate criticism to throw at him, so they come up with this kind of gutter politics nonsense.

Of course, it’s backfiring because these guys keep getting caught with their pants down. Note to Republicans: if you’re going to criticize someone for not wearing a flag pin, you better make sure there aren’t a bunch of pictures out there of you not wearing yours. Because this hypocricy exposes you for what you are–desperate, shameless partisan hacks.

Just like Jack Kingston–the shame of Georgia.

UPDATE: Jack Kingston has an announced challenger in Democrat Bill Gillespie.

Here’s part of Bill’s compelling biography:

Bill Gillespie of Chatham County served 23 years in the U.S. Army, retiring this year as a Lt. Colonel. In 2003, he served in Iraq as Senior Logistician for the Third Infantry Division, earning a Bronze Star.

Other positions held in the military include Inspector General, West Point professor, Operations Director of the Army Ordinance Center and Chief of Leadership and Tactics at the Army Ordinance Center. Gillespie has traveled to six continents and been stationed overseas in Kuwait , Korea and Germany . His military awards include the Legion of Merit, Combat Action Badge, Douglas MacArthur Leadership Award, Master Instructor Award, and three NCAA Championships as coach of the West Point Orienteering Team.

Bill’s a Fighting Democrat, and reading about his life reminds me of another young Iraq veteran who was once an unknown political up-and-comer–Pennsylvania’s Patrick Murphy, who pulled off an unexpected victory against Mike Fitzpatrick in 2006.

Want to send Jack Kingston to the unemployment line? Then spare a few dollars for Bill Gillespie, and help trade a partisan hack for a true blue fighting Democrat.

A few days ago, I wrote about The Washington Times–part of the Right-Wing Noise Machine–publishing a bogus piece on the military supposedly having reservations about Barack Obama.

Well, it turns out that the only member of the military quoted by name–retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney–is basically a right-wing hack:

In 2006, it was McInerney who insisted that Russian Special Forces entered Iraq before the invasion and moved Saddam’s WMD to Syria.

In 2002, McInerney assured Americans the war in Iraq “will be a war that is shorter than” the 1991 Gulf War, which lasted 42 days.

In 2005, McInerney insisted that terrorists no longer feel the need to attack inside the United States because we have “leftists in America who have aided and abetted the enemy more than Tokyo Rose did in World War II.”

And it turns out another member of the military–retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who campaigned for Bob Dole and George W. Bush–has high hopes for an Obama Presidency:

McPeak told the Times, “I think Obama is going to be an outstanding commander in chief, not just an ordinary commander in chief. He has the potential to be one of the all-time greats. I think the senior military will learn that about him starting from the first minute he occupies the Oval Office.”

[Emphasis Added]

Once again, the Right-Wing Noise Machine is discredited, so let’s put this idiotic meme to rest.

Moving on, we are just six days away from VOTR Day. The latest Rasmussen poll out of Texas puts Barack Obama just one point behind Hillary Clinton; ten days ago, Rasmussen had Clinton leading Obama by 16%.

Following this trend, Pollster shows Obama slightly ahead in Texas (47.8% to 45.7%) and a few points behind in Ohio (41.7% to 50.1%). Right now, Clinton has the advantage but Obama has the momentum–in 6 days, it’s likely that he’ll have the lead in Texas and could be nearly tied in Ohio.

In addition, MSNBC’s First Read reports that Obama is vastly outspending Clinton in both of the major VOTR Day states:

Watching local TV here in Ohio, it feels like Obama has a 4-to-1 advantage — with SEIU, UFCW and Obama just blitzing the airwaves compared with Clinton. It’s happening in all four states. In fact, per TV ad expert Evan Tracey, Obama has outspent Clinton $23 million to $14 million in the last 30 days. How is she expected to hold a big lead if she gets outspent this badly? The third party groups are like salt in the Clinton wound.

I’m not counting Clinton out, but she’s definitely suffering. Her negative ‘kitchen sink’ offensive against Obama isn’t sticking–in fact, it seems to be backfiring on Clinton, driving her support down. With Obama gaining momentum and spending more, it’s hard to see how she’ll hold on to–let alone grow–her already-slim leads in OH and TX. Clinton only has 6 days to pull this out, and she’s spinning her wheels as time runs out.

On the Republican side, McCain’s FEC shenanigans might land him in a heap of trouble. He’s quickly approaching the $54 million limit imposed by public financing laws and–unless the FEC releases him from public financing soon–McCain will exceed that limit and land his campaign in court.

In addition, it’s questionable whether or not McCain can even withdraw from public financing at this point, seeing as how he used public financing to secure a loan to his campaign (receiving other benefits as well, such as ballot access). The McCain is arguing that they didn’t use public funds as collateral for that loan, but even if they didn’t, the campaign will still be screwed. The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber has this to say:

Bottom line: Either McCain used the promise of public campaign funds as collateral for his loan, in which case he’s locked himself into the public campaign finance system (and its strict spending limits) and is massively screwed until September. Or he didn’t use potential public funds as collateral, which means he didn’t have anything to offer as collateral, which means he received an improper loan. Neither one of those scenarios is very good for the Straight Talk Express.

McCain has some explaining to do. No matter what, his attempt to weasel around campaign finance reform laws dispels the myth of McCain as a clean government crusader and campaign finance reformer–when push comes to shove, McCain has shown himself to be an expert parser with pure Washington flowing through his veins.

In other news, Michael Bloomberg announces he isn’t running for President; in response, the nation yawns.

Let’s face it, Bloomberg isn’t an independent, he’s an opportunist–he became a Republican so he could win Giuliani’s endorsement and become mayor of New York, then he became an independent to set the stage for his (now aborted) Presidential campaign.

We have enough egotistical opportunists running for President (see Nader, McKinney) as it is–we don’t need another one, so I’m grateful for this announcement.

That’s all the election news there is for now. If you live in Texas or Ohio, (or Rhode Island or Vermont, who also go to the polls on Tuesday) make sure to get out there and vote. I’ll bring you more news as it develops…

Are there any Republicans in Congress who aren’t absolutely corrupt? I know the GOP has a culture of corruption, but now they’re resorting to blatant political extortion.  Think Progress reports:

In 2007, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushed forward on her pledge to run the most ethical Congress in history and established the House Ethics Enforcement Task Force. She charged the group with setting up an Office of Congressional Ethics, an “independent ethics panel” composed of six “nonpartisan professional staff” members who were jointly appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader. Lawmakers and lobbyists would be barred from serving.

The House is expected to vote on the task force’s proposal on Thursday. Even though this committee will be independent and nonpartisan, the GOP is already resisting. In an attempt to dissuade Democrats from voting for the ethics office, senior House Republican aides are drawing up a hit list of 10 Democratic lawmakers who would be pursued with ethics investigations if the measure passes. National Journal reports (sub. req’d):

Senior House Republican aides are drawing up a list of Democrats to target if the House votes Thursday to create an independent panel to weigh ethics complaints against lawmakers.

In a move that one top Democratic lawmaker called “political extortion,” House GOP aides said Tuesday the names of more than 10 Democrats are likely to end up on the list and that investigations would be pursued against all of them.

It is not clear how much support House Republican leaders are giving to the staff effort, but several GOP leadership aides who were asked about the list said they were aware of it.

In other words, if the House investigates real corruption complaints against Republicans, then the Republicans will file a bunch of fake ethics complaints against Democrats, all in an effort to muddy the Congressional waters.

John Boehner and his Roadblock Republicans are clearly afraid–they’re so corrupt they know any attempt to investigate Congressional ethical lapses will result in more GOP indictments.

And their threat to extort Democrats is transparent partisan nonsense.  If the GOP knows of legitimate ethical problems among Democrats, they’d have filed complaints already.  They’ve got nothing–and they know it–so they’re resorting to this.

We Democrats won’t go back on our promise to establish the cleanest Congress in American history.  f the Republicans want to tie up Congress and waste taxpayer dollars to pursue bogus ethics complaints against Democrats, so be it–the American people want a clean Congress, and they won’t tolerate this type of shameful politicking.

In trying to explain away the Vicki Iseman scandal, the McCain campaign said the following:

“No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding regarding the transfer of Pittsburgh public television station (WQED) to Cornerstone Broadcasting and Cornerstone Broadcasting’s television station (WPCB) to Paxson. No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding.”

[Emphasis Added]

Here’s McCain’s testimony from a 2002 deposition on the issue:

Q: “Do you know were they got the information?”
McCain: “No. But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue.”

Q: “You were?”

McCain: “Yes.”

Q: “Can you tell us what you said and what he said about it?”

McCain: “That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business.I said I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act. But I will not write a letter, I cannot write a letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an interference in their activities. I think everybody is entitled to a decision. But I can’t ask for a favorable disposition for you.”

Q: “Did you speak to the company’s lobbyist about these matters?”

McCain: “I don’t recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company’s lobbyist or both.”

Q: “But you did speak to him?”

McCain: “I’m sure I spoke with him, yes.”

[Emphasis Added]

McCain just got caught in a lie. Whether or not he lied in 2002 or is lying now doesn’t matter–what matters is that, in either case, John McCain lied to the American people.

The sex part of this scandal doesn’t really have legs (and it shouldn’t), but the corruption part does. It tarnishes McCain’s image as a clean government crusader and shows him for what he really is–a career politician with Washington in his blood, a man who isn’t above pulling strings for special interests and lying about it.

This news does not bode well for him. Period.

[Newsweek covers this story here]

UPDATE: Lowell “Bud” Paxon himself contradicts McCain’s statement:

Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.

Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, attended the meeting in McCain’s office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. “Was Vicki there? Probably,” Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post today. “The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings.”

[Emphasis Added]

Also, McCain won’t be helped by the news that top adviser Charlie Black–who’s also a lobbyist–does much of his lobbying work while on the McCain campaign bus:

Of all the lobbyists involved in the McCain campaign, the most prominent is Black…even as Black provides a private voice and a public face for McCain, he also leads his lobbying firm, which offers corporate interests and foreign governments the promise of access to the most powerful lawmakers. Some of those companies have interests before the Senate and, in particular, the Commerce Committee, of which McCain is a member.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain’s Straight Talk Express bus.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos 

Yesterday I wrote about the John McCain-Vicki Iseman scandal, and today I figured I would follow up with some of my thoughts.

This scandal isn’t about sex. I don’t think every aspect of a politician’s personal life should be dragged into the public square. Politicians are people too, and people make mistakes–sometimes big ones. Politicians shouldn’t be judged for every personal mistake they make; some things shouldn’t be politicized, and the personal lives of politicians (usually) falls into that category.

Still, public figures should be scrutinized more than private citizens, so there are some exceptions to this. The first is if a public official is doing something illegal (like Mark Foley sending sexually explicit messages to underage pages or David Vitter hiring prostitutes). The second is if a politician’s private conduct is hypocritical to their public behavior (like Larry Craig promoting Republican “family values” in public, while cheating on his wife and having gay sex in private). The third is if a politician’s private conduct creates a conflict of interest.

Again, this scandal isn’t about sex. It’s about corruption. It’s about judgment. McCain’s relationship with Iseman was both hypocritical and a conflict of interest–McCain’s attacks on lobbyists and special interests contradicts his close relationship with Iseman, while Iseman’s company had business before the Senate committee McCain chaired.

It’s clear McCain had an inappropriately-close relationship with a special interest lobbyist. Whether or not he slept with her is only relevant as far as it illustrates how deep his relationship with her was; even if McCain was never intimate with Iseman, his relationship with her was still inappropriate.

Supporters of McCain are trying to brush this story off as a one-day scandal, but the damage it’s causing to McCain may be irreparable. Remember, McCain became a clean government crusader after he was caught up in the Keating Five scandal in the 90’s. Reforming his image and reinventing himself was crucial to McCain’s career–it’s why he was the only member of the Keating Five to survive the 90’s, and why he’s the only member of the Keating Five still serving in Congress.

The NY Times severely undercut McCain’s image as a clean government crusader by revealing McCain’s history of close ties to a multitude of lobbyists, including Ms. Iseman. That was a major revelation, and it lead to the discovery of more of McCain’s ties to lobbyists. Just read The Washington Post’s follow-up:

For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of “special interests” in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against “the ‘revolving door’ by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided.”

But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.

Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O’ Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.

This scandal calls into question one of McCain’s most important attributes–his judgment. First, McCain’s aides had to warn him repeatedly about the inappropriateness of his relationship with Iseman. Second, McCain put his image as a clean government reformer in jeopardy, even though that image has been central to his political career. Third, even after he escaped from the Keating Five scandal with his career intact, McCain still developed close ties to –and performed a variety of favors for–special interests and lobbyists.

Tristero says it best:

In other words, McCain admits his judgment is frequently awful. Even when he knows better, he can’t help himself sometimes- he’s easily, and dangerously, swayed by strong personalities and by his need for friendships with such people. But think about what that means. Even if you cut him slack on a personal level - something along the level of, “well, at least he has the courage to admit he’s wrong and the insight to know why” - this is not the kind of personality you want negotiat