I jotted the following down a few days ago:

I never would've imagined McCain would sink lower than Bush/Rove, but he has. Cindy McCain's assurances that no negative campaigning would occur is a joke as her husband has turned that promise on its head. Much of the honor and respect accorded McCain prior to this race has long slid to nothing.

With just a few weeks remaining before Nov. 4th and McCain's poll numbers sinking faster than the stock market, the question is will McCain resort to Willie Horton-type, suggestive, beyond-the-pale negative ads, or will he instead say no, stop the insanity? I'd like to believe he has a shred of dignity left and will tell Schmidt to not go there, to not repeat the Rove-ian antics that were used against him in 2000.

But we'll see. He may actually sink further in gall and go there in full force, only to then beg for forgiveness months later if he loses. It will be too late by then, his soul long ago sold to the dark side, with no chance for pity and restoration of respect by the public. Hopefully voters will be smarter this time around if they try to pull that kind of late-in-the-game BS -- hopefully.

Well, after scribbling this down, Monday came along and I see they've decided to sink lower and return to trying desperately to associate Obama with Ayers. Apparently they've concluded they must change the topic off the economy, else face defeat.

Harold Meyerson had a terrific column yesterday where he basically lays out if McCain wants to got there, Obama has more than enough ammo (Keating and Phil Gramm) to fire back (never mind that Obama's association with Ayers is tenuous, versus McCain's full-embrace relationships with Keating and Gramm).

This latest attempt is even more pathetic and desperate than the Willie Horton stunt because at least the Horton ad was "fresh", new material (albeit a distortion to scare voters), whereas with Ayers it's just retread, old news debunked by many respected news outlets and is not likely to resonate a second time around (it barely did the first time).

But alas, it appears McCain et al have decided to sink even lower in hopes of reversing their slide in the polls. Steve Benen wrote today:

There's been a lot of talk of late about whether McCain, win or lose in November, will regret how pathetic he became over the course of this campaign. I rather doubt it -- he knew exactly what he was doing when he hired Karl Rove's operation and deliberately abandoned his integrity for electoral gain.

John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, told Heilemann months ago that the carefully-cultivated image may not be salvageable. "There is no brand in politics you can just put on the shelf, run a campaign totally contrary to it, and then take it down later and still expect people to believe it," Weaver said.

I suspect that's exactly what McCain expected. He'd developed a degree of credibility and good will, and thought he could simply reclaim it after lying and smearing his way to victory. By all appearances, he badly miscalculated.

I now think McCain concluded that his career has led up to this point in time, that it was the presidency or bust. Do whatever it takes, no matter how shameful or scummy (after all, such tactics worked against him in 2000), go for that ultimate prize, and if it doesn't work out then so be it. He is 72 years old, rich, the GOP is likely finished with respect to power, so if he lost it just meant an earlier retirement. All the maverick stuff was not to be "reclaimed" as Benen put it, but rather he was done. He made a decision, a very unfortunate one, that this was to be his last gasp as a politician and if he was going to go out, he was going to do it flailing and flinging all the garbage he could muster, with a willingness to trash his past. Truly, truly sad.

Now I'm off to watch debate -- let's see if McCain can actually descend even lower.

This bailout quagmire is complicated stuff and as Paul Krugman has said the bill is not perfect by any means but better to pass something then to risk having the country plunge into a deep, wrenching depression (yes, it is that bad).

But don't take my word for it, to help coax you in your thinking, all you have to know is many of the House Republicans that reversed course earlier this week and decided to vote down the bailout had reportedly been inundated by furious calls from listeners of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. If the Limbaughs and Hannitys are against the bailout, you know it can't be all that bad.

Again, it's flawed and will need lots of reworking in the many weeks ahead, but it's a first step and time is of the essence. Libor continues to shoot skyward, indicating banks are growing increasingly unwilling to loan to each other, further exacerbating an already bad liquidity problem. But the root cause of the liquidity freeze is the solvency issue, namely that banks do not trust the balance sheets of their brethren thanks to the toxic vehicles they own. Sell the damaged goods at deep discounts to rid it from the balance sheet and lending funds should begin to flow again.

To gain a better understanding I recommend reading this and this.

So she didn't freeze up, meltdown, or just flat out went bonkers on us -- and that makes her performance superior to Biden's? And we thought the bar was an inch from the ground when GW was wowing us with his debate prowess.... (Apparently Biden won).

The fact is her answers to most questions sounded much better than her astoundingly bad replies to Katie Couric's queries, but you just have to scratch the surface a bit to realize there's not much there. Lots of memorized talking points, colloquial phrases ("gee whiz," "well gosh"), and ad hoc references to the base that frequently had zilch to do with Ifill's question(s). In the end, she came off as a slightly nervous, overly prepped 10th grade debater who just had to have that extra-large espresso before going on stage.

Biden was fine, although at the start he could've used some of that espresso. It felt like he had to initially get his bearings, to allow some time to feel how the tone of the event was going, before he could shed some caution and begin to truly engage. Once he did, he was often terrific.

In the end, neither candidate made any huge gaffes but neither did they likely make a hugely positive impact on the poll numbers. We'll see.

Last Wednesday I wrote:

[T]hat still doesn’t justify why the proposed bailout today is in such skeletal form, that they’ve had months to at least begin to plan for worse-case scenarios and put together something of a game plan for attack assuming such worst-case scenarios could come to fruition (as seemingly has happened). It’s inexcusable that the solution on the table is basically being presented as if scribbled on a napkin. Where are the details, or at least evidence that this impending disaster didn’t surprise the supposedly highly capable people we have in charge to avoid such surprises? I realize we’re in uncharted waters and no one has all the answers to this profoundly unique situation, but c’mon, to have gun-held-to-head to pass an on-faith-alone, scant proposal, one that we may be shackled with for years to come, is just another example of sheer, brazen incompetence to come down the pike in the last 7+ years. As Obama said, enough!

David Rosenberg, economist at Merrill Lynch, pretty much echoed my sentiments today:

Despite all the high-drama in Washington over the weekend, there seems to be no political solution to the financial crisis – at least for the moment. This is unfortunately what you get when a crisis is so poorly prepared for, as this one was. It was just two weeks ago that Ben Bernanke was telling us that the downside risks to the economy had “diminished”. As a result of both him and Treasury Secretary Paulson being behind the curve almost every step of the way during this 13-month credit crisis, they proposed legislation that should have been developed with a lot more deliberation than time permitted.

Phrases like "poorly prepared" and "behind the curve" -- aptly describing the continued incompetence that has come from this government since GW grabbed the reins. Different players along the way, same abysmal end result. ENOUGH!

It's often said that when it comes to the economy and financial matters, neither presidential candidate possesses particularly impressive knowledge. I happen to believe Obama towers over McCain in this regard, but perhaps it's best to look at some of the people enlisted by each campaign to serve as experts on this front.

The current Time magazine listed three such people for both sides. As "Team McCain" is Phil Gramm, Carly Fiorina and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Let's start with "The Turtle," Phil Gramm. He is the godfather of the push for deregulation of the financial system and much of the blame for our current problems lay at his feet. Do I have to say anything about Fiorina? She's made one gaff after another and is currently MIA from the campaign. And Holtz-Eakin is the guy who said McCain invented the Blackberry. Quite a stellar group of individuals, indeed.

For "Team Obama" there's Austan Goolsbee, Laura Tyson, and Larry Summers. Goolsbee is an economist at The University of Chicago, graduated summa cum laude from Yale, earned a PhD at MIT and went on to become an Alfred Sloan Fellow and Fulbright scholar. He's described as a centrist and is an expert on tax policy. Laura Tyson was head of the National Economic Council under Bill Clinton and as Time describes her, "an expert on trade, globalization and the tech economy, she helped devise Clinton's economic policy during the '90s boom." Finally, Time describes Summers as "brilliant, blunt and abrasive, he favors free trade and globalization. His experience managing the Mexican and Asian financial crises is valuable now."

Ok, so you make the comparison. Which team appears not just more impressive, but more appropriate for the country given the problems we're facing? Mr. Deregulation who called us whiners not too long ago, an ex-CEO who misspeaks on a regular basis, and Bush's ex-chief economist (need I say more). Compared to a tax expert, a trade policy expert, and a former Treasury Secretary who has successfully dealt with crisis situations.

Hmm, let me think, this is a tough one....

It was just a matter of time but I'm starting to see attempts to place blame for this financial crisis. "It was the Democrats fault! It goes back to Clinton." Nice try. No one has clean hands in this debacle.

It's about the money, stupid. If this mess doesn't prove anymore than one thing it's that our political system has corrupted our financial system. The donor dollars that have bankrolled, funded, bought and sold our representation in government is ultimately the culprit to this cascading time bomb. Any regulatory checks that might have been in place have long been displaced thanks to their convenient removal ala campaign donations and lobbying in the name of free speech.

Paul Krugman wrote, "we’ve become a banana republic with nukes." I hope he's wrong.

From business / finance magazine Portfolio, a hearty endorsement for Obama: "But all told, one candidate offers a more realistic plan for enhancing both the domestic economy and the competitiveness of this country. And that is why we believe Barack Obama should be our next president."

In same magazine we find California's Ahnold waxing on about a sensible energy policy -- and sounding a good deal like a Democrat....

Dick Polman writes about the dumbing-down of politics in America, thanks to the GOP. He of course mentions Sarah Palin, but goes on to make clear, "Palin, however, is merely the latest beneficiary in the national celebration of mediocrity, much like one of those early-round American Idol entrants who wins insta-fame for being Just Like Us. Lest we forget, the lame-duck administration in Washington has long been dumbing down the standards for public service, by seeking to elevate the ill-qualified to positions of authority." Polman then lists several illustrious names that have held positions within the Bush administration, most of which have been long gone due to their ineptness. It's as if we've embraced George Costanza's method for seeking talent: recall the Seinfeld episode when he interviews candidates for Susan's foundation and dismisses the brightest contenders for the fella who has a solid 2.0 GPA, right in the "meaty part of the curve." Gads.

In fact, if Palin was the choice of the GOP base, what the *^&% does that say about the base? Even McCain must've winced and shuddered a bit when he made her the offer....

Assuming McCain could conceivably win this thing, I at least once thought that he was going through the motions to appease whoever and whatever just to get in the White House, and then he'd immediately take a long shower and rid himself of all the necessary baggage he had to woo for the past 12-18 months. Something tells me this will no longer be the case....

Oh look, Forbes has Paul Johnson, a 100% non-scientist, calling global warming "nonsense." This from a guy who apparently defended Nixon's actions in Watergate and believes it paled compared to Clinton's perjury concerning consensual sex.

Hey, wait a minute, I thought McCain wasn't going to show up for the debate unless those children in Washington got together and had a bailout deal all sewed up, ready for passage? FLIP-FLOPPER!

Not sure if it was just me but this debate was absolute snoozeville. Early on Lehrer kept trying to have Obama and McCain mix it up, as if Lehrer were a ref in a prize fight who kept having to force the fighters to take shots at each other vs. just dancing around. I thought after the initial jitters settled out the two candidates would indeed begin to trade blows, but it was not to be. Eventually I fell asleep.

Awaking this morning, I discover that Obama apparently won.

Oh well, if it takes nice-guy, above-the-fray behavior to win these things over an opponent who is known to have anger issues, then so be it (I'll just drink more coffee next time). It will likely force McCain to get down and dirty by the next debate (another Hail-Mary) in an attempt to rile Obama, hoping he'll say something regrettable, and yet would more likely make McCain appear small, shallow and mean.

Having said that, it would be refreshing to see Obama really take some jabs at McCain, nothing below the belt but have prepared some substantive one-liners that have a high-percentage likelihood of getting under McCain's skin so the viewers can get a glimpse of his temper. Some theorize that's why McCain avoided eye-contact all night. Obama should test the waters on this front next time around.

If you thought the first part of Palin's interview with Katie Couric was excruciatingly embarrassing (I'll get back to you...), then the following excerpt from part two will leave you with mouth agape:

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land -- boundary that we have with -- Canada. [...]

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia --

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We -- we do -- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where -- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is -- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to -- to our state.

Folks, this person -- forget gender -- will be a heartbeat away from running our country. Those statements above are barely literate much less coherent. Clearly McCain's selection of her was perhaps one of the most irresponsible acts ever committed by a presidential candidate and sadly it makes many of the atrocities perpetrated by GW over the last few years look a tad bit less reprehensible.

A couple of more points about McCain's suspended-campaign-in-animation:

Why didn't McCain simply suggest that they swap the VP debate with the presidential one, allowing him and Obama to head to Washington while Biden and Palin have it out this Friday? After all, Palin said she wouldn't blink....

Many if not most people don't know what's going on when it comes to this bailout, so what better than a debate where the two candidates show up to tell us how they would plan to get us out of this crisis? It would help fill the vacuum of scant knowledge and give us a better sense of how either one responds when faced with a one-of-a-kind, calamitous situation.

McCain insinuated that he planned to swoop into Washington like Underdog, ready to save the day. But if he had a solution regarding this bailout, then let's hear it! Or is this like his Osama "secret," where he has said repeatedly that he would be able to track down bin Laden -- but refuses to offer a hint on how he will go about doing it...?

Whether it be the shenanigans they pulled with the hurricane and their convention, or the protective coddling of Palin with regards to interviews, and now this seeking to postpone debates (incl. the VP one), it certainly presents the image of a man who is looking to run and hide, duck and avoid. Does this appear presidential to anyone? During these troubled times, don't we want a leader who is not afraid to face the fire, to confront, to tackle head on tough issues, doing so with calmness and confidence? If so, it would appear as if Obama has it all over McCain.

If you're forced to have a governmental bailout, it would appear that you could do a heck of a lot worse than follow the example of Sweden. Money quote:

Putting taxpayers on the hook without anything in return could be a mistake, said Urban Backstrom, a senior Swedish finance ministry official at the time. "The public will not support a plan if you leave the former shareholders with anything," he said.

Let's see if that will be true in this country.

In response to Kevin Drum's blog entry, I think there’s much truth to the retort that if this type of bailout were proposed a year ago, given the lack of urgency from Lehman/AIG type implosions, Congress would’ve likely balked. HOWEVER, that still doesn’t justify why the proposed bailout today is in such skeletal form, that they’ve had months to at least begin to plan for worse-case scenarios and put together something of a game plan for attack assuming such worst-case scenarios could come to fruition (as seemingly has happened). It’s inexcusable that the solution on the table is basically being presented as if scribbled on a napkin. Where are the details, or at least evidence that this impending disaster didn’t surprise the supposedly highly capable people we have in charge to avoid such surprises? I realize we’re in uncharted waters and no one has all the answers to this profoundly unique situation, but c’mon, to have gun-held-to-head to pass an on-faith-alone, scant proposal, one that we may be shackled with for years to come, is just another example of sheer, brazen incompetence to come down the pike in the last 7+ years. As Obama said, enough!

Of course, one could strap on the tin foil hat and conjecture that the boys in charge planned this all along, to allow the financial system to break down to this point so that they could then push hard a slap-dash solution in expediency, one that was absent specifics and could be modified to save their buddies at the expense of the idiot taxpayers. They could’ve known all along that the only solution to the debacle they saw unfolding on the inside was to let the unwind get to the point of severe crisis which would then serve as a much-needed catalyst for swift action without much investigation or pondering by Congress. Heck, it worked with the Patriot Act! Without such looming fear to instill urgency, more reasonable and just actions would be offered, which more likely would have meant bad news for the top dogs in the offending companies. Better to force backs against the wall as means to getting a more full-blown bailout that could shower them with all kinds of rewarding outs amidst the chaos, and one with much less accountability. Small-scale cures allow for closer scrutiny under the microscope; immense, bombastic cures translates into more confusion, more loop holes, more gamesmanship.

Oh, and what better than to let the crisis unfold until about six weeks before the election only to then sound the alarms and pull the 3-page proposal out of one's back pocket. That's just enough time to have investors chew on whatever is passed by Congress, allowing a relief-glow to take hold, and a stock market rally to ensue -- at least until November 4th. After that day, all bets are off, but for Paulson et al it's hopefully mission accomplished (McCain wins and the corporate elite heading up the problem financial companies are rewarded with our tax money).

As for the higher tax rates to serve as a form of justified punishment against the wealthy, the problem is not all rich folks are “guilty” of the sins in this case. In fact, a good number of affluent citizens had nothing to do with mortgage fraud or the derivatives mess, just to name a few. The desire to tax higher-income earners at higher rates for philosophical or ideological reasons is one thing, but to use higher tax rates as some broad-sweeping whipping stick to crack knuckles appears to be crossing the line in my opinion.

McCain's suspension of his campaign sounds like another ploy (is it coincidence this came on day Obama jumps ahead by 9% in the Washington Post/ABC poll?). The fact is many hours prior to this announcement, Obama's camp contacted McCain's to offer the idea of both candidates endorsing a joint, agreed-upon set of principles regarding the bailout plan. Sounds like a good idea, right? McCain said yes but then shortly after announced the bizarre suggestion to postpone the debate so that he could rush back to Washington to pitch in (finally) to the effort.

After McCain received the call from Obama, McCain's advisers likely surmised that 1) they had to say yes but 2) they then had to figure out a way to derail Obama's offer by one-upping him, otherwise Obama looks that much better since he took the initiative. So how to top him? Suspend campaign and debate.

The reasoning there probably went 1) McCain can appear patriotic (put aside politics for sake of country, as with the hurricane and convention), 2) if Obama balks will make Obama look like the craven politician, and 3) if they both decide to go ahead with the debate, McCain can mention on stage that he really wanted to be elsewhere, helping decide the fate of our country, AND may even get the bonus of garnering viewer sympathies by stating this aloud, not just for patriotic reasons but because he didn't really want to be there and thus any poor performance could be excused (he was distracted, not focused, mind on our country's future, etc.).

That said I fully expect to see him show up for the debate because if not and he goes to Washington, come Monday we'll expect great things, great progress, and he'll have nothing to show us, so this is all a setup.

Today Dan Froomkin writes:

The Bush Who Cried Wolf

So this is what happens when the president of the United States has virtually no credibility left.

The nation is facing a serious financial crisis. But neither the public nor Congress have confidence in the solutions being put forth by President Bush's appointed economic leads.

Americans have learned what questions to ask when the Bush team starts to make threats. Is the situation as bad as they say? Do we have to respond the way they say? Are there any better alternatives? Do we have to act as fast as they say? And is it possible they don't know what they're doing?

The ultimate irony would be if, this time, Bush was right -- or even partly right.

Years ago I wrote about the dangers that would come from this administration's insistence on lying time and time again. In 2004 I wrote:

The incompetence and deception now clearly evident when it came to the Iraq war properly places this administration in a highly questionable light. Like the boy who cried wolf, when we are told so many lies and distortions about things even beyond anything having to do with Iraq, who can blame us for not believing everything going forward? GW & Co. did not just squander international goodwill post-9/11, but they also managed to squander any goodwill when it came to the public taking at face value what this administration had to say or report on.

And in 2006 I wrote:

Bush's regular use of lies and deception has made us a less safe nation. Reasonable, reality-based people have come to learn they can't trust this administration about nearly anything. Now suppose this news concerning Iran and Al Qaeda is in fact true. Because BushCo has lost all credibility, we're correctly skeptical about everything coming from them. Per chance that something does come down the pike that is actually true, we'll have no way of knowing since all trust has been squandered. We have a "boy who cried wolf" president -- thanks to his purposeful and negligent dishonesty, and we're much less safe because of it.

And here we are two years later, facing a very serious financial crisis and yet we have an administration with less-than-zero credibility. Who knows if they're telling the truth this time, perhaps they are -- but perhaps not. The unfortunate truth all along has been if/when we were really in trouble, no one would heed the call, no one would listen. This is one of the primary reasons why Bush has been the worst president ever, as the country now may be headed to financial ruin but because of his reckless use of lies and fear-mongering hardly anyone trusts him.

So if Bush/Paulson/Cheney get annoyed because Congress is not acting swiftly enough, they have only themselves to blame.

McCain is losing it -- so says conservative columnist George Will.

The $700 billion for the bailout sounds like a big number (because it is!) but it may get much, much bigger. Note that the S&L bailout of the early '90s ended up costing about 50% more than what was initially proposed, and that crisis was much more clear-cut and readily solvable than the one on our hands now. Also, the Iraq war was to cost $50 billion and the estimate is now up to $2 trillion! (Why is it people are alarmed at the $700 billion bailout figure and yet not nearly as outraged at the $2 trillion Iraq war number? Money is money people.)

Unfortunately, Dana Milbank believes the scare tactics will work once again: "Lawmakers, afraid of being blamed for the next Great Depression, have little choice but to give Paulson much of what he wants. But after the Bush administration railroaded them on other emergency measures that later turned out to be problematic -- the Iraq war, the Department of Homeland Security and the USA Patriot Act -- the bipartisan outrage suggests that, this time, Congress will make the administration squirm a bit." If true, do we need yet more proof that the Democrats are spineless urchins?

So in a matter of several weeks, we've seen the McCain camp go from Phil Gramm saying that we're a "nation of whiners" when it comes to the economy, to McCain saying "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," to now McCain feeling he must suspend his campaign and rush to Washington in hopes of fixing everything otherwise we may quickly slip into an economic depression. Does this appear to be presidential behavior to you (sans the last 7+ years)? Particularly in contrast with Obama's lucid, calm, and confident behavior on this matter, the near-schizoid messaging on the economy by McCain has to make one pause with great concern. He's not only scaring voters, he's just downright scary.

The lies and deception from McCain just continue to pile up. Who would've thought that we'd witness a bigger scoundrel in action than Bush/Rove in 2000 and 2004?

McCain recently stated that his campaign manager, Rick Davis, had no involvement with Freddie Mac for years (recall Davis is a lobbyist), and yet "Mr. Davis’ firm received the payments from the company until it was taken over by the government this month." Can a lie get anymore bald?

The lying and deception has hit serial level. McCain recently blamed Obama for the many woes occurring on Wall Street, "Maybe just this once he [Obama] could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was right square in the middle of it." The hypocrisy here is breath-taking. McCain has been in Washington for 30 years, fully entrenched in the "old boy" network he now loves to criticize and somehow cast as Obama's club of choice. Does it get anymore old-boyish than his Keating Five scandal? Remember, the last huge financial scandal in America which had McCain right in the thick of it?

And McCain has the gall to mention lobbyists and Obama in the same breadth -- astounding. McCain's entire campaign staff is riddled with lobbyists -- including Davis, his campaign manager, mentioned above. McCain has not "challenged the system" over the years but rather he has worked to get it to where we are today. He has close ties to Phil Gramm, the godfather of these deep problems, and McCain has been a rampant supporter of deregulation, a huge culprit in this current crisis.

McCain & Co. assume the public is stupid -- as did Bush/Rove. They pick Palin believing they can court not just the far right but women in general, regardless of positions or issues (what are they?). They've decided to turn McCain's neck-deep past in this financial mess onto Obama ala Swift Boating Kerry. Will it work again?

Flashing back to the days of Bush muttering, "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him...to be honest with you," it's now evident GW is spending lots of time thinking about Osama. With just a few months left in office, bin Laden no longer serves Bush's needs as an all-too-useful boogey man to remind Americans of 9/11 and keep them scared and voting correctly. No, now he desires putting some kind of bow on his ruinous legacy and figures a captured or dead Osama will do nicely.

From a recent Washington Post article on this matter:

Officials with the CIA and the U.S. military said they began shifting resources out of Afghanistan in early 2002 and still haven't recovered from that mistake.

"Iraq was a fundamental wrong turn. That was the most strategically negative action that was taken," said John O. Brennan, a former deputy executive director of the CIA and a former chief of the National Counterterrorism Center. "The collective effort in the government required to go after an individual like bin Laden -- the Iraq campaign consumed that."

The Bush administration tried to reinvigorate the flagging hunt for bin Laden early last year by redeploying Predator drones, intelligence officers and Special Forces units to Pakistan and Afghanistan. But by then, U.S. counterterrorism officials said, the war in Iraq had already given bin Laden and his core command precious time to regroup and solidify their new base of operations in northwestern Pakistan.

More recently, the search has been hobbled by a tattered relationship between the United States and Pakistan. CIA and U.S. military officials said cooperation is so bad that they now withhold intelligence about the suspected whereabouts of al-Qaeda commanders out of fear that the Pakistanis might tip them off. Leaders in Pakistan respond that they are committed to fighting al-Qaeda. But they also persistently deny that bin Laden is in their country.

A disaster. The diversion away from Afghanistan to Iraq allowed Osama and al Qaeda to not only live to see another day, but to regroup and greatly restrengthen via recruiting. All at a cost of thousands of dead U.S. soldiers and a war tab that will amount to over $2 trillion.

Remember this when you read about taxpayers lending AIG $85 billion to survive or the many billions involved with the nationalization of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac. Add the $2+ trillion cost of the war to these many billions that have been put to use to stem the financial crisis and there will likely be hundreds of billions more needed in the next several months. And don't forget the free-wheeling spending that occurred under a GOP-controlled Congress, ballooning the deficit. Yes, add it all up, and then try to recall the days of the Clinton surplus -- quite a distant memory, yes?

I came across this item from the typically right-on Kevin Drum where he surmised what may occur with a McCain win:

If McCain wins, he'll face a Democratic congress that's beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won't even return McCain's phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It'll be four years of all-out war.

I briefly busted up with laughter after reading this. I'll believe it when I see it (assuming, God forbid, McCain wins). We thought these jello-injected Dem drones were pissed off in 2006 and they were going to do something about it then -- we've been waiting, patiently.... I guess this time around they're REALLY, REALLY going to be angry!!!

Steve Benen writes:

Truth be told, McCain pretty much forfeited the whole "country first" line on Aug. 29, in Ohio, when he introduced Sarah Palin as his running mate. Conservative writer David Frum wrote at the National Review that "country first" is a "good slogan," but added, "If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

Absolutely. Given his age and his health issues, if McCain were a responsible candidate who truly cared about this country he would've selected a much more experienced and credible #2. But instead he made the decision: "country, be damned -- I'm going for the win, no matter how craven or cynical the methods."

It's no wonder conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan was losing his you-know-what on Bill Maher's show, exclaiming "This pick disqualifies her and McCain....John McCain does not care about national security." Yeah, their side is starting to crack and unravel.

A CBS/NY Times poll question: If he were elected president, do you think _____ would bring about real change in the way things are done in Washington, or wouldn't he do that?

For Obama, 65% said he "Would" and 29% said he "Would Not."

For McCain, 37% said he "Would" and 59% said he "Would Not."

Maybe people really do understand that McCain is a Republican, the party that ran the show for most of the last 7+ years.

I hope I'm right about this but it seems as if the Liar Express has run out of steam. McCain has conveyed so many lies about Obama in such a short period of time that the cumulative effect has managed to backfire on him. The pace and volume of just outright fabricated assertions has been so fast and furious that it finally piled up like a 50 car accident.

Okay, enough of the metaphors, but it's my sense that McCain shot his wad too early with the smear-type tactics that Schmidt learned so well from Karl Rove. If memory serves, I believe the Swift Boat crap came later in 2004, say around October, and by the time the sensation created by scurrilous ads was beginning to wane it was already November, thus avoiding any accountability backlash. Also, the Swift Boat lies were not directly traceable to the Bush campaign so the media was able to better feign ignorance when it came to questioning and criticizing the offending candidate.

In this case, the lies are directly being leveled by the McCain campaign, so it's that much easier for the MSM to get a stiffer spine and look heroic to the people by finally drawing the line. It's not only the ladies on The View who are taking advantage of this opportunity to appear responsible by doing the right thing, but we've also seen Fox News of all places actually say enough already.

The end result of all of this should be that McCain's credibility goes out the window, he's no longer taken seriously as a candidate, Palin's momentary popularity likewise begins to head south, and the two of them have nothing left but the issues to run on. That said it leaves them with very little since most of their positions are opposite what the majority of the voting public favors.

The serious miscalculation was to crank up the smear machine too early and to have it revving at 100 mph -- but then again it was perhaps decided to be their only hope. The Republican convention was an embarrassing non-event which had little hope of serving as a lasting springboard. Any flow-over bump in polls came from the still-fresh buzz obtained from the Palin pick, which has since grown old quickly. So perhaps the gamble all along was to trash early and often with the hope that something would stick so they could then run with it for weeks. Didn't happen. Instead the gamble was a bust because to venture down that course of action comes the risk that nothing would stick, and then you're just left standing neck-deep in lies, appearing weak, shameful, and completely not deserving of the job you're seeking.

Hopefully this is exactly what the McCain campaign has wrought on itself. In some ways, it appears as if the Obama camp knew if they just remained patient and didn't rashly respond to the point of making an unfortunate remark, that the other side would in fact just go too far and implode. If true, then it's exactly that kind of thinking and wisdom that we need in the White House.

Hey, what do you know, that whole hockey stick thing with global warming studies was actually true all along, despite deniers attempting to label it bunk.... go figure.

This year Alaska is expected to receive $346 million in earmarks, the equivalent of $506 per Alaskan or the highest per-capita rate in the nation. She was for pork before she was against it.

With the incessant lies coming from the McCain campaign, Richard Cohen writes, "the John McCain of old is unrecognizable. He has become the sort of politician he once despised." It's just inexcusable, and quite sad. I thought watching Ralph Nader tarnish his legacy was wrenching enough, but witnessing McCain just massacre his own reputation and honor is even more dispiriting.

Regarding Palin's interview with Gibson, Drew Westen comments, "We’ve seen what happens when 'the average person' becomes president. The world is simply too complex to do that again. She wants to be a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world behind a 72 year old man with a recurrent deadly illness and she gives answers like she’s in a beauty pageant and hasn’t even followed the news enough over the last 6 years to know what the Bush Doctrine is. It’s fine for the average person not to know, but it’s not fine for someone who could become President at any moment, any more than it’s fine for your pediatric oncologist to say, 'Ah, gee whiz, I don’t read what’s in those fancy medical magazines—I just give it my all and pray a lot when I see a sick child.'"

As mayor of Wasilla, Palin had rape victims pay for their own medical exams -- the only town in Alaska to have this demented policy. In fact, the state government had to pass a bill specifically banning this practice in her town. We're talking very dark and very wrong, and yet she's the person America has fallen in love with? What has happened to this country?

As I wrote about last week, we're going to have to see much more of this. Much more.

An interesting article about how McCain finally selected Palin. According to Kornacki's take, it didn't go down like I would've imagined. McCain actually wanted pro-choice Lieberman but Karl Rove and associates wanted Romney. Rove ended up personally contacting Lieberman to request that he withdraw from further consideration, and McCain refused to go with Romney due to concerns of inadequate loyalty. Thus, Palin was selected by default.

While we're on the subject, if McCain were truly The Maverick of old (which we know he's not), Palin would've been the type of person he would never have picked. The Maverick of yesteryear deeply resented the religious right and the feeling was mutual (look what they did to him in 2000). McCain back then also bucked his party when it came to several issues, global warming being one, which btw Palin is a denier.

Those days, needless to say, are long gone. The religious right very much wanted Palin to be his VP and poof, that's who McCain went with. Rather than be the independent maverick, he instead just caved and threw them a bone. Much like GW has done for 7+ years, but then GW never claimed to be a maverick. However, the fact it took a whopper size bone the likes of 2nd in charge to the President speaks volumes to just how much the far right was against McCain and the lengths to which he had to prostitute himself to win them over.

Bush would indeed toss them gratuitous, symbolic morsels (Schiavo, stem cell, etc.) in hopes of keeping them happy, but they eventually learned it was all a con, that they were being used. (Recall Bush endorsed pro-choice Specter in PA over pro-life Toomey). So this time around they had had enough and raised the stakes. Given the former maverick was desperate, the religious right had him over a barrel.

If McCain wins, I can only imagine the lengths to which he'll have to go to pay them back. He may become more of a religious zealot than Bush. Scary.

Incredibly, it seems to be working:

But if I'm really honest with myself, I'm mostly just happy that there's another woman on the national political stage. I think it's good for my 8-year-old daughter, who has called Hillary Clinton her idol. She doesn't love Hillary because of her health-care policy or pro-choice stance: she loves Hillary because she thinks girls rule. The more powerful women there are on the national stage, the better it is for all women, because this is a game of numbers.

The McCain camp obviously felt they could attract X number of female voters based strictly on what's between the candidate's legs, not ears. One would think most women would see through this craven grab for their votes, that they would realize what's important is not the sex of the candidate but what he/she stands for, the issues! But apparently to some it's simply a "game of numbers," like throwing spaghetti against the wall, so when you have the chance to put a sister in the White House, as Nike says, just do it!

For those women who adopt this line of thinking, I would say they manage to set back women at least 50 years. For those who can't see why this is the case, it just further proves my point.

The latest Gallup poll has Obama and McCain in a statistical tie. However, when it comes to gauging the election, I much prefer the web site Electoral-Vote.com where state-by-state polls are tracked, avoiding the more generic national polls. It's been quite accurate in its projections and a much-referenced site.

On August 15th, this web site had the electoral vote count at 275-250-13 in favor of Obama. At the start of the DNC convention, Obama's lead was down to 269-256-13. By the start of the RNC convention, Obama's lead rose to 278-247-13. And then by the close of the Republican "We Want Change (from ourselves?)" fest and currently, Obama's lead has ballooned all the way up to 301-224-13.

It would appear all the talk about Palin infusing needed buzz and excitement into the tired McCain campaign is just that -- lots of talk.

UPDATE: Several have written that the state polls have a time lag, thus the likely reason for Obama's 301-224 lead just after RNC convention. The Electoral-Vote.com web site is now at 281-230-27, not quite as dramatic a lead but still fairly sizable. Thanks for the education from the respondents.

Sarah Palin's church promotes the "pray away the gay" movement. Nuf said.

Palin's experience is apparently governing sheer acreage. If only the caribou could vote.

Classic Jon Stewart, with classic Karl Rove, classic O'Reilly and classic DICK Morris. The hypocrisy is completely comical -- and yet plenty of people take these folks seriously. And for that reason, we're in trouble.

A scary thought (aside from the one that McCain might win): could a McCain administration end up being even more incompetent and clueless than GW's?

When Ronald Reagan used Springsteen's song "Born In The USA" for campaigning purposes, The Boss spoke out against it. When John McCain used a Jackson Browne song for campaigning purposes, Jackson Browne responded with a lawsuit. The same applies concerning "Barracuda" and Heart.

One of the best things Hillary could do for the Obama campaign, to show she earnestly wanted to see him win, would be to vociferously and forcefully speak out against Palin's gambit to win over Hillary's 18 million supporters. If Hillary remains silent on this matter, or at most speaks out in an exceedingly tepid tone, I would then have to think there remains some plausibility that she wouldn't mind seeing Obama lose -- meaning "Hello 2012!" for her.

That's just my opinion, and whereas Obama/Biden have to be a bit more careful with regards to their attack mode against Palin for the obvious reasons, the same does not apply to Hillary. She can afford to toss the gloves off and really go after Palin for her record and what she stands for and it would have tremendous impact on many women voters, without the inevitable cries of sexism that would come from the McCain camp.

For the next several weeks, I'll be watching Hillary's efforts closely in this regard. As much as she does not want to be blamed for an Obama loss if it were to happen, if she doesn't carry out a coordinated, well-orchestrated and often-heard attack plan against Palin's record (one we know she's fully capable of), then unfortunately we'll be left wondering if what she said at the convention concerning Obama and this election was actually true.

In his speech tonight, John McCain said of Sarah Palin, "She knows where she comes from and she knows who she works for." I had to chuckle hearing this line. She may know those two simple things (as do 99% of Americans, I assume), but McCain did not know how many homes he owned.

I also loved the following line, "Let me just offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first-country-second, Washington crowd: Change is coming."

This refrain was often stated last night at the convention, that Washington is chock full of evil liberals and fat-cat spenders. Uh, I have a bit of news for Republicans: you folks have ruled the roost in Washington from 2001 to the start of 2007, not liberals or Democrats, and it's been your guy in the White House from 2001 to date. In those many years, you folks have screwed things up in nearly every place you've exerted influence, and you folks turned a Clinton budget surplus into an exploding deficit. Logic would seem to dictate that the change needed in DC is to get rid of those who controlled government from 2001-2007.

Also, click here to read more about the many lies uttered at this convention.

Breathtakingly ridiculous:

McCain: She's the commander of the Alaskan National Guard....[S]he has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities.

Wow. At what point do even the non-zombie Republicans say enough with insulting our intelligence?

I guess McCain would also try to convince us that GW's very brief time spent in the Texas Air National Guard, which I assume was near Mexico, gave him at least some national security cred before entering office....

Will finally catching bin Laden be this election year's October Surprise? Supposedly Bush now wants to really, really catch this guy. Was this his plan all along, to leave Osama free to roam and make videos so as to conveniently scare the American public, only to find him during his closing weeks in office to serve as some grand finale, a desperate attempt to cap-off a woeful legacy? Anything is possible with these people.

Recall the media's persistent coverage of Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright? Then why isn't the following -- statements from Sarah Palin's pastor -- on endless tape-loop across the news channels?

The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."

Hello, that rampant liberal media, are you out there....?

Dick Polman writes:

When a presidential candidate chooses a running mate, he reveals something important about himself. The VP announcement is the first golden opportunity for the electorate to assess the candidate's thinking, and the process by which he makes decisions that could substantively affect the nation.

Yet, at such a crucial juncture, who did John McCain come up with? Sarah Palin, who is so problematical that the McCain campaign had to spend most of Labor Day releasing odd little factoids about her, while being forced to defend her on several other fronts. In the words of one McCain spokesman (and he actually said this), "We are going to flush the toilet," which strikes me as a distinctly unflattering way of saying that the Palin nomination has not yet passed the sniff test.

Very true. The selection of a VP is not just about choosing a 2nd in charge that is more than capable of being 1st in charge at a moment's notice. It's also about being given a chance first-hand to observe how the presidential candidate arrives at decisions, how judgment is exercised to make crucial choices. Based on the Palin pick and the resulting fallout, one cannot be too impressed by McCain's process of getting from A to Z.

Two days ago I wrote:

I've heard some people grouse, "Why do we bother rebuilding New Orleans? Why do people continue to insist on living there? It's a repeat disaster zone." I wish some would wake up and realize that New Orleans has been hit with hurricanes in the past, over many decades, and yet in just the past few years has the city suffered such devastating damage and fallout. Hmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with climate change? As a result of global warming, ocean temperature and currents are changing, contributing to the increase in violent hurricanes.

Today a new study was released concluding that global warming is contributing to hurricanes getting stronger. But hey, let's keep the focus on blaming anything but climate change....

Another case of Senator McCain vs. Candidate McCain, from Dan Froomkin:

Here's McCain's exchange with Fox interviewer Chris Wallace.

McCain: "I obviously don't want to torture any prisoners. There is a long list of areas that we were in disagreement on. But I also think --"

Wallace: "You're not suggesting he did want to torture prisoners?"

McCain: "Well, waterboarding to me is torture, OK? And waterboarding was advocated by the administration, and according to a published report, was used."

But as [Zachary] Goldfarb notes, McCain earlier this year voted against a measure that would have explicitly ordered the CIA to stop the use of waterboarding and other interrogation tactics widely considered to be torture.

The truly scary question is if he's elected, which McCain will we get, and will he change every other day?

From the horse's mouth:

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush....I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.

Who pray tell is asserting that?? In fact, almost 2 out of 3 Americans believe McCain's policies will be very similar to those GW has put forth.

A recent Gallup poll "says the percent of Clinton supporters who now say they intend to vote for Obama rose from 70% pre-convention to 81% after the convention'".

This poll would seem to confirm what is most likely the truth: that the supposed vast rift between unhappy Hillary supporters and the Obama camp is not so vast after all, in reality perhaps a fraction of what the media would have us believe. Before the DNC convention, 7 out of 10 Hillary supporters were going to vote for Obama anyway, this before needing to hear Hillary's "permission" to do so.

May this trumped-up controversy be finally put to rest.

Let me understand, because of Gustav the Republicans all but cancel their convention....? (And needless to say by my simply asking this question I am so un-American). But as I type Gustav has fortunately been downgraded to a tropical storm, so can't the full show go on? Why not make some scheduling changes to allow all the planned speakers a chance to be heard?

Look, McCain & Co. were hoping for any reason to cancel the appearance of Bush and Cheney at the convention. As it was they had these two going on Monday, when most people would be caught in traffic as they headed home from the holiday weekend. We're talking the incumbent president and VP -- under normal circumstances one would think such individuals would 1) be scheduled to go on say Weds. if not Thursday, and 2) if forced to postpone would certainly be rescheduled to speak. I mean after all a former president (Clinton) spoke on a Weds. for the Dems, and as far as I know I have yet to hear when Bush or Cheney will in fact speak (I assume that means they won't -- just as McCain would like it).

Of course we understand the real reasons why they wished to scuttle Bush/Cheney, but to lamely do so via the cover of Gustav's arrival -- characterizing it as the patriotic thing to do -- reaches just another low for the GOP. Truly pathetic.

(Shocking, Bush and Cheney reportedly not missed at the convention).

Yes indeed, if Obama divulged that his 17-year old daughter was unmarried and pregnant, you can bet that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the hypocritical goon squad would be finger-wagging 24/7, blustering about the lack of family values, the need for responsible parenting, and how young adults these days are overly promiscuous and should be force-fed abstinence.

But in this case, given the news comes from a Republican, we don't hear a peep. We of course don't hear sanctimonious lecturing from any Democrat, but even more predictably not a judgmental word has been leveled from the right. The silence is deafening. That's one thing we can always bank on, stupefying hypocrisy....

Go one further and imagine the wingnut-shout-universe if say Hillary (or Obama) were discovered to have fired an employee seemingly out of spite. We'd probably hear about just how god-awful wrong it was, such an abuse of power, something we certainly don't need for the next four years. Heck, much stink was made with Travelgate, which ultimately amounted to nothing but wasted tax payer money on several investigations into the matter.

Here with Palin and Monegan, we have Newt Gingrich calmly looking to downplay the potential scandal, believing she simply "exercised bad judgment" and that it's "not a deeply damaging problem."

Keep moving, nothing to see, just keep strolling right along on your lovely Labor Day....

I've been away, hardly had access to internet. Many thoughts have come to mind over the last few days, I'll just list them below.

I've heard some people grouse, "Why do we bother rebuilding New Orleans? Why do people continue to insist on living there? It's a repeat disaster zone." I wish some would wake up and realize that New Orleans has been hit with hurricanes in the past, over many decades, and yet in just the past few years has the city suffered such devastating damage and fallout. Hmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with climate change? As a result of global warming, ocean temperature and currents are changing, contributing to the increase in violent hurricanes. But I suppose it's better just to focus on and judge the people, the victims, as opposed to soberly explore root causes.

So McCain met with Palin just twice before selecting her, hardly knowing her at all. Imagine the right-wing screech machine if Obama had made the same type of pick, one so obviously political, one where he barely knew the person he chose. They'd have a field day, and justifiably so. Given the circumstances, it's quite transparent to me that the VP was going to be Romney until McCain screwed up with the number-of-houses question. After that debacle, he could no longer confirm his elite status (folks, he's rich and no common man!) by selecting as VP a fellow elite. All those plans quickly went down the toilet, the campaign likely went into panic-mode to come up with a palpable #2, frantically spinning, trying to piece together something that resembled a credible story. Palin is the by-product of this rushed mash-up. And this is an example of McCain's judgment? Do we want four more years of this kind of decision making? As Obama said on Thursday, haven't we had enough?

In comparison, Dan Quayle now looks like a seasoned pro at the time he was chosen.

Like Palin, Cindy McCain was a former beauty queen. To what extent is this just a coincidence? What are the odds that a presidential candidate would have a former beauty queen as a wife AND as a VP? Did Cindy play a large influence in identifying and urging her husband to pick Palin? Stranger questions can be asked.

In announcing Palin as his VP, McCain stated as one of her qualifications that she's a "devoted wife and mother of five" kids. Oh, I see, so based on this litmus test there are millions upon millions of women in America that were quite close to qualifying as VP material....

Whereas GW exhibited naked cronyism during his reign, it appears as if McCain is going with naked political opportunism. Bush desired a bunch of "yes" men around him and rewarded anyone and everyone who expressed loyalty towards his inept administration. McCain appears to be much less reliant on yes-type folks (because given his temperament, he's likely to do what he alone believes anyway, regardless of what anyone else thinks) but instead will select stock players to satisfy roles that will help him advance. With Palin, he's cynically appeasing the hard-right base and lofting a symbolic fig leaf to any disenchanted Hillary voter at the margin that he believes he can lasso or frankly hoodwink.

Sarah Palin reminds me of former SNL Ana Gasteyer's character, Bobbi Moughan-Culp. Same manner of speaking, etc.

Haven't had a chance to update till now but Bill Clinton's speech at the convention was classic, near perfect in content, delivery and tone. He of course is no stranger to delivering excellent speeches, but this one was a testament to the fact that he's only become better at it through the years. They'll be studying this speech for many years to come, thankfully. It made me wish we didn't have a two-term limit for presidents (I've wished this for many years prior to this speech, but his performance Weds. night truly drove this home).

Obama's speech was needless to say terrific. It's been justifiably praised by most pundits so I won't spend much time on it. He hit McCain hard but respectfully. Let's see if McCain does the same this coming week (don't hold your breath).

As for Palin, when I first heard the news I thought it was Michael Palin from Monty Python (Michael would've been a better choice). McCain's campaign has certainly become a pathetic comedy act; even many conservatives can no longer take this charade seriously. He attacks Obama for lack of experience and then chooses a VP that has just a little over one year's on-the-job training as Alaska's governor. This from the oldest person to run for president, where you think he'd responsibily look to select a second-in-charge that was very experienced, ready to step in and run the country. But no, he chose instead to go with the Daddy-Daughter ticket -- scary, revealing, and a bit creepy if you ask me.

We need to hear more pithy zings like this one:

"McCain likes to call himself a 'maverick,' but he votes with George W. Bush more than 90% of the time. That's not a maverick; that's a sidekick." -- Sen. Bob Casey

Tonight Hillary did what she needed to do and was expected to do. She gave a strongly delivered speech in which she tried to convince her supporters to drop the bitterness, get over the resentment, and do the right thing.

Enough is enough already, so remaining angry Hillary advocates: please take a cold shower, look in the mirror and ask yourself, "come November will I really not vote at all, or worse vote for McCain?" Really?

Hillary's key passage in the speech:

Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

She pleads with her people to stop thinking of and treating her as if she's some kind of deity or cult leader. She politely requests that they wake up and get over it, that this election is not about personalities but rather the fate of our country. It's much more important than some media-enabled ego war.

In fact, Hilzoy touches on this writing from Denver:

I've been wandering around having random conversations, and by pure chance, all the delegates I've talked to have been Clinton delegates. I have asked all of them whether they will have any problem voting for Obama, or are in any way aware of any of the disunity I see so much about on CNN. In every case the answer is not just 'no', but something closer to 'are you crazy?' The first Clinton delegate I talked to said: "For heaven's sakes, we're Democrats." The second said: "I'm sure some Clinton supporters, somewhere, won't support Obama, but everyone who thinks will." I cannot pretend that the delegates I've talked to are in any way representative, but for what it's worth, they have all reacted to the idea of not supporting Obama by looking at me as though I had come from Mars.

It's very much believable that the supposed deep ill-will Hillary supporters have towards Obama is really not that deep at all. The media lives for stoking and fanning the flames of crap like this, and needless to say the right is doing their job to inflate this supposed schism into pro wrestling type proportions.

Is it completely fabricated? Of course not. Yes, there will be some who remain beyond appealing to, but as Hilzoy makes clear most are not going to let this disappointment adversely affect their ability to reason and think clearly. And to believe otherwise is to insulte the intelligence of the average Hillary supporter, i.e. some hurt feelings = they'll throw their vote away. C'mon.

McCain's inability to remember how many homes he owns is a HUGE gaffe, mainly for the following reason:

[W]ith one little remark, he has made it impossible for Republicans to run their usual storyline about their candidate as an everyday guy in touch with ordinary people, and the Democratic candidate as a scary elitist who lives on latte and arugula.

This utterance may or may not go away but regardless it's looming effect is to take this go-to GOP tactic off the table for this election year -- a first in a long, long time. You could just hear the hired-on Karl Rove types in the campaign slamming their fists down and snickering profanity when McCain let loose this screw-up. It's as if they're now forced to drive while blindfolded; to think, the actual issues may now come to fore -- heavens!

And we have of all entities the right-wing leaning Politico.com to thank for this gift?! All the more reason it's astonishing.

Also, Jonathan Cohn is correct, this gaffe very likely sunk Romney's chance of being VP. What a shame.

Like with so many other for-instances that have come up over the last eight years, just imagine if Bill Clinton were in office with the terrorist-watch-list system on the verge of collapse.... We'd never hear the end of it from the frantic right, as they'd justifiably howl about the incredible incompetence threatening our safety.

Just six in 10 adults believe McCain is a Bush clone? That's too low, it should be 8 in 10 minimum, and it should be Obama/Biden's goal to convince that other 40% that this is the case.

McCain's excessive use of "P.O.W." is beginning to take on the likeness of Rudy's constant reference to "9-11". Need I remind that it was Biden who very likely put the final nail in the coffin of that train wreck of a campaign with his clever and dead-on "a noun, a verb and 9-11" critique of Rudy. It's good to see Biden started his first day as VP with another memorable critique (McCain's "7 tables"). Hopefully this is the first of many to come from Joe because the fact is these stark sound bites work, and the very good ones are devastating.

Obama/Biden. Not bad. This ticket strikes me as one that will only appear better with time, over the next several weeks. There may be concerns at this moment based on what we know about Biden, such as foot-in-mouth tendency and he loves the spotlight, but the good chemistry between he and Obama is very palpable, and Biden is no dummy and will quickly learn to modify his behavior to better fit the role of VP.

The zealous right may look to jump on Biden for his supposed plagiarism incident in 1987. Then it was laughable and today it should be considered that much more a ludicrous accusation. There's nothing to it, much as there was never anything to the Al Gore-invents-internet nonsense.

However, there is very much something to McCain's latest fetish for telling a POW story that to many people appears to have been "lifted" from the recently deceased Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Yes, McCain has been retelling a story ("Cross in the Dirt") that Solzhenitsyn wrote more than 30 years ago. McCain had never recounted this story in his biography and actually only started to tell it a few years ago concerning another POW, not McCain himself. It's only in the past year or so that McCain twisted it further to have it apply to himself. So the story has been plagiarized and over time McCain has changed the focus of the "borrowed" story to himself. And he's criticizing Obama's judgment?

Many months ago, McCain decided to flush his integrity and self-respect down the toilet. He embraced the Rovian tactics that were used against him in 2000, tactics that he harshly criticized then and with good reason. But as with Ralph Nader, who's done a wonderful job at soiling his once admirable reputation, McCain has managed to do even more damage to his own historical standing. To paraphrase that well-known saying, for some men the lure of power corrupts, absolutely.

Recall the countless times when Republicans have cried states' rights and new federalism as a solution to divisive political issues. Forget government at the federal level, let each state decide what's best for their electorate.

But if it has to do with pollution and clean air, well, suddenly the federal government is not so bad:

A federal appeals court yesterday struck down a Bush administration rule that prevented states and local governments from imposing stricter monitoring of pollution generated by power plants, factories and oil refineries than required by the federal government.

State, federal, whatever -- the GOP goes with whichever most favors big business on any given issue. Health and longevity be damned.

Radioactive GW

William Pesek at Bloomberg.com writes:

There's an underappreciated common denominator among embattled leaders in Asia: George W. Bush.

For leaders wondering why they lost popular support, there's plenty of blame to go around. In some cases, it was a sluggish economy. In others, it was scandals or corruption. Inept handling of everything from poverty reduction to dodgy infrastructure to climate change may have fanned discontent.

Yet leaders in nations such as Australia, India, Japan, Pakistan and South Korea also are learning of the perils of cozying up an unpopular U.S. president. They've lost elections, resigned or have high disapproval ratings at least partly because of close ties to Washington.

Pesek forgot one -- perhaps the best known of the lot: Tony Blair. If Blair didn't suck up to Bush as much as he did post-9/11, he would likely still be in power today. Let's see if Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili will be the next leader stung by this association.

The following is nice to read, encouraging, but also quite sad:

[A] recent poll conducted by Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger showed...[w]hen they tested Democratic and Republican messages without identifying which party they came from, "the Democratic message consistently won out over the GOP message by 11 to 25 points." This was true even among Republican voters, who preferred the Democratic message on every issue but Iraq. It was only when the messages were identified by party that the Republicans won back their voters. On taxes, for instance, Republicans opted for the Democratic message over the Republican message, 52 percent to 38 percent. When the very same messages were identified by party, however, Republican votes favored the GOP message, 65 percent to 27 percent. The GOP's brand isn't in crisis -- it's the only thing keeping them alive.

I've seen this type of result in other polls, where the majority of respondents align with the issues favored by Democrats over that of Republicans. I assume in those polls they're simply asking questions about the issues and avoiding this concept of branding. So when people objectively weigh in on issues and do so with no hint of partisan taint, they consider themselves Dems by a landslide. However, when allowing for party labels to enter the picture, the sheep bow their heads and meekly shuffle over to their "correct" group.

It's much like the blind taste test, and it's why so many consumer product companies spend millions upon millions of dollars every year trying to convince us that their brands are the best. Perfect example: bottled water. In test after test, tap water either wins out or is near tops when pitted against expensive bottled water.

But then people still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, that he had WMD, that he was in cahoots with al Qaeda. What can you do? People are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter the facts, and frankly many people are gullible and naive. It also gets back to Thomas Frank's premise in What's The Matter with Kansas?

Do people have to be this robotic and brainwashed? What's the solution(s)?

Many evangelical Christians are straying from the flock -- the flock being the GOP. It's about time they woke up and realized that they were used as convenient pawns by Rove/Bush.

With Bush's statements about Russia regarding Georgia, he's neck-deep in irony and most likely has not a clue being so:

With its actions in recent days Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.

And invading Iraq of course had none of these things (damaging credibility in free world, bullying, intimidation used to conduct foreign policy)....

Get ready to witness GW/Cheney's reckless actions over the last few years hoisted back in our faces with provocative, ambitious actions like Russia's move into Georgia. It's OK for us, not OK for them.

The latest Obama ad is pretty effective, targeted at swing-state Ohio and basically the entire working class. Obama's people should continue to highlight McCain's deep relationships with lobbyists, putting to rest the mythology that McCain is an outside-the-beltway maverick who will bring about dramatic change.

And for what it's worth, over at Google Trends, by a ratio in excess of 2 to 1 Obama continues to lead McCain in the number or volume of web searches conducted in the U.S., and this ratio remains the same for key states like Ohio and Florida. The aging Straight Talker just can't seem to drum up any interest -- at least not with Americans who own a computer. Has to be that dastardly liberal media at work....

UPDATE: Please email this ad to friends, family, enemies, etc. It drives home the crucial link between McCain and Bush ("McBush").

I'm just now reading the piece in The New Yorker profiling Keith Olbermann. It's a pretty good read but I get to this sentence and pause: "Olbermann’s success, like O’Reilly’s, is evidence of viewer cocooning—the inclination to seek out programming that reinforces one’s own firmly held political views."

I'm willing to concede that most viewers watching Olbermann most likely agree with the partisan slant of his show, fine, got that, but when will the media stop trying to symetrically compare a Bill O'Reilly with a Keith Olbermann? I watch Olbermann not just because he's a welcome relief from the overt, extreme right-wing slant of Fox (and yet they're "fair and balanced"), but more so because I believe truth and reality is being reported and conveyed on his program. That is a HUGE difference between these two on-air personalities, something that goes far beyond partisan stripes and so-called "cocooning." If I began to even remotely sense that Keith was distorting things here and twisting things there to better get his message across, I would be gone in a heartbeat. Needless to say, O'Reilly does just that, fabricating and distorting on a nightly basis, AND he's called out on it BUT his audience doesn't seem to care.

That's the big difference, I believe, between Keith viewers and O'Reilly viewers. Yes, Keith viewers are going to want a liberal slant to the program content BUT they're also going to expect and demand that whatever is stated on the program is as accurate and truthful as possible, and frankly Olbermann does a pretty darn good job on this front. O'Reilly violates the accuracy and truthful litmus test regularly and yet his audience doesn't seem to care a wit; as long as the warm and comfortable "cocooning" is occurring, they're happy as a clam -- facts be damned.

Regarding Bush, Georgia and Russia, interesting. Very interesting. Me thinks this entire issue is more complicated and nuanced than people might first believe....

Here's a shocker: Mukasey will not seek to prosecute anyone involved in the improper Justice Dept. hirings.

I've felt this entire scandal has never received the media coverage it deserved. Granted, Bush is a lame duck president on the way out, but that doesn't excuse the media from their duty and responsibility to report on substantive news, esp. if it relates to the desecration of a branch of government.

Imagine if this scandal broke with Clinton in office. The screeching right would be rioting in the streets, demanding that Clinton step down from office -- regardless if he had just a few months to go.

Where's the equivalent outrage with GW? Is it Bush fatigue? Very likely -- so many scandals and wrongs that we've become numb to just another revelation of stench.

Like Daddy, Like Son

Did GW manage to embolden Georgian President Saakashvili to the point where he felt he could make a move on South Ossetia and have the backing of the U.S.? After all, in 2005 Bush said to the Georgians that "the American people will stand with you." Many Georgians have been quoted over the last few days perplexed as to when the American forces would arrive to help.

Dimitri Simes, founding president of the Nixon Center in Washington, said, "It is not a happy situation, and we did not have to have this situation, and I think the (Bush) administration has considerable responsibility for that....Saakashvili was discouraged from attacking Russian troops in South Ossetia but he clearly never was told point blank 'If you do it, you are on your own...'" Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations said, "I think in many respects Saakashvili got too close to the United States and the United States got too close to Saakashvili....It made him overreach, it made him feel at the end of the day that the West would come to his assistance if he got into trouble."

Does this sound familiar? Recall when George H.W. Bush did something similar with the Iraqis in 1991. Bush Senior encouraged Iraqis to rise up and fight back against Saddam, with the inference that the U.S. military would be there to provide the needed support. The people did rise up and fight -- but they were eventually slaughtered when Bush decided he would not support their efforts.

The Bush (both) legacy is all about building up expectations only to disappoint, immensely, and often with grave consequences. To them promises were made to be broken.

If you follow polls, then they would have you believe that a majority of Americans favor offshore drilling for oil. Not so fast.

David Moore, a former Vice President of the Gallup Organization and Managing Editor of the Gallup Poll, has been guest blogging on Kevin Drum's terrific blog and he has written that the true story about offshore drilling's popularity is more complicated than that. Depending on the questions asked and if several approaches to the energy problem are offered, the results can vary. If the poll includes choices such as conservation and alternative energy, then offshore drilling falls dramatically in popularity.

What I want to know is why haven't Reid/Pelosi/Obama made this point publicly? Why have they allowed McCain and the Republicans to have us believe that most of us indeed favor offshore drilling, when in fact we do not once given the additional choices of conservation and alternative energy?

Do they wish to lose another close election? The messages need to come fast and furious, and often.

Zillow.com is out with a survey finding that:

62% of U.S. Homeowners believe their home’s value has increased or stayed the same in the past year. In reality, 77% of U.S. homes have declined in value over the past 12 months.

To a large extent, this simply confirms that humans will be humans, as when most people say they're above-average (then who is average?). But it's also a statement about the times we're in and just how much people have come to expect homes to never depreciate. Time to wake up folks, the game has changed.

With Ron Suskind's latest book, which drops the bombshell that the White House gave instructions to the CIA to forge a document to make it look like Iraq and al Qaeda were connected, the administration has done its usual trash-and-dash defense. They try to undermine the credibility of Pulitzer Prize winner Suskind just like they've tried to do in the past with Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh. I suppose we need to wait for the stellar, prize-winning folks over at Fox News to report these scandals for it to be believable....

As for hoping to get anyone to testify under oath about this plot, just one word -- HAH! That only occurs if you've had consensual oral sex from an intern, not if you've attempted to fabricate intelligence to make a better case to take the country to war. Don't be silly.

(Needless to say, the usual refrain applies here: Imagine if Ron Suskind's book came out with this revelation and Bill Clinton was in office.... The wingnuts would be screaming for him not just to resign but that he should be jailed for treason -- regardless if he had just a few months left in office. It would be a 24/7 crusade.)

Assuming Obama wins this November, I'm very interested to see how he decides to run things. The main reason being the influx of scare-mongering is staggering at this point, with many on the right outrightly describing him as a Marxist or a socialist, the viral mass emails spreading fears daily, and even Wal-Mart "warning" that he'll unionize companies.

If memory serves, before entering office Bill Clinton was likewise warned to be a horror, someone who would end the world as we know it... Meanwhile, GW entered office like a warm-and-fuzzy savior, with all that compassionate conservative BS and one who could reach across the aisle and be reasonable, pragmatic, honest and chock full of ethics.

Hmm, it would appear Obama has a darn good shot of being quite successful.

This from Dan Abrams show last week, another example of why the poll numbers for Congress are as low as GW's if not lower:

ABRAMS: What is the reluctance, if any, do you think on the part of the House to hold Rove in contempt?

REP. LINDA SANCHEZ, (D-CA) HOUSE JUDICIARY CMTE.: Well, you know, in talking with my colleagues, I‘m not sensing reluctance. The factual situation is the following—we have a very short amount of time left in the term in which to conclude a number of legislative projects. And the problem becomes one of, you know, what takes priority and, you know, what are they going to schedule in September.

And, you know, I understand that this is something that I would love to see move forward in September, but the reality is, there are a lot of competing projects that are of very huge importance to the American public and so, you know, in September, the speaker is going to make a decision.

ABRAMS: The bottom line, the bottom line—it sounds to me like bottom line is—you don‘t think anything is going to happen any time soon.

SANCHEZ: I don‘t know that for sure. We won‘t know until September when they assess what needs to take precedence in the House.

So it's not that the House is reluctant, mind you, to do the right thing when it comes to Karl Rove -- meaning to treat him as any of us would be treated and that is to swiftly hold him in contempt and arrest him if you must. But no, you see it's more a matter of scheduling priorities, with so many "projects" of "very huge importance to the American public" needing to get passed ASAP. So sorry, there's just not enough time to bring Karl Rove to justice -- not when there is offshore oil drilling to be debated!

While Bush II is clearly the worst president in history, this Congress cannot rank too highly either. Regarding the Dems, I can't recall a more gutless and overly calculating bunch of placating, pandering do-nothings.

Cheney is one crazy you-know-what. We're talking Dr. Strangelove nuts (which he would probably take as a compliment).

The question again needs to be asked, what liberal media?

A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which conservatives have always regarded as sympathetic, says the three broadcast networks have been more critical of Obama than of John McCain in their recent news coverage. Most of what the networks air is neutral, according to the study. But when reporters offer opinions, 72 percent of those about Obama are negative--compared to 57 percent for McCain.

McCain continues to get treated with kid-gloves by the media, despite what the right-wing scream machine attempts to have us believe. Incessant, baseless propaganda about the "leftist" media may actually cause their listeners and viewers to buy into this falsehood, but the facts argue otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time reality and truth worked against their talking points and it likely won't be the last.

Cindy McCain is on record stating her husband will stand for "none of this negative stuff, you won't see that come out of our side at all." Quite laughable. If anything, that's all that's been coming out of the McCain campaign -- negative, negative, and more negative.

But Jonathan Alter pretty much hits it on the head:

Look, this thing—it‘s really clear what‘s going on here. You got people in the “National Review,” for instance, a conservative magazine, telling John McCain, “If you don‘t turn into an attack dog and rip Barack Obama and try to depict to him as unpatriotic, you‘re going to lose.” So, this is what they urged him on the cover of that magazine. A lot of other Republican strategists are saying the same thing.

I happen to think they‘re wrong. I don‘t think that‘s the way for McCain to win, but clearly and his campaign has accepted that advice and they have decided that they have to kind of throw these desperation “Hail Mary” passes that are not going to help him, but it‘s like the ad they had last week that said that Obama created, was responsible for the high gas prices.

People don‘t believe these kinds of ads. They know this was a scheduling snafu. They know that there wasn‘t any horrible judgment here. The horrible judgment is, supporting a $1 trillion war with people like me and John McCain did at the time. That‘s bad judgment.

Yes, Alter and McCain got it wrong big-time concerning this catastrophically expensive war, Obama got it right. But with the Olympics coming up soon followed by the Dem convention, apparently McCain's camp has decided their best chance to smear Obama ala Swift Boat style has to come early and often. We're seeing that now. Hopefully Alter is right and "people don't believe these kinds of ads" but we know they've believed fabricated crap before so it may be naive thinking.

With Sen. Stevens in the news for alleged wrong-doing involving an oil company, it's interesting to recall that in 2005 when the oil executives faced the Senate, Stevens refused to have the executives swear in. Try as Sen. Cantwell might, Stevens adamantly resisted enforcing what is a routine formality at all hearings. It appears as if he was simply looking out for his generous buddies....

Meanwhile, many of his fellow Republicans are donating (tainted) money given to them by Stevens. But based on his recent quotes, Stevens remains optimistic about his chances in November -- and why not? As much as voters complain about wasteful federal pork spending, such "waste" is looked on in quite a different light when it comes home to them. Of course Stevens has long known this fact as he has brought home the pork in droves to bribe win over his constituents. Same principle applies with negative campaign ads, the public scorns it but unfortunately they work. Once again, we get what we deserve.

Pakistan appears to be showing its true colors:

American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

My favorite sentence in the story:

Some American officials have begun to suggest that Pakistan is no longer a fully reliable American partner and to advocate some unilateral American action against militants based in the tribal areas.

You think? Bush created this mess over his eight year reign and though he may be lame he still has a few months to go until exiting, so what does he plan to do about this? Nothing and leave it for the next guy?

The "war on terror" (Iraq) is gradually evolving into something much more complex and difficult to handle than it was a few years ago or even several months ago. The tentacles are spreading, other interested countries are working behind the scenes, it's getting beyond just a one-country issue. In this case, we see Pakistan use the "war" to perhaps settle a score with a longtime rival, India. Will other countries get increasingly involved to shape the flow of events to their advantage, or are they already involved? It may be a naive question but still one worth asking.