McCain please pick Mitt Romney as your VP. As a democrat I could not think of a more perfect choice for you (other than Jeb Bush). The contrast between the tickets could not get any more striking. Romney is the anti-Biden and so many levels: authenticity, experience, and likability.

McCain's new attack on Barack Obama is that he's dangerous for jobs, a job killing machine I believe is how he phrases it. The basic argument is that Obama is planning to raise taxes, which of course is a little distorted because Obama's tax plan will result in 95% of working Americans receiving more tax relief than the would under McCain's plan, but Obama's tax plan will result in a higher corporate tax rate, as well as closed "corporate tax loop holes". McCain uses these facts to argue that Obama's plan will have a detrimental impact on jobs and job creation (ignoring the fact that working Americans having no money is having a detrimental impact on job creation). McCain argues that his plan to cut corporate tax rates will stimulate job growth. While McCain's argument on face value sounds like it may have some validity, it seems like his claim is never seriously challenged or probed by the media.  The point that seems never to get raised, is that job creation is not merely a function of tax rates, and further taking a look at the entirety of McCain's economic plan it's not a given that it would have a positive effect on job growth, far from it.  

John McCain absolutely insists on having his cake and eating it too when it comes to the war in Iraq. He continues to make contradictory and conflicting statements, statements that not only conflict with his previous statements but also conflict with reality, about the war and he is never seriously challenged on it. When questioned, whatever explanation he gives is accepted and his feet aren't seriously held to the fire. I've yet to hear an independent media personality call John McCain out for being flat out wrong on some his Iraq statements. John McCain has never ever explained what he means by victory in Iraq. When given the chance to do so in a New York Times Op-Ed, in response to an Op-Ed Obama wrote, he declined. Yet despite never defining victory, McCain continues throw around the terms 'victory', 'success', 'failure', and 'losing'. Even worse he bends the meaning of those words to support whatever argument he is currently making, and he does this without being called on it by the mainstream media.

One of the GOP's newest talking points is that Obama is acting presumptuous. "How dare a presidential nominee act presidential!? Obama should act more like McCain who doesn't appear presidential at all." This is about the only criticism that they found to attack his overseas trip; Obama came across too much like a president. To further this new meme, they've decided that Obama's decision to begin working on his presidential transition process is also much too presumptuous and the McCain camp has begun to attack him for it. Paul C. Light, points out not only how ridiculous this argument is, in his article entitled McCain's Presidential Transition Gaffe, but explains how this is yet another example of how poor a campaign McCain is running, and how this foreshadows how bad an administration McCain is likely to run if he somehow gets into office.

A lot of attention has been devoted recently to McCain's gaffes. It seems weekly, a different surrogate is poking him in the back and quietly correcting him in his ear.  I'm not a huge fan of making a big deal over gaffes. Candidates have virtually every waking word recorded and much of the time they are speaking extemporaneously on a wide range of subjects. As such there are bound to be the occasional mistake, misstatement, or gaffe. However, sometimes a gaffe is not just a gaffe. And sometimes by dismissing statements as gaffes the media misses the larger story.

O'Reilly on his radio show today, in what can only be an attempt to make the Worst Person in World List AGAIN, calls Gore out for attending the Netroots Nation which he likened to attending a Klan Rally. Apparently Bill-O was pissed that Tony Snow's lies were mentioned in some of the diaries written after his death.

Take a listen:

As a mindless Friday diversion here are Letterman's top (er... bottom) 10 George W. Bush moments (in case you've forgotten how embarrasing he truly is).

I lifted my title from the first sentence in an article by Mayhill Fowler, the citizen "journalist" who brought us the 'bitter' and 'scumbag' "scoops". She reports on her experiences attending McCain townhall meetings, not surprisingly she finds them lacking.

John McCain had been vocal in calling for joint townhall debates with Obama, asking for one per week, starting the week Obama wrapped up the nomination and running until the election. McCain seemed to place great stock in standing before the American people, listening to them, and answering their questions. McCain has gone as far as to say:

"I believe the town hall meeting is the most important element of democracy"

Really Senator? More important than voting? More important than a free press? But I digress.

Given the importance McCain places on townhall meetings it's a disappointment, although not much of a surprise, to learn that they're basically a sham.

I could probably overlook Lieberman supporting the republican nominee. I could probably overlook his campaigning for the republican nominee. I could probably even overlook HONEST criticism of the democratic nominee. But what I cannot tolerate are LIE-berman outright lies about Barack Obama. Lieberman has shown time and time again that he has no qualms LYING to attack Obama and help John McCain's cause. This man needs to be kicked out of the democratic caucus. Take a look at his latest remarks.

I wish [Obama] would acknowledge the surge is working, rather than changing his position on how and when we should exit Iraq, without acknowledging that these are changes of positions that are understandably based on conditions on the ground. A president's credibility is based on the courage of his or her convictions, his or her acceptance of reality, and consistency of views are critical elements of national leadership. A president who squanders those does so at our nation's peril."

Obama has NOT changed his position on Iraq and just finished giving a seech demonstrating his understanding and acceptance of reality but Lieberman ignores all that in favor of a few rightwing talking points.

You can rest assured that anytime anyone brings up Phil Gramm's remarks, "We have sort of become a nation of whiners", republicans are going to counter with, "Yeah, well Obama said Americans are bitter". They'll pull out that response expecting it to end the argument as if the two statements are the same. They'll even argue that Obama's comments were worse because they came from the candidate himself, whereas Gramm's comments came from a surrogate and McCain (eventually) distanced himself from them. I just heard a republican strategist do just that on CNN. The democratic strategist while raising some other good points, missed the ball on pointing out the complete fallacy of this argument. I'll outline why the equating of "bitter" and "whiners" makes no sense for republicans and can actually be a winning argument for democrats which underscores the difference in Obama's and McCain's economic agenda.

Note the emphasis in my title. This is not a 'WHY did Obama support FISA diary', it's a 'Why DID Obama support FISA diary'. I am really curious, why did Obama vote for the FISA bill?  I am not the expert on FISA that some of you here are, but many people who's opinions I have grown to respect and who aren't prone to exaggerating are calling the FISA bill a travesty and calling its passing a dark day in the history of this country. If the bill is really that terrible (and I'm not trying to argue that it's not) it's puzzling that Obama would support it. It's obvious that he did, but the question is why? Unless I've grossly misjudged the man, my guess is that he respects the constitution. Obama being a logical guy must have had a reason (maybe not a good one, but a reason, nonetheless) to support the bill despite its flaws. My baseless speculation is after the jump.

Yesterday John McCain went on CNN to talk about his economic policies with John Roberts. John McCain seemed to be expecting an open platform to spout his talking points unchallenged, but to his credit, Roberts came armed with facts, which he presented to McCain. When faced with said facts, McCain ducked, dodged, ignored, and all but chastised Roberts for arguing with him. McCain's only rebuttal was to refer to the many Nobel Laureats economists who had endorsed him. Of course we now know that is a giant fraud. If you haven't already seen it, take a second to watch this video. It is must see viewing and brings to mind the old saying which I'll paraphrase, "it's better to keep to your mouth shut and be thought to not understand the economy, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

At least according to him.  Dan Abrams uncovered a clip of McCain saying just that. You can watch the whole segment here (and you really should). It's a great clip in which Dan Abrams and Jonathan Alter completely undress Lars Larson for his ridiculous Michelle Obama smears, and unmask him as a hypocritical fool. Here's the shortened version of just John McCain's statements.

hat tip xhibi

My thoughts after the jump.

Obama held a foreign policy summit today with his Senior Working Group on National Security to discuss the immense challenges faced by the United States in the wake of the George Bush's disastrous foreign policies (those would be the policies that McCain wants to continue). I'm not sure what was said in the meeting but whatever it was seems to have Obama fired up and feeling more confident than ever that foreign policy is going to a strength in the general election.  The speech he gave after his meeting revealed that he's not going to shy away from foreign policy discussions with McCain.  In fact the underlying sentiment of his speech seemed to be telling McCain to "bring it." Watch.

My thoughts after the jump.

I just finished reading a fantastic article in The New Republic from which I stole the title for this diary, 3 A.M. For Feminism written by Michelle Goldberg. As a man, I had been somewhat perplexed at the strong emotion from Hillary supporters, largely middle-aged (and older) white women, which revealed itself in strongly anti-Obama rhetoric. How could women who supported a candidate who stood for equality, healthcare, and working people vow adamantly to vote of McCain in the general? However as an African-American I understood how some comments can have a certain dog whistle effect, and so I wanted someone to better explain their point of view. I found this article very informative in explaining the connection between women and Hillary while being fairly objective. I suggest you read the whole thing, but I included some snippets and my commentary after the jump

I was open to the idea of Hillary being the VP, I really was.  I am not a hardened anti-Clinton hater. I have always respected her intelligence and tenacity, and was willing to support her in the general election should she have acquired the necessary delegates to be the nominee. Even throughout her campaigning when a few of her tactics and statements rubbed me the wrong way, I dismissed that as just politics, not the politics I like to see, but nothing really beyond the pale. And so while she wouldn't have been my first choice, I was open to her being selected VP, until I heard her speech last night.

Yesterday news of Scott McClellan's new memoir, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception", made the rounds on all the networks.  There was wide-spread surprise that a former Bush loyalist would be so critical of the administration that he once served. Among his charges, were that Bush used "political propaganda campaign" instead of the truth to sell the Iraq war. Bush made "a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed". Bush managed the Iraq issue in a fashion that "almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option." And that Bush relied upon "manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage".

Lost in the backlash against Obama for the media's... um... sexist? treatment of Hillary, is an examination of the other general election candidate John McCain on women's issues.  Commonly mentioned are his judicial appointments

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "would serve as the model for my own nominees,"

There was his opposition to the Fair Pay Act:

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation... opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems."

His solution?

"They need the education and training"

And of course there's his public berating of his wife.

Today's L.A. Times raises another issue, John McCain's stance relating to women's combat roles.