John McCain, rewriting history:

“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.’’

Actually, Senator, not only did Reagan negotiate with Iran, he sold them weapons. He sold them weapons after it was known that Iran was responsible for bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American soldiers. All of this came to light in a little flap called the Iran-Contra scandal; perhaps you’ve heard of it?

You know who else Ronald Reagan negotiated with? Iraq. In fact, there’s that famous picture of special envoy Donald Rumsfeld, appointed by Reagan himself, shaking hands with Saddam Hussein:

This friendly meeting happened after the Reagan administration found out that Hussein ordered chemical weapons to be used against both the Iranians and the Kurds.

So it was okay for Ronald Reagan–the patron saint of modern conservatism–to negotiate with and sell weapons to rogue states, yet it’s not okay for Barack Obama to support simply talking to those same states? What kind of upside-down bizarro world do John McCain and his Republican Party live in?

UPDATE: Then there’s this:

RUBIN: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.“

[Emphasis Added]

So, as late as 2006, John McCain supported diplomacy with Hamas, which Barack Obama opposes.  Does that mean McCain is more of an ‘appeaser’ than Obama? Or does that just mean that all this talk about ‘appeasement’ is nothing more than right-wing theatre, carried out by Republicans who have no good arguments left to make on foreign policy?

Something tells me it’s the latter.

You know what I hate?

I hate when millionaire celebrity media pundits act like they know anything about what regular Americans are like.

Take this, for example. Barack Obama goes to a diner in Indiana and orders orange juice; nothing out-of-the-ordinary there, right? Yet, celebrity pundits Chris Matthews and David Shuster–whose contracts are worth the income of several middle-class families combined–call Obama’s beverage choice ‘weird.’

You walk into nearly any working-class house in America and I bet you’ll find a carton of OJ in the refrigerator. In fact, I would venture to say that millions of Americans drink orange juice for breakfast. There’s nothing weird or unusual or elitist about it. Yet, the pundits insist otherwise.

Now, take this instance. Barack Obama goes to Iowa and mentions the price of arugala as an indication of how high food costs have risen. Afterwards, millionaire media pundits start calling Obama an elitist, saying that the people of Iowa are too stupid to know what arugala is.

As it turns out,

In fact, arugula is grown by local farms in Iowa and is widely available in stores throughout the state, including Cleverly Farms in Mingo, Iowa, and Mariposa Farms in Grinnell, Iowa. Moreover, vendors at numerous farmers markets, including the Davenport Farmer’s Market and the Ames Farmers’ Market, sell arugula directly from farms to consumers. Several Iowa grocery stores also carry arugula; the website of Hy-Vee, a large grocery chain headquartered in, and with four stores in, West Des Moines, Iowa — approximately 22 miles from Adel, Iowa, where Obama made his arugula remark — offers tips on cleaning and serving arugula, as well as several recipes featuring it.

Yup–not only do Iowans know what arugala is, a good number of them even grow it themselves.

Here’s the latest incidence of celebrity media pundits launching a ridiculous attack against Barack Obama. During a campaign stop, Obama went into a bar and played a round of pool; afterwards, the millionaire media pundits criticize him again, saying that only rich people play pool.

How many working-class bars and pubs in America have pool tables? The pundits weren’t talking about Obama owning a pool table–they were talking about him going to a bar that had a pool table.

These wealthy media pundits are pushing the same tired storyline they have been for years–Democrats are always, as they portray it, out-of-touch elitists. If they can’t find anything that justifies their story, they just make it up, plain and simple.

Orange juice. Arugala. Pool. None of these things are high-end or elitist. Yet, if you watch the news, you’d be told otherwise. Most insultingly, you’d be told otherwise by a wealthy celebrity pundit who doesn’t have the slightest clue of what regular Americans are really like.

John McCain has so many Achillies’ heels, he’s going to need more legs.

Here’s the latest:

McCain’s campaign staff is rife with lobbyists. But, apparently, McCain finally found lobbyists who crossed the line. That line is pretty far out there — representing a brutal military regime that is now letting hundreds of thousands of its citizens die. Over the weekend, he lost two key staffers because they represented the Myanmar regime:

Doug Davenport, the regional campaign manager for the mid-Atlantic states, founded the DCI Group’s lobbying practice and oversaw the contract with Myanmar in 2002.

“Doug has tendered his resignation and we have accepted it,” Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s communications director, wrote in a e-mail.

He joins former DCI Group CEO Doug Goodyear, who resigned yesterday from the post of convention CEO after Newsweek reported that DCI was paid more than $300,000 to represent Myanmar’s ruling junta.

That’s right–John McCain’s campaign employed lobbyists who represented Burma’s murderous military regime.

If these are the guys he puts on his campaign, imagine who he’ll put in the Penatgon, or the State Department, or the White House.

Scary stuff.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Now, there are a lot of Hillary supporters out there calling the exclusion of Florida and Michigan from the Democratic primary “disenfranchisement.” These Hillary supporters are saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s disenfranchising millions of voters. They say their opposition has nothing to do with what’s best for Hillary Clinton, that they’re taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement.

Alright, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say you are taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement. Let’s say this has nothing to do with your support for Hillary. Then I have some questions for you, like…

Where were you when the rules were being set?

The rules governing the primary were set by the Democratic National Committee nearly in August of 2006. Those rules said only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could vote before February 5th; any state that voted before then would be stripped of their delegation.

Thus, the potential for millions of Democratic voters to be disenfranchised was written into the 2008 primary back in ‘06.

So, where were you guys then? If voter disenfranchisement is such a big issue to you, why weren’t you opposing the proposed rules back then? Why weren’t you doing anything back when this could have made a difference?

That brings us to…

Where were you when the states were rescheduling their primaries?

It was well known that any state holding a primary before February 5th would be stripped of its delegation. Yet, knowing this, the governments of Michigan and Florida went ahead and voted to break the rules. By changing the dates of their primaries, MI and FL’s governments disenfranchised their own voters.

So where were you guys then? Why weren’t you opposing the proposals to reschedule those states’ primaries? If this is about taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why didn’t you take action months ago when this all started?

Also,

What about Terry?

In 2004, Michigan wanted to break that year’s rules and hold their primary early. At the time, the Chairman of the DNC threatened to strip MI of their delegation if they went through with their plan. This is from the DNC Chairman’s book:

“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” [Michigan Senator Carl Levin] said.

“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.”

[Emphasis Added]

The DNC Chairman in 2004 was Terry McAuliffe. Where’s McAuliffe now?

He’s the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign.

If Hillary is taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why is McAuliffe the chair of her campaign? Why hasn’t she fired him for his pro-disenfranchisement views? Why haven’t you, her supporters, demanded McAuliffe be fired from the campaign? Where’s the consistency?

If it’s disenfranchisement now, it would have been disenfranchisement then. If you can’t support Obama because he’s not doing enough about voter disenfranchisement, then how can you support Hillary after she appointed pro-disenfranchisement McAuliffe to her campaign?

That brings us to…

What about Jenny?

Jennifer Granholm is the Governor of Michigan. She signed the law that moved Michigan’s primary before February 5th. With a stroke of her pen, Granholm disenfranchised millions of MI voters; had she acted differently back then, millions of Michigan voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.

Granholm is also a Hillary supporter. If this issue is about taking a principled stand against voter disenfranchisement, why hasn’t Hillary rejected and denounced Granholm? Why haven’t you all called on her to do so? Why have you allowed Hillary to benefit from the support of someone who single-handedly disenfranchised millions of voters?

Misplaced Anger

A lot of you are blaming Barack Obama for this situation. But how? Obama didn’t set the rules. Obama isn’t in charge of enforce the rules. Obama didn’t move Michigan and Florida’s primaries up. Obama had nothing to do with these decisions. He might be benefiting from the situation, but he’s not responsible for it.

If you’re going to place blame, blame the DNC. Blame Howard Dean. Blame Jennifer Granholm and Charlie Crist. Blame MI and FL’s legislatures. There are dozens of people you can blame for this situation, but Obama isn’t one of them.

So let’s not delude ourselves into thinking he’s somehow responsible for this mess that we’re in. And while we’re not deluding ourselves…

Stop the Spin

Let’s be honest. The fight over Michigan and Florida isn’t about taking a stand against voter disenfranchisement. It never was. This is a political ploy by the Clinton campaign to get more delegates. Want proof? When asked why she didn’t take her name off of MI’s ballot, even though every other candidate did so, Clinton said it was because Michigan “is not going to count for anything.”

That’s right— Hillary Clinton didn’t take her name off of MI’s ballot because she said MI wouldn’t matter. She accepted and acknowledged that MI wouldn’t play a role in the nominating process because they broke the rules.

Want more proof? Here’s a statement from the Hillary campaign, released September 1, 2007:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.”

It was only after Obama started winning that Clinton made FL and MI an issue. This was clearly a political decision. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making political decisions—all politicians make political decisions. But let’s stop pretending this is about voter disenfranchisement, because it’s not— it’s about giving Hillary a better shot at the nomination.

The very day Clinton sent a letter to Obama criticizing him for not doing more to seat MI and FL, she rejected a plan to seat MI’s delegation. Why? Because it wasn’t politically advantageous enough for her. This isn’t about giving MI or FL a voice— it’s about whatever works best for Hillary Clinton.

It’s About Integrity, Stupid!

So you say you can’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s disenfranchising millions of voters (even though he’s not really responsible for that).

Well, then I say I can’t vote for Hillary Clinton because of her lack of integrity.

The DNC makes the rules for the primaries. You might not like the rules— I certainly don’t, I think Iowa and New Hampshire have too much influence and I support overhauling the entire primary system— but you have to follow them. That’s the price of trying to be the Democratic nominee— you have to follow the Democratic Party’s rules.

We just had eight years of a President who freely broke the rules. We spent eight years suffering under a President who ignored any rule he didn’t like. Yet now we have Democrats supporting a Democratic candidate who’s also trying to break the rules when it’s convenient to do so.

That doesn’t bode well for a Hillary Clinton administration— America is a nation of rules, and Clinton’s attempt to break the rules for the sake of politics speaks volumes about her lack of integrity.

So you might not like Obama. You might not want to vote for him. That’s your decision to make, and you have the right to make it. But don’t feed us this garbage about Barack Obama “disenfranchising” Michigan and Florida, because that’s nothing but spin. And for people who are supposed to be part of the reality-based community, I expect better from you.

Patrick Ruffini:

For all the left has done to move bodies and build infrastructure, there’s one area in which they remain woefully lacking: message. Nowhere is this more apparent in their central charge against McCain: that he’s a Bush clone from top to bottom.

[...]

The problem is that it runs counter to some deeply ingrained perceptions about McCain, the most transparently un-Bush candidate Republicans could have nominated.

Uh, Pat?

[WOLF] BLITZER: When it comes to domestic economic issues, what is the major difference between President Bush’s policies, what he wants to do, and what John McCain would do if he were president?

[REPUBLICAN HOUSE WHIP ROY] BLUNT: Well, I think what John McCain wants to do is continue these pro-growth tax policies that our friends on the other side have been talking…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But that’s what President Bush wants to do too.

BLUNT: And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

[Emphasis Added]

Yeah, Pat, we’re the ones with the messaging problem. With geniuses like this at work, no wonder the GOP’s electoral chances are in the toilet.

In 2000, John McCain didn’t vote for the Republican candidate for President.

In 2001, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party.

In 2004, John McCain considered leaving the Republican Party again, this time to be John Kerry’s running mate.

How does it feel to know that, instead of nominating a principled conservative, you nominated yourselves a political opportunist? If I were you guys, I would be suffering some serious buyer’s remorse right now.

On the front page of The Huffington Post:

ABC: OBAMA HAS MORE SUPERDELEGATES THAN CLINTON

Obama has won more states.  Obama has won more votes.  Obama has won more pledged delegates.  And now Obama has won more superdelegates. Even if you count Florida and Michigan, Obama still wins every conceivable metric of success.

The Democratic Primary has been effectively over for weeks now; this is just one more nail in the coffin.  It’s time for us to unite behind our nominee, Barack Obama, and start making the case as to why he should be the nest President of the United States.

In 1996, Bill Clinton lost the white vote to Bob Dole.  In 1996, Bill Clinton was also re-elected President.

Just putting that out there.

Wow.

Polls just closed in North Carolina and already the networks are calling it for Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, Indiana’s polls closed a half hour ago and the outcome is still up in the air. CNN has it as 57% for Clinton and 43% for Obama with 18% of precincts reporting.

More as it comes…

UPDATE: If Barack Obama’s an elitist, then so are the good people of Indiana; take a look at this exit poll result posted on Daily Kos:

Indiana:

Does Clinton share your values?

Yes 62
No 37

Does Obama share your values?

Yes 65
No 33

Let’s put this elitism garbage to bed once and for all, shall we?

And with 20% reporting, Indiana is still 57-43 Clinton-Obama.

UPDATE II: With a quarter of all districts reporting, Indiana’s percentages haven’t budged–we’re still at 57-43.

UPDATE III: CNN is showing nearly a third of Indiana’s precincts are reporting and the percentages are still 57-43 Clinton-Obama. If Obama’s going to make Indiana close, he’s going to have to start showing some movement pretty soon.

UPDATE IV: With 38% of Indiana precincts reporting, there has been some movement–now the totals are 56-44 Clinton-Obama. The start of a trend, or just some electoral static?

UPDATE V: Now CNN is showing Indiana as 55-45 Clinton-Obama. CBS has called it for Clinton but the other networks are holding off. Will Obama knock Clinton down to a single-digit victory in The Hoosier State?

UPDATE VI: CNN is showing Indiana at 54-46 Clinton-Obama with just over half of all precincts reporting. Looks like most networks were right to hold off calling this one just yet…

UPDATE VII: With 65% precincts reporting, Indiana is now at 53% Clinton and 47% Obama. In the past hour or so Obama has cut Clinton’s lead nearly in half; this is now a 6-point race.

UPDATE VIII: With 76% reporting, Indiana is now down to a 52-48 Clinton-Obama split. This is a huge blow to the Clinton campaign no matter how you cut it–IN was supposed to be her state, and for it to get so close is a bad omen in general. Tonight may very well erase any benefit she got from winning PA two weeks ago.

UPDATE IX: With 83% reporting, it’s still a 4-point spread, 52-48. Lake County–which is near the Indiana-Illinois border and where the Obama stronghold of Gary is–won’t report until 11:00 PM EST.

UPDATE X: With 91% of precincts reporting, it’s now Clinton with 51% and Obama with 49%. Even if those are the final percentages this will represent a huge coup for Obama. If he manages to win Indiana it will be an even bigger blow to Clinton, particularly considering the significant negative press he’s received since PA.

Stay tuned…

UPDATE XI: 92% in, still 51-49. Obama is down by more than 20,000 votes, but many of the outstanding areas are his strongholds. Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? Even if Obama doesn’t pull out a victory, tonight will still be remarkable. Conventional wisdom said that working-class Indiana was Clinton’s–Obama wiped her lead out in a matter of days, despite several bad news cycles. If nothing else, tonight will be a testament to Obama’s ability to weather bad press and come out better in the end.

UPDATE XII: Kos brings us this line from Tim Russert:

Russert: Hillary Clinton has cancelled all her morning appearances.

That’s perhaps the most telling part of this. Despite her campaign’s spin, Clinton knows this is a huge blow to her Presidential ambitions. She’s far behind in the popular vote and the delegate count; being handed a humiliating defeat in what was widely considered a safely-Clinton state puts the Democratic nomination that much more out of reach.

Still 92% reporting, still 51-49.

UPDATE XIII: 95% of precincts are reporting. It’s still 51-49, but now Obama is behind by only 16,609 votes. In other words, the last 3% closed the gap by about 4,000 votes.

FINAL UPDATE: With 99% of the precincts remaining, it’s still 51-49. Clinton won Indiana, but by the slimmest of margins–out of 1.25 million votes cast, her margin of victory is just over 22,000 votes. That’s a less than 1% victory.

Indiana wasn’t supposed to be close–the last Pollster composite showed Clinton winning The Hooser State by more than 4%. In other words, despite weeks of bad press, Obama managed to whittle Clinton’s sizable lead to basically nothing. In addition, he picked up a sizable number of delegates by winning NC in a landslide.

The Democratic primary, for all intents and purposes, has been over for weeks now. But perhaps tonight will be the night that finally cements this fact into the DC conventional wisdom. Personally, I hope it does.

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?

Today brings us this headline from Think Progress:

McCain Aides Say Hagee Endorsement Was The Result Of ‘Poor Vetting’

More:

McCain’s aides attribute the Hagee controversy to poor vetting. But even some Republicans (not affiliated with the campaign) privately wonder how the pastor’s extreme views slipped through without notice. McCain personally wooed Hagee for more than a year.

[...]

Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops.

John Ashcroft. Alberto Gonzales. Donald Rumsfeld. Michael Brown. Tom Ridge. Michael Chertoff. Dick Cheney.

After eight years of a President who surrounded himself with some of the worst advisers in Washington, I’d like a President who will take the time to actually vet someone before adding them to his/her inner circle.

Is it too much to ask for someone who wants to become leader of the free world to spend a few minutes actually looking up the people he/she relies on for guidance? Or are the American people supposed to accept overwhelming incompetence from our government?

John McCain is not fit to be President of the United States. America can’t take four more years of George-Bush-style government. We just can’t.

Feingold writes a letter to the Government Accountability Office inquiring about the Pentagon’s in-house propaganda outfit.

Excerpts:

The Pentagon is free to air its views on any military operation but it should do so openly.
Potential covert production of press materials by the Defense Department would
undermine full and open public debate on one of the most important matters facing this
country, the war in Iraq. Such debate is essential to our democracy.

According to the article, the documents suggest that the Pentagon supplied retired
officers serving as analysts for several major American broadcasters with private
briefings with Sec. Rumsfeld, talking points in anticipation of appearing on TV, and
commercial airfare. Allegedly, the Pentagon discouraged the analysts from publicly
describing the nature of their relationship with the Pentagon. This clearly violates the
spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Basically, the Pentagon supplied pro-war, pro-administration retired army officers to news outlets for the purpose of providing what was advertised to the public as unbiased analysis of the war in Iraq.  On-air, these officers’ connections to the Pentagon was undisclosed, and the American people were misled into thinking they were getting analysis based on field expertise, not political bias.

We know the Republicans sold their war to the American people with lies; we just didn’t know how far and how deep those lies went.  Now, at least, we have a little more of the whole picture.

John McCain and George W. Bush’s Iraq war: 5 years down, 95 years to go.

Shorter John McCain: I am all in favor of pay equity for women just as long as I don’t actually have to do anything about it.

UPDATE: Also, there’s this:

McCain has topped both candidates, missing a staggering 58 percent of his votes during the 110th Congress, according to the Washington Post’s congressional votes database.

To put this in perspective, McCain has now missed more votes than Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who suffered a brain hemorrhage in December 2006 and was unable to return to the Senate until fall of last year. McCain has now missed nine votes more than Johnson.

John McCain can’t be bothered to even show up to the Senate anymore; how can we trust him to do any better as President?

The last thing America needs is another Bush term, another out-of-touch President who spends more time going on vacations than solving America’s problems.

Tonight’s outcome won’t change the election, but the margin of victory will determine how the delegates are distributed.

From CNN.com, 8:37 PM EST:

_________________________________________________

UPDATE: From CNN.com, 8:51 PM EST:

_________________________________________________

UPDATE II: MSNBC and FOX News are both calling it for Clinton. A Clinton win is expected, but what matters is her margin of victory–if she doesn’t get at least 60% of the vote, PA’s delegates will be split nearly evenly, leaving Clinton more than 150 pledged delegates behind Obama.

UPDATE III: CNN has also called it for Clinton, but the gap is narrowing.

From CNN.com, 9:04 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

UPDATE IV: Now we’re back to where we were 20 minutes ago.

From CNN.com, 9:12 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE V: From CNN.com, 9:22 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE VI: From CNN.com, 9:39 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE VII: Up then down and up again…

From CNN.com, 9:49 PM EST:

__________________________________________________

UPDATE VIII: From CNN.com, 10:05 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE IX: From CNN.com, 10:17 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

UPDATE X: From CNN.com, 10:29 PM EST:

___________________________________________________

UPDATE XI: From CNN.com, 10:59 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

UPDATE XII: From CNN.com, 11:27 PM EST:

____________________________________________________

Tonight is the Pennsylvania primary.  No, it won’t be the end of the primary season and no, it won’t decide the Democratic nominee.  Now, I’m not saying that PA doesn’t matter–any time American citizens go out and make their voices heard, it matters–but I am saying that PA won’t be the deciding factor.

At this point, though, Hillary Clinton can’t win.  She can’t win more states than Obama.  She can’t win more pledged delegates than Obama.  She can’t win more votes than Obama.  And she’s not going to be able to convince the Democratic superdelegates to overthrow the entire primary and throw the nomination to her.  As I said weeks ago, the Democratic primary is over; Barack Obama is the nominee.

Let’s face it, a Clinton victory is expected tonight.  She began the year with a 20% lead over Barack Obama, which has been whittled down to somewhere in the neighborhood of a 5% to 10% lead.  After tonight, Clinton will say that Obama shouldn’t be the nominee because he can’t win swing states or large states like PA, and that PA is key to any Democratic victory.  But that’s a nonsense argument–the dynamics of a Clinton-Obama race are far different than the dynamics of an Obama-McCain race, and just because you don’t win a state in the primary doesn’t mean you can’t win that state in the general.

But her campaign is in the red, and she’s bleeding support.  The longer she stays in, the more damage she’ll do–to Obama, to the Democratic Party in general, and to her own reputation.

So don’t expect any surprises tonight.  Expect Obama’s delegate lead to basically stay the same.  Expect the rhetoric we’ve heard before–from both camps–to be repeated.  And expect everyone to ignore the fact that Clinton has no chance of winning and to turn their focus onto the next big primary state.

Recently, John McCain has promised to eliminate all Congressional earmarks, no questions asked.

Sounds like a good plan to eliminate wasteful spending, right? Wrong. As it turns out, there are some important programs that are paid for with earmarks.

Like military aid to Israel and Egypt:

Some observers define earmarks in a more limited way, identifying only provisions that direct spending for items not requested by the Administration or in excess of levels proposed for activities or countries. Although many Foreign Operations earmarks fall within this more narrow definition, congressional directives specifying spending amounts that are the same as shown in the Administration’s illustrative listing for country distributions also are regarded as earmarks. Annual earmarks for economic and military aid to Israel and Egypt are examples of such directives.

Earmarks also pay for military housing:

The Congressional Research Service analysis counts not only the [military] family housing units added by Congress as earmarks but also those requested by the Pentagon and the White House.

CRS identified $6.6 billion in spending in the 2005 Military Construction Appropriation bill associated with earmarks. This included 205 units at Fort Huachuca at a cost of $41 million and 250 units at Davis-Monthan Air Base at a cost $48.5 million—both in McCain’s home state of Arizona.

So either McCain is going to cut aid to Israel, military housing, and other important programs that are funded by earmarks (all to pay for his corporate tax cut), or he’s going to break his campaign promise.

As Politico’s Ben Smith says, “That’s one thing about spending cuts: Much harder when you get to the details.”

McCain can’t even be bothered to read his own plan–how is he supposed to be President, again?

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…

Progress Media USA–the independent progressive organization headed by Media Matters for America’s David Brock and Democratic strategist Paul Begala–is out with their first ad, called ‘Out Of Touch’:

More from Talking Points Memo:

The ad, called “Out of Touch,” will be running on cable beginning tomorrow and can be seen in D.C. on CNN and MSNBC — which is to say, it’s a small buy aimed at an insider audience of potential future donors, political operatives, and the like.

With the Democratic primary dragging on, progressives are going to have to tell the truth about McCain on their own.  Personally, I’m glad groups like Progress Media USA are out there to set the record straight.

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.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Recently, Barack Obama went to a Pennsylvania bowling alley; during the campaign stop he bowled 7 frames and scored a 37. In other words, he made a typical campaign stop, met some voters and had a good time.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the media saw it:

Deriding Obama’s score, [MSNBC's Joe] Scarborough said: “You know Willie, the thing is, Americans want their president, if it’s a man, to be a real man.” He added, “You get 150, you’re a man, or a good woman,” to which Geist replied, “Out of my president, I want a 150, at least.” After guest Harold Ford Jr. said that Obama’s bowling showed a “humble” and “human” side to him, Scarborough replied, “A very human side? A prissy side.”

And then there’s this:

On Hardball, discussing Sen. Barack Obama’s bowling performance at a campaign stop, Chris Matthews said to MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard, “You know, Michelle — and this gets very ethnic, but the fact that he’s good at basketball doesn’t surprise anybody, but the fact that he’s that terrible at bowling does make you wonder.” While showing the video of Obama’s bowling, Matthews asserted, “[I]t isn’t the most macho form there.”

And this:

Discussing Sen. Barack Obama on the April 1 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Let me ask you about how he — how’s he connect with regular people? Does he? Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?” Earlier in the show, referring to Obama’s bowling performance at a March 29 campaign stop at Pleasant Valley Lanes in Altoona, Pennsylvania, Matthews teased the segment with McCaskill by asking, “[C]an Obama woo more regular voters — you know, the ones who actually do know how to bowl?”

Now, I’m an avid bowler and I’m terrible on the basketball court. But if you had to choose which of the two sports was more macho, I’d have to go with basketball, hands down. And when it comes to basketball, Barack Obama excels:

(Obama’s in the green jersey, number 23. Yeah, he misses the free throw, but he puts up an excellent shot and does a great job on defense).

Seriously, though, this is the kind of nonsense we’ve come to expect from our media. Time after time, conservative pundits try their hardest to portray Democrats as weak, feeble, effeminate, etc. They portrayed Al Gore as a nerdy, know-it-all adademic; they portrayed John Kerry as an effeminate, wealthy playboy.

Putting aside the irony that rich pundits with massive national audiences pretend to know anything about regular Americans, people like Scarborough and Matthews matter. Their take on the news influence a lot of people; they have the potential to move public opinion and even change people’s votes. What we’re seeing with the bowling strategy is the conservatives’ favorite strategy–death by a thousand cuts. They create a meme about a Democratic candidate, then they repeat it as often as possible to reinforce it in the minds of voters.

This is how ridiculous our political discourse has become. Pundits ignore the issues, they ignore the things real Americans actually worry about, instead obsessing over a Presidential candidate’s bowling score. The American people are suffering, but our lazy political press inside their D.C. bubbles wastes their time attaching over-inflated significance to Barack Obama’s 7 frames of bowling.

I mean, haven’t we learned our lesson from George W. Bush? Haven’t we learned that idiotic, fake-significant culture war garbage like bowling scores or what kind of coffee you drink or who people want to have a beer with isn’t the best judge of who would be a good President?? After 8 years of George Bush–the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with–you think the press would look more a candidate’s record, or their positions, or anything else of actual substance. Are we going to have to suffer through the same media nonsense this time around, resulting in (at l east) 4 years of disastrous Republican governance?

When is this nonsense going to stop, once and for all?

Pollster shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, 40.2% to 51.4%.

But SurveyUSA shows Clinton’s lead shrinking from 19% to 12% in the span of three weeks. Rasmussen is even more ambitious, showing Clinton now leading Obama by just 5%.

There’s also this quote from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO):

“If I had to make a prediction right now, I’d say Barack Obama is going to be the next president. I will be stunned if he’s not the next president of the United States.”

And Rep. Cleaver is a Clinton supporter.

Also, there’s this:

Hillary Telling Local Media In Future Voting States That Obama Wants Race To End

Followed by:

Obama: Hillary “Can Run As Long As She Wants”

Oops. Seems like Clinton isn’t telling the truth.