ABC's Cokie Roberts criticizes Obama for vacationing in "exotic" Hawaii

On the August 10 edition of ABC News' This Week, ABC News political analyst Cokie Roberts criticized Sen. Barack Obama for taking a vacation this week to "foreign, exotic" Hawaii. Apparently Cokie couldn't figure out why Obama would go to Hawaii, other than admitting that Hawaii was a state, Obama was born in Hawaii, and Obama's grandmother lives there--it "does not make any sense whatsoever." Media Matters has the story, and YouTube has the video:



What is more, Cokie repeated her criticism of Obama vacationing in "foreign, exotic" Hawaii on NPR's Morning Edition today. From Media Matters:



Of course, Cokie then recommends that Obama should try vacationing at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I guess real Americans vacation at Myrtle Beach.

I'm just wondering how many brain cells are left in Cokie's head after saying something this stupid--twice! What is worst is that Cokie admits that Obama was born in Hawaii, that his grandmother still lives in Hawaii, and she still questions why Obama should take a week's vacation to Hawaii. Hawaii is the 50th state in the Union. It is a major tourism state, with 580,862 visitors in June, and an estimated 7.2 million visiting Hawaii for 2008. I should also say that Americans have certainly shed blood in Hawaii--remember Pearl Harbor? Does any of this register into Cokie's brain?

Maybe there is more here to this story. I found this June 16, 2008 Media Matters story, where MSNBC's conservative columnist Patrick Buchanan called Barack Obama "exotic." From Media Matters:



And here is the transcript:

From the June 12 edition of MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams:

ABRAMS: Pat, should John McCain have come out and been more aggressive in saying, look, I -- he was the one who was saying before, "We're not going to go negative," et cetera. And now he's saying, "Well, you know, what do you want me to do? I can't control everything." I mean, he is backing off a little bit, isn't he?

BUCHANAN: Sure. Well, Dan, I've told you all along, the only way the Republicans can win this when the whole country wants to throw the Republicans out, is raise questions, raise doubts about the alternative -- just like the Democrats did with Reagan in 1980. And they're going to do it. And they're going to use his associations. And they're going to use his statements, his elitism. They're going to use the fact he's exotic. I mean, that's what's going to happen. And McCain --

Buchanan's statement that the Republicans will use this "fact" that Obama is "exotic" almost comes close to a racist statement. Exotic is defined as "of foreign origin or character; not native." When I think of exotic locations, I think of Tahiti, or countries in Africa (Kenya?), China, Japan, and other Southeast Asian countries. These are places where the native people are of a different ethnicities, different languages, and different cultures. What is more, the native people in these exotic locations would probably also have a different skin color. In other words, "exotic" may have become another code word for racism against Obama, that the Republican Party is using. Of course, Buchanan denies that exotic is a code word for black, saying it is a code word for an outsider. But consider that Barack Obama is running as the first credible African-American candidate for president--It will be either Obama or John McCain that will take the White House. The previous 43 presidents who have held the Oval Office have been white. That may be just too much for the right-wing radicals, or even southern conservatives, to have an African-American as president. McCain's unofficial political adviser, Karl Rove, and the Rovian team that is running McCain's campaign, certainly know this and have been painting Obama as an outsider, someone who is not really American enough. What is a better term to use to convey that Obama is such an outsider and un-American, than to call Obama an "exotic?" Finally, we have the supposed mainstream media talking pundits like Pat Buchanan and Cokie Roberts that are more than happy to regurgitate this GOP crap.

Expect to see even more dirty and racist code words coming from the Republicans as the election heats up.

McCain lobbyist attacks Obama, while failing to disclose lobbying ties to Georgia

There is just so much more on this story of McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann's lobbying ties with the Georgian government, and the McCain hard-lined stance against Russia over the widening Russia-Georgia war.

First, McClatchy News gives some numbers on how much the nation of Georgia gave to Scheunemann's lobbying firm:

WASHINGTON — John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randall Scheunemann, lobbied for the nation of Georgia for four years, including for about a year after he joined the Republican senator's presidential campaign staff in early 2007.

Georgia has paid Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies, LLC, nearly $900,000 since 2004, including $200,000 for an eight-month contract that began on May 1, two weeks after McCain issued a strong statement criticizing Russia and supporting Georgia.

Scheunemann took a leave from lobbying for Orion in March, two months before McCain barred active lobbyists from serving on his staff. He's still listed as Orion's president and owner.

[....]

On April 17 of this year, McCain issued a stern statement assailing "Russia's moves to undermine Georgian sovereignty." Two weeks later, Georgia gave Orion a $200,000 contract extension.

So, Orion Strategies was paid $900,000 for contract work with the Georgian government. And I certainly find it especially interesting that Georgia paid Orion another $200,000 after McCain issued his stern statement assailing "Russia's moves to undermine Georgian sovereignty" on April 17 of this year. Now that the McCain campaign has issued what amounts to be an ultimatum against Russia in this Russian-Georgia war, how much is Georgia going to pay Scheunemann and his lobbying firm Orion Strategies?

I should also note that this McClatchy story was posted on Barack Obama's community blogsite.

This brings up a second interesting detail. When this Politico.com story on Scheunemann's lobbying ties to Georgia was published, Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan noted the "appearance of a conflict of interest" between the McCain campaign's response to the Russian-Georgia conflict, and Scheunemann's ties to the Georgian government. "John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser lobbied for, and has a vested interest in, the Republic of Georgia and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government," Sevugan said. This certainly prompted an immediate McCain campaign response. Scheunemann responded in the same Politico.com story, saying:

John McCain’s top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain’s direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here,” he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia’s move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia.”

He also criticized Obama for calling on both sides to show “restraint,” and suggested the Democrat was putting too much blame on the conflict’s clear victim.

“That's kind of like saying after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, that Kuwait and Iraq need to show restraint, or like saying in 1968 [when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia] ... that the Czechoslovaks should show restraint,” he said.

It is interesting to note that Scheunemann never disclosed to the Politico.com that he was a lobbyist to the Georgian government, even as he attacks Obama for showing "restraint" during the conflict. Scheunemann conveniently ignores the fact that the Bush administration also showed "restraint" during this conflict by calling for U.S. and EU allies to launch an international mediation, and to send a U.S. envoy to the region in order to reinstate a dialog between both parties. In the Politico.com story, Scheunemann "dismissed the criticism, saying he severed his ties to his firm and to his client on March 1...."

But now we come to this latest McCain response to Scheunemann's lobbying ties to the Georgian government. Again, the McCain campaign considers this an Obama attack against Scheunemann. From Talking Points Memo:

The McCain campaign is pushing back at press reports noting that his top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheuenemann has until recently worked as a lobbyist for the Georgian government, and is still a principal at his lobbying firm -- thus rendering the candidate's pronouncements on Russia's invasion of Georgia as arguably suspect.

The campaign's new line: The criticism of this apparent conflict of interest is proof that Barack Obama's campaign is "bizarrely in sync with Moscow."

Check out this statement released today by the McCain campaign:

"The Obama campaign's attacks on Randy Scheunemann are disgraceful. Mr. Scheunemann proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region. Today, many are dead and Georgia is in crisis, yet the Obama campaign has offered nothing more than cheap and petty political attacks that are echoed only by the Kremlin. The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Senator Obama's judgment--it answers them."

The Politico.com reports that the statement was issued by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

This is just a strange McCain attack--almost flailing. If I understand it correctly, McCain is claiming that the Obama campaign "is in sync with Moscow" over the Russian-Georgia conflict because the Obama campaign raised the "appearance of a conflict of interest" between Scheunemann's lobbying ties with the Georgian government and the McCain campaign's hard-lined response to the crisis. And since the Obama campaign criticized Scheunemann's lobbying ties with the Georgian government, then the Obama campaign must be aligned with Russia, even though Obama has condemned the violence in the South Ossetia region, and has asked for Russia and Georgia to return to the negotiating table. The McCain campaign even goes as far as blaming Obama for the "many are dead" in this conflict because Obama is attacking Scheunemann, who "proudly represented a small democracy that is one of our closest allies in a very dangerous region" through his lobbying efforts. So Obama is the evil guy that killed many Georgians in this Russian-Georgian war, while Scheunemann is the American patriot for lobbying on Georgia's behalf. The illogical negativity of this latest McCain attack is just incredible. The only "cheap and petty political attacks" that are taking place here are by the McCain campaign in smearing the Obama campaign as to taking orders from the Russian government, and killing Georgian citizens in this war.

Again, the problem with the McCain campaign is that the lobbyists, again, were caught running the campaign. McCain's initial hard-lined approach against Russia in this crisis coincides with the revelations of Scheunemann's lobbying ties with Georgia as this crisis unfolds. The McCain hard-lined response against Russia is also a pro-Georgia response to this crisis. And with the press reports revealing Scheunemann's lobbying ties with Georgia, the McCain campaign does not have an adequate response to this conflict of interest between Scheunemann's lobbying ties and the McCain campaign's political response to the crisis. So we get this bizarre attack by the McCain campaign attacking Barack Obama for revealing Scheunemann's lobbying ties as an attack that is "in sync with Moscow," even though Obama has nothing to do with Scheunemann's lobbying ties.

The only thing that John McCain has left in his campaign is his negativity. And he will drag this country through the gutter if it will give him the White House.

McCain lobbyist connected with Republic of Georgia, as fighting in Georgia and Russia near all-out war

Two days ago, fighting broke out between Russia and the Republic of Georgia over control of the South Ossetia region of Georgia. The South Ossetia region is a part of Georgia where Russian separatists have been trying to regain their own autonomy from the Georgian government. Russia has been backing the separatists. The South Ossetia region had enjoyed a de facto autonomy from Georgia since the early 1990s until Georgia launched a military attack, Friday, to regain control of the South Ossetia from the separatists. Russian airplanes and tanks rolled into Georgia to back the separatists. Now the entire region could break out into an all-out war between Russia and Georgia. President Bush is "deeply concerned" about the fighting in Georgia and has urged "an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops." The Bush administration is working with European allies "to launch international mediation, and working with all sides in the conflict to restart their dialogue...." Secretary of State Condi Rice is making plans to send a U.S. envoy to the region. In short, the Bush administration is trying to find some diplomatic means to end this war and bring Russia and Georgia to the negotiating table.

Now the situation in South Ossetia is complex with neither party showing any inclination to back down. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a statement condemning the violence, and urging "an immediate end" to the conflict. Obama also called for direct talks from all sides, and said that the U.S., the U.N. Security Council and other parties should help bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The Obama campaign is pretty much reiterating the same statement that the Bush administration gave, calling for both the end of the war between Russia and Georgia, and for both nations to begin negotiations. There really isn't much the U.S. can do here regarding this conflict, without angering either Georgia, who is a staunch U.S. ally, or Russia, who is a major nuclear power.

But now let us look at how the McCain campaign responded to the conflict. Here is the press statement John McCain's own website:

Today news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally-recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory. What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave.

The government of Georgia has called for a cease-fire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course. The US should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course it has chosen. We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation. Finally, the international community needs to establish a truly independent and neutral peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

What especially bothers me here is the McCain campaign's confrontational stance against Russia in this conflict. McCain demands that Russia "immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory." He demands that the U.S. should work with the European Union and The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to put diplomatic pressure on Russia, even going to the point of sending NATO troops into Georgia for peacekeeping. Georgia is not a member of NATO, but rather a partner in the organization. Russia is also a partner of NATO.

The McCain campaign has taken a hard-lined statement against Russia, both in its press release and in demanding punishment against Russia for entering into this war. According to The Los Angeles Times:

In a briefing with reporters, McCain responded to the Russian military incursion into the Georgian republic of South Ossetia by reiterating his call for Russia to be expelled from the Group of 8 leading industrialized nations. "Russia should not be in the G-8. And, by the way, continued Russian behavior . . . indicates that Russia is moving further and further from the principles and values and ideals of the G-8."

So because of Russia's incursion into Georgia over this war, McCain is demanding that Russia should be kicked out of the G-8 summit, a position McCain has reiterated before. And remember that McCain also wants to send NATO forces into Georgia--something that Russia will never allow. The big question to ask here is why is the McCain campaign taking this hard-lined stance against Russia.

The answer is lobbyists--or more specifically, McCain's top foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann served as a lobbyist for the Georgian government. According to ABC News:

Now, comes news that the Russian military has crossed a border into Georgia. "Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory," McCain said. "What is most critical now is to avoid further confrontation between Russian and Georgian military forces. The consequences for Euro-Atlantic stability and security are grave."

You may already know that McCain foreign policy director Randy Scheunemann represented the former Soviet republic of Georgia as a lobbyist between 2004 and 2006. (His lobbyist disclosure information can be accessed HERE, HERE, and HERE.

As of March 2008, Scheunemann no longer works as a lobbyist for foreign entities, but he remains a principal at his lobbying firm, which still has Georgia as a client.

This is just disturbing. What we have here is a lobbyist dictating the McCain campaign's response to a crisis situation between Russia and Georgia, where one of the combatants was a client to the lobbyist. And Georgia paid handsomely for Scheunemann's work. According to Salon.com:

Until early this year, Scheunemann was simultaneously working for the McCain campaign and as a lobbyist for a shifting menu of Eastern European and former Soviet Bloc countries with NATO aspirations. Some, including Georgia, have chilly relations with Russia. At various times from 2001 through early this year, Georgia, Latvia, Romania and Macedonia paid Scheunemann and his partner, Mike Mitchell, more than $2 million. Much of Scheunemann's work focused on paving the way into the NATO fold. Two of Scheunemann's clients, Latvia and Romania, were admitted to full NATO member status in 2004, after which they ceased paying him.

What is even more disturbing is that Scheunemann has been involved with the McCain campaign between 2001 and 2008. Lobbying disclosure records show that Scheunemann's two-person company, Orion Strategies, made dozens of phone calls and meetings with McCain between 2001 and 2008. Regular contributions to McCain's campaign and political action committee were provided by Scheunemann at that time. In 2006, McCain co-sponsored legislation in the Senate endorsing an expansion of NATO which included Georgia, Macedonia, Albania and Croatia. The legislation passed the Senate. Late in 2007, McCain wrote a national security treatise in Foreign Affairs, warning of Russian efforts to "bully democratic neighbors, such as Georgia, and attempts to manipulate European dependence on Russian oil and gas." And Scheunemann was still on Georgia's payroll at that time.

So what we now have is the question of whether the McCain campaign's hard-line policy against Russia came from McCain himself, or from Scheunemann's lobbying ties with Georgia. According to Salon.com, McCain may be taking his hard-lined stance "because it plays well with some of the GOP base." McCain may be using the hard-lined talk to court Republican voters who may harbor nostalgia for the Cold War rhetoric. McCain may also believe his tough talk against Russia will force Russia to back down. But the Salon article also questions whether Scheunemann may have influenced McCain's policies on behalf of his clients. From Salon.com:

There is no way to tell if Scheunemann has influenced his boss on behalf of his clients, or if McCain and Scheunemann simply share a common get-tough-on-Russia philosophy. But when there are lobbyists on a candidate's campaign staff, it's hard to distinguish chicken from egg when it comes to policy.

"The whole point of lobbyists is to influence how politicians think," said Dmitry Gorenburg, executive director of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies and a lecturer at Harvard. "If these people have had an association for a long time, how do you tell if it is because they think alike, or one has told the other how to think because he is getting paid?" he asked. "Any time you've got a guy who has been lobbying for somebody as opposed to a regular observer, it sort of makes you wonder," said Gorenburg, who also thinks the hard-line approach with Russia is the wrong way to go. "My guess is that you cannot completely disentangle the influence."

That has been a huge problem for the McCain campaign. The lobbyists are running John McCain's campaign. And one part of running the campaign is crafting the policy positions for John McCain's White House bid. Those same lobbyists are certainly crafting policy positions that will benefit their clients, and how much money these lobbying firms will make from their clients. The problem with this latest conflict is that Scheunemann is not a policy expert, who understands the complexities of this conflict between Russia and Georgia, or perhaps even the history and culture of the South Ossetia region. Scheunemann is a lobbyist for the government of Georgia, and he is crafting John McCain's response to this conflict to the interest of his own greed of his firm's making more money from the Georgian government. Scheunemann is crafting a McCain policy position for outright greed. And if McCain is elected, Scheunemann is willing to take the world into a greater war simply for that greed of money.

McCain campaign promotes rewards program for online commentators

This is from the August 7, 2008 Washington Post story, titled Win Points for McCain:

Spread John McCain's official talking points around the Web -- and you could win valuable prizes!

That, in essence, is the McCain campaign's pitch to supporters to join its new online effort, one that combines the features of "AstroTurf" campaigning with the sort of customer-loyalty programs offered by airlines, hotel chains, restaurants and the occasional daily newspaper.

On McCain's Web site, visitors are invited to "Spread the Word" about the presumptive Republican nominee by sending campaign-supplied comments to blogs and Web sites under the visitor's screen name. The site offers sample comments ("John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan . . .") and a list of dozens of suggested destinations, conveniently broken down into "conservative," "liberal," "moderate" and "other" categories. Just cut and paste.

Activists and political operatives have used volunteers or paid staff to seed radio call-in shows or letters-to-the-editor pages for years, typically without disclosing the caller or letter writer's connection to a candidate or cause. Like the fake grass for which the practice is named, such AstroTurf messages look as though they come from the grass roots but are ersatz.

McCain's campaign has taken the same idea and given it an Internet-era twist. It also has taken the concept one step further.

People who sign up for McCain's program receive reward points each time they place a favorable comment on one of the listed Web sites (subject to verification by McCain's webmasters). The points can be traded for prizes, such as books autographed by McCain, preferred seating at campaign events, even a ride with the candidate on his bus, known as the Straight Talk Express, according to campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.

This is just strange. John McCain is trying to buy supporters into posting online commentary favorable to McCain with rewarding points that can be used to purchase McCain campaign items. It is now no longer about whether you believe in McCain's political policies, but rather how much the McCain campaign is willing to pay for your support. I'm not going to say that this is right or wrong. Instead, I think it degrades the McCain campaign in that their supporters are not motivated by their political ideology, but a sense of greed in obtaining campaign prizes. As a political blogger, I would have a greater respect with other people expressing their views on the basis of whether they believe a candidate, or that candidate's policy positions, and are willing to present their arguments through their blog posts or comments on political blogs. But McCain is not appealing to his supporters--he is trying to buy them. And it is really sad just to see how low the McCain campaign is willing to go here in buying spammers because they do not have anyone in the online community that is willing to support John McCain's candidacy.

There are some other interesting points that I have found through McCain's Spread the Word. First, the McCain campaign was gracious to provide links to liberal, moderate, and conservative blogs. For the liberal blogs, the McCain campaign links to only five blogs--Daily Kos, ColoradoPols, Crooks and Liars, My DD, and Think Progress. Only five blogs? While I may be more of a liberal blogger, I at least provide 20 conservative blog sites here for you to peruse. The moderate list contains only four blogs--with one being the Washington Post's The Fix and the other being the Politico. The other two moderate blogs are Delaware Politics and Enlighten New Jersey. What I am trying to say here is that are these the only liberal and moderate blogs that the McCain campaign is willing to link to for allowing their "supporters" to present these McCain PR-talking comments for points and prizes? It is almost like the McCain campaign doesn't want their "supporters" to spread the word of the McCain campaign among the liberal or moderate blog sites--but it is perfectly fine to spread the word to the 71 links to conservative blogs that the McCain campaign has provided. Now I can understand the McCain campaign trying to court the conservatives in providing numerous links to these conservative blogs, but how many conservative bloggers and commentators are willing to go through the trouble of posting such McCain talking points, and then going back to the McCain campaign site to record such talking points for McCain-points? I would guess that such conservative writers and bloggers are posting online because they have an opinion that they wish to express--just as I have my own opinion that I wish express through my blog. The question I would have is how many of these conservative bloggers are willing to cross-post on McCain's site for these points, or the prizes?

And now to present this one chilling detail of McCain's Spread the Word. From the WaPost story:

More chillingly, dissidents alleged earlier this year that the Chinese government has paid Chinese citizens token sums for each favorable comment about government policies they post in chat rooms and on blogs.

Nice. The McCain campaign is copying a page from the totalitarian Chinese government in paying Chinese citizens for posting comments on blogs and chat rooms that are favorable to the Chinese government. You have to wonder how this looks to the McCain campaign--using online strategies introduced by a totalitarian government. Then again, maybe McCain also believes it is easier to rule as a dictator--just like his buddy President Bush.

And finally, there is this interesting detail from the WaPost:

McCain should reconsider the program for an entirely different reason, says Zach Exley, who directed online organizing for John Kerry's Democratic presidential campaign in 2004. Both the Kerry campaign and the GOP's national committee, he said, had underwhelming results when they offered incentives of various kinds to volunteers.

"This stuff never works," Exley says. "People in politics aren't motivated by points. That's not what gets people to act. They're motivated by genuinely caring about the issues."

Indeed, he adds, some volunteers resent points and incentives because they think it demeans or devalues their work.

People in politics aren't motivated by points. That's now what gets people to act. They're motivated by genuinely caring about the issues. It doesn't matter whether you care about the issues from a liberal, moderate, or conservative viewpoint. The fact is that you care about them and are willing to express your views on the issues through blogs and comments. The McCain campaign has got it backwards in thinking that they could reward people for placing favorable comments on blog and news sites. And if the McCain campaign's reward for such favorable comments are perhaps McCain bumper stickers, tee-shirts, and key chains, how many people are willing to put up such work for such meager rewards? It is not going to work.

Then again, what do you expect from a "clueless" campaign?

Update: I though I would McCain's Spread the Word at least once to see how many points I would get for a single comment. So I sent my comment from The Daily Kos to the Spread the Word campaign site. Not that I expect much from the McCain campaign, but I'll keep my eyes open to see how the McCain campaign will respond to my spreading McCain's word.

Edwards admits to having an affair with a campaign worker

From ABC News:

John Edwards admitted to ABC News in an interview with Bob Woodruff Friday that he repeatedly lied about an extramarital affair with a 42-year old campaign employee, but strenuously denied being involved in paying the woman hush money or fathering her newborn child. The former Democratic U.S. senator from North Carolina said he would be willing to take a paternity test and divulge the results publicly.

"Two years ago I made a very serious mistake, a mistake that I am responsible for and no one else. In 2006, I told Elizabeth about the mistake, asked her for her forgiveness, asked God for his forgiveness. And we have kept this within our family since that time."

Edwards, 55, said he told his entire family about the affair after it ended in 2006, and that his wife Elizabeth, who has incurable breast cancer, was "furious" but that their marriage would survive. The couple have three children, Cate, 25, Emma, 9, and Jack, 7. When he confessed his affair to his wife, "she was mad," Edwards said.

What a mess.

Okay, former Senator John Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair with a former campaign employee Rielle Hunter. And there are a some of sordid details coming out regarding Edwards' affair. The Edwards campaign admitted to providing "assistance" to Hunter without Edwards' knowledge--could that be called hush money? There are rumors that Edwards is the father of Hunter's child. The story of the affair is that Edwards met Hunter in a New York City bar in 2006, and then paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries, despite Hunter's lack of experience. Edwards claimed that the affair began after Hunter was hired to the campaign.

The first question I would have to ask here is what "head" was Edwards using to do his thinking before he started this affair with Hunter? Even more, is Edwards that stupid for embarking on his 2008 presidential run even as he may have been hoping that this 2006 affair would remain a secret? In 2006, did Edwards even consider that having an affair could possibly destroy his own presidential chances? Obviously not. What is even more scary is that Edwards had a serious shot at becoming the 2008 Democratic nominee. If Edwards had been the Democratic nominee today, this affair story would have destroyed the Democrats chances for retaking the White House after eight years of Bush administration corruption, sending it to another Republican with a sordid marital past, Republican John McCain. Even now, the political pundits are speculating on how Edwards' affair may result in political damage to Democratic nominee Barack Obama's campaign--of which I'll say is political crap. The only damage that has been done is to John Edwards, and whatever potential government service he may have been considered for in an Obama administration.

The fact here is that I still could care less as to who a politician sleeps with, outside of their marriage. This is a private matter between the politician and their spouse. So I don't care if Democrats Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, or even John Edwards had extramarital affairs. I don't care if Republican Senator David Vitter saw a prostitute, or if Republican Senator Larry Craig tried to solicit gay sex from an airport restroom. If they were caught doing something illegal, they should suffer the legal consequences of their actions. I don't even care about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's affair of dumping his first wife, Carol Shepp, for his current wife Cindy Hensley. However, I do care about McCain's second affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, and the possibility that McCain may have used his legislative powers to help Iseman's clients:

Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.

Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that.

When sex and power start mixing together, then I start to get worried. Because this type of behavior of trading political power for sex among the elitists really harms the American people. This is the type of behavior that we do not need within the Oval Office. And I'm speaking here about John McCain and his improper relationship with Vicki Iseman. It stinks. It is this combination of sexual favors for legislative favors that bothers me. McCain helped Iseman's clients with writing letters to the FCC to benefit two of Iseman's clients Glencairn Ltd and Paxson in allowing both companies to purchase television stations. We're talking about prostitution here with McCain paying Iseman with legislative favors for sex. And it is the American people who are getting hurt by this prostitution.

I probably should say something about the fallout of the Edwards' affair on the Obama campaign. As I've said, it is political crap. I believe the only thing John Edwards gave to Barack Obama was his endorsement. So far, the fallout is that John Edwards will not be attending the Democratic convention, and that the Illinois senator called Edwards' extramarital affair a "personal matter" for Edwards and his family. MSNBC's David Gregory asked whether the Edwards affair was a "skeleton" in Obama's closet, however even I fail to see the connection between Edwards' affair and Obama's presidential campaign. What we do have here is a mainstream media that seems intent on attacking the Obama campaign for Edwards infidelity. The Obama campaign has nothing to do with the Edwards affair, with the MSM bringing up a whole bunch of political hay for this weekend's news cycle. Whatever future position Edwards may have had in an Obama administration--be it attorney general or vice president--is gone. And while I am sure that the GOP would love to attack Obama with Edwards' extramarital affair, the GOP will be facing a huge risk in a potential political and media scrutiny of John McCain's two extramarital affairs. The last thing that the McCain campaign would want is to have John McCain's extramarital affairs being revisited.

And let us be clear here--John McCain was especially mum regarding the Edwards' affair. From the Politico.com:

John McCain declined to say anything today about John Edwards's admission of adultery, per my colleague Lisa Lerer.

“I don’t have any comment on it," McCain said when the topic was brought up at a press conference in Rogers, Ark.

This story will be history on Monday.

Huckabee compares McCain to Dole

This is from Jonathan Martin at The Politico.com:

Mike Huckabee, speaking a bit more freely in his new capacity as a Fox News contributor, used a "Hannity & Colmes" appearance last night to offer a candid assessment of McCain's performance last week.

Huck used two words that dare not speak their name in McCainworld: "Dole" and "anger:"

ESTRICH: He went to a German restaurant that didn't go very well. He had the time at the cheese counter at the grocery store. I mean, I have to tell you, if I were John McCain I would be glad I didn't get a lot of press last week.

What is wrong with the McCain campaign?

HUCKABEE: Well, I think he missed an opportunity. Instead of having some fun with it and showing sort of a buoyant 'hey, do what you've got to do, let Obama go play basketball, I'm solving problems.' Do it with tongue and cheek.

Frankly, I thought he looked more like Bob Dole in the last days of the 1996 campaign saying 'look at the record, look at the record,' and there was some anger and sense of frustration there.

He shouldn't show that. He needs to show that nothing is getting to him, it's rolling off his back, and I think he missed an opportunity to do that last week.

Maybe Johnny-Boy should take Huck's advice and have a Viagra and a Pepsi with Britney Spears:

McCain out of touch, doesn't know the price of a gallon of milk

Well this is rather interesting. Republican presidential candidate John McCain doesn't have a clue as to what the price is for a gallon of milk. McCain decided to stage a photo op with a Pennsylvania family going grocery shopping in order to show American voters that he understands what the voters are feeling with the soaring food prices. And during his photo op, McCain had to look at his cue card to remember what the price is for a gallon of milk. From YouTube:



Here in San Jose, California, Safeway are selling two gallons of milk for $6.19--around $3.10 a gallon--and that is a special. The regular price for a gallon of milk at Safeway is $3.59. The price of a gallon of milk at Albertsons in the Los Angeles area is at $4.99. The price for a gallon of milk at a Wegman's store in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is at $3.80 a gallon--and McCain was grocery shopping with a family in Pennsylvania!

What I am trying to say here is that you don't need to be a rocket scientist, and economist, or even a frickin' politician to even have a general knowledge of what the price of a gallon of milk is in this country. The problem I have here is that John McCain had to look at a cue card in order to tell us what the price of milk is. What this tells me is that John McCain doesn't have a frickin' clue as to what the basic prices of groceries are--I'm talking about the staples like milk, bread, eggs, cereal and such. I seriously wonder when was the last time McCain even stepped into a grocery store to purchase anything before his little PR-shopping trip in Pennsylvania.

John McCain is clueless. And McCain doesn't even get that he is clueless.

Obama to buy $5 million worth of ads on Olympics coverage

This is just wow! From AdAge Industry Events:

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- It's official. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal's Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads.

According to NBC's political file, the campaign had initially requested information about 500,000, $2 million and $4 million package of Olympics spots. The network also offered the candidate a $10 million package.

NBC Universal is airing 3,600 hours of Olympics coverage on its broadcast network and cable networks including NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Oxygen and Telemundo, and while some of the Obama campaign's spots will air on network TV, the breakdown of how many or exactly when they will air was not immediately available. It did encompass most dayparts.

The Obama campaign did not return several calls and messages seeking comment on the reasoning behind the buy.

AdAge reports that the last time a presidential candidate purchased a network TV spot was a single multi-minute ad by Bob Dole in 1996. Presidential candidates usually purchase television advertising to target battleground states, and have been turing to cheaper cable ads over ads broadcasting on a national scope.

NBC's 2004 Olympics coverage in Athens, Greece, was viewed by an average 24.6 million viewers. This is why Obama is spending $5 million in advertising during the Olympics--he can present his own vision and message on a nationwide scale to a major segment of American viewers. This is huge.

McCain surrogate: The truth of Iraq undermines the support of American troops

The McCain campaign is just going bonkers over all the flack on Republican presidential candidate John McCain's attempt to link the Anbar Awakening with the Bush troop surge. Here is McCain campaign spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer saying that Obama supporters' attempts to "litigate" the truth of Iraq are actually undermining the troops. From YouTube:



Here is the transcript:

"Barack Obama and his supporters can try to litigate what came first or what was crucial, but that's really an attempt to undermine the significance and the impact of the American troops and their sacrifice and their effort."

I really don't know what to say about this comment. Is the McCain campaign either that stupid, or may think that the American people are that stupid, in order to make this insidious comment that the facts of Iraq are undermining our troops? Perhaps I'm going stupid by just trying to understand this crap coming out of the McCain campaign--it is just that awful!

Stupid is as stupid does.

McCain's "secret surge"

This is from Countdown with Keith Olbermann:



Obsidian Wings has the translation of McCain's "cheesy" statement on the surge:

McCain: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy, and it's made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Colonel McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December of 2006, he had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counterinsurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is, quote, the surge, part of the surge, would be successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this counterinsurgency.

Prior to that, they had been going into places, killing people or not killing people, and then withdrawing. And the new counterinsurgency -- surge -- entailed clearing and holding, which Colonel McFarland had already started doing. And then of course later on there were additional troops, and General Petraeus has said that the surge would not have worked and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place successfully if they hadn't had an increase in the number of troops. So I'm not sure, frankly, that people really understand that a surge is part of a counterinsurgency strategy, which means going in, clearing, holding, building a better life, providing services to the people, and then clearly a part of that, an important part of it, was additional troops to help ensure the safety of the sheikhs, to regain control of Ramadi, which was a very bloody fight, and then the surge continued to succeed, and that counterinsurgency.

Q: So when you say 'surge', then you're not referring just to the one that President Bush initiated; you're saying it goes back several months before that?

Yes, and again, because of my visits to Iraq, I was briefed by Colonel McFarland in December of 2006 where he outlined what was succeeding there in this counterinsurgency strategy which we all know of now as the surge.

So if I understand this correctly, the "surge" does not mean the Bush troop surge, which was announced in January 2007, but rather a full counterinsurgency strategy that includes both the Bush troop surge of 2007, and Colonel McFarland's meetings with the sheiks in creating the alliance between the Sunnis and the U.S. military. In other words, McCain is himself defining the meaning of "the surge," and demanding that everyone else must agree to his definition.

The real problem here is this linking by McCain of the Bush troop surge, and the counterinsurgency strategy. There was a counterinsurgency strategy where McFarland created an alliance between the U.S. military and the Sunni sheiks in the Anbar province. And this strategy was successful. What McCain is trying to do is to take credit of McFarland's work for himself through linking the Anbar Awakening with the Bush troop surge, and then calling this all a "surge." So McCain's definition of "the surge" is not just the Bush troop surge, but also the Anbar Awakening, and anything else that the McCain campaign wants to include in their definition. This contradicts what everyone else considers as the definition of "the surge," which is basically the Bush troop surge of 2007.

John McCain is trying to rewrite history in a rather disgusting fashion.

McCain attacks Obama's visit to Holocaust Museum, calls Obama a flip-flopper on genocide

Well, Republican presidential candidate John McCain provides another example of the "respectful campaign" that he promised to give to the American people. For the past week, McCain has relentlessly attacked Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over his character, over how Obama would lose the Iraq war, and how Obama would commit treason for political gain. Now McCain has decided to add genocide to his attacks, on the day that Obama visited the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem. From the Huffington Post:

The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment to preventing a future genocide was not sincere, attacking the Democratic candidate during his appearance at the Israeli Holocaust Memorial Yad Vashem.

In an early morning press release, entitled "Obama on Genocide," McCain aide Tucker Bounds emailed reporters a quote from Obama's appearance in which the Illinois Democrat reiterated the cry "never again." He followed that quote with one taken a year ago from an interview that the Senator gave with the Associated Press in which he said that genocide or humanitarian crises were not a prerequisite for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq (a statement he has since walked back)

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."

The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:

"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

It's a heavy charge to make, not least because Obama had just wrapped up his visit to the Holocaust memorial. In addition, there are, for better or worse, outstanding implications when discussing genocide when it comes to Jews -- and the insertion of the issue into the presidential campaign will border for some, on the taboo. Moreover, on the topic of Iraq, Obama has said he would leave a residual force to intervene in potential humanitarian crises and that he reserves the right to intervene militarily with international partners in order to "suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq."

I don't know what else to say here, except that McCain campaign's attack was mean, nasty, and dirty. Florida Democratic Representative Robert Wexler, who was one of Obama's high-profile Jewish surrogates during the Democratic primary, called McCain's attack, "shameful and unconscionable."

Back in February 11, 2008, then McCain campaign manager Rick Davis sent a memo to reporters:

John McCain is now the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. It is critical, as we prepare to face off with whomever the Democrats select as their nominee, that we all follow John's lead and run a respectful campaign focused on the issues and values that are important to the American people.

Throughout the primary election we saw John McCain reject the type of politics that degrade our civics, and this will not change as he prepares to run head-to-head against the Democratic nominee.

John McCain will continue to run on his principles and will focus on the future of our country. The stakes could not be higher in this election, and John will contrast his vision for America with that of Senators Clinton and Obama. He will draw sharp contrasts: victory versus surrender to Islamic extremism; lower taxes and spending versus more big government; free-market solutions to health care versus costly mandates; and the appointment of strict constructionist judges versus those who legislate from the bench.

Overheated rhetoric and personal attacks on our opponents distract from the big differences between John McCain's vision for the future of our nation and the Democrats'. This campaign is about John McCain: his vision, leadership, experience, courage, service to his country and ability to lead as commander in chief from day one.

John McCain has pretty much thrown the "respectful campaign" out the window. The problem for the McCain campaign is that they no longer have any issues to run on that the American people will support. John McCain decided to his campaign with the Bush administration's agenda on issues such as the economy, taxes, energy policy, and Iraq. John McCain is running for a third Bush term at a time when two-thirds of Americans disapprove of President Bush's job performance, and over three-quarters of Americans are saying that the direction of the country is on the wrong track. John McCain has not effectively expressed change to the American people on his political policies or his views on the issues. He has remained stubborn--hence his nickname of McSame as President Bush. And now that McCain's positions on the issues have been shredded, there is nothing left for the McCain campaign to do, except for lashing out, with one nasty attack ad after another, against Obama. That is what this McCain campaign has become.

And it is going to get even dirtier, as we get closer to the election.

McCain campaign defends the surge lie

This is from the Tribune's Washington Bureau, The Swamp:

Sen. John McCain, "staking his candidacy entirely on the surge in Iraq,'' has shown "that he does not understand one of the fundamental facts about the surge,'' MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was reporting of the Republican candidate for president last night - "getting the basic timeline and history of the surge entirely wrong.''

The McCain campaign objects to the characterization, and offers some background below on where the senator's critics are misguided.

The commentator's assertion stems from an interview that McCain conducted with CBS News, in which anchor Katie Couric pointed out that Sen. Barack Obama, who has just traveled through Iraq, has maintained that, while the increased deployment of troops there had contributed to security, a Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after the militia also contributed - and that security might have improved even without the surge.

McCain replied: "I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.'' He noted that a Col. McFarland had been contacted by one of the Sunni sheikhs, and because of that the surge forces were able to go protect that sheikh and others. "And it began the Anbar awakening,'' McCain said. "That's just a matter of history.''

[....]

The Swamp reached out for McCain's reaction. Read on:

"Senator McCain is correct,'' McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said today. "As General Petraeus has made clear, the surge is the reason why the Anbar Awakening was so successful in tearing up al Qaeda.

"The surge strategy that was supported by John McCain and opposed by Barack Obama was responsible for the reduction in violence we have seen over the last year and a half. Democrats can debate whether the Awakening would have survived without the surge, or whether the Shiite militias would have unilaterally disarmed without US troops and our Iraqi allies disarming them by force, but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain.


"If Barack Obama had had his way,'' Bounds said, "the Awakening would have been crushed at the hands of al Qaeda, and US forces would have already left Iraq in defeat."

Did you notice the shift? McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds first claimed that the Bush troop surge was the reason for the success in the Anbar Awakening, but then goes on to attack Obama saying that if the Democrats had withdrawn U.S. forces, the Anbar Awakening would have been crushed by al Qaeda. Even more, Bounds then makes the outrageous claim that the "Democrats can debate whether the Awakening would have survived without the surge...." This debate isn't about whether the Awakening could have survived with, or without, the surge. This debate isn't even about whether the surge was the reason for the success of the Anbar Awakening. What this debate is about is Senator John McCain's insistence that the surge took place before the Anbar Awakening. John McCain lied about the timeline between when the Anbar Awakening took place in September 2006, and when President Bush announced his troop surge in January, 2007. And the McCain campaign continues to present this lie.

And as for General Petraeus' remarks on the surge and the Anbar Awakening, the Swamp includes this comment:

And here are some earlier comments to consider from Petraeus and Fred Kagan, architect of the surge:

General Petraeus: The Awakening "Was Very Much Enabled By The Surge Because That Enabled Us To Clear Areas Over Time." GEN. PETRAEUS: "Well, sir, the Sons of Iraq are individuals that -- it really dates all the way back to Anbar province and the first awakening, which, to be fair, took place -- it started before the surge, but then was very much enabled by the surge because that enabled us to clear areas over time. But it started with a sheikh in Anbar province coming to a brigade commander in Ramadi and saying back in October, 2006, would you support us if we turned our weapons on al Qaeda instead of on you? And the brigade commander got that test question right. He pledged support. It took some time to build those forces, to get them going, to get it established. By mid-March, they were ready to clear Baqubah or, I'm sorry, Ramadi." (Gen. Petraeus, U.S. House Armed Services Committee, 4/9/08)

Surge Strategy Architect Fred Kagan: "When Colonel John Charlton's Brigade Relieved MacFarland's In Ramadi And Was Joined By Two Additional Marine Battalions (Part Of The Surge) Elsewhere In Anbar, The 'Awakening' Began To Accelerate Very Rapidly." "The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar's capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton's brigade relieved MacFarland's in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the 'awakening' began to accelerate very rapidly." (Frederick W. Kagan, "The Gettysburg Of This War," National Review Online, 9/3/07)

Again, the argument is not whether the surge provided some success in the Anbar Awakening. The argument is about the timeline of the surge taking place before the Anbar Awakening, with the surge being the catalyst for creating the Anbar Awakening.

And John McCain continues to lie about the timeline.

Update: It turns out that the McCain campaign has canceled a press conference for today in the aftermath of McCain's "Anbar Awakening" lie. From Salon.com:

In an interview with CBS News on Tuesday, John McCain made a major mistake in recounting the history of the surge in Iraq. McCain credited it with the development of the "Anbar awakening," the movement of Sunnis in that province away from al-Qaida and toward working with the U.S. The problem? The awakening began before the surge was even announced.

The McCain campaign has -- deservedly -- been getting hammered on this, and it has struck back, somewhat angrily. "Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy," spokesman Tucker Bounds said. (Of course, that's not what's being debated -- McCain said the surge "began" the awakening.)

Now, all of a sudden, the McCain campaign has canceled a press availability that was scheduled for Wednesday. Both the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder and Politico's Ben Smith rightly wonder about the McCain camp's reasons for doing so.

"My bet is that the campaign much prefers local and regional interviews. Us national press folks will ask qualitatively different questions -- McCain v. the press, McCain v. history, McCain v. Obamania ... The priority here in northern Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district is on getting good local news coverage," Ambinder, who is traveling with McCain, wrote.

"McCain's avail today was the one with more promise to make news," Smith wrote, then cited a list of potentially uncomfortable things -- with the awakening first among them -- that McCain could expect to be asked about before noting, "And now he's canceled the avail."

I would say that McCain's handlers have decided not to bring McCain out to the national reporters, who would certainly start to question McCain on the timeline. Instead, we get the McCain campaign PR-spin of McCain traveling to Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional district, where the campaign is hoping to spoon-feed local reporters news coverage that will benefit McCain. The McCain campaign is hoping this latest John McCain gaffe will go away over the next couple of days.

Novak cited in hit-and-run against pedestrian

If I, or any regular people, had caused a hit-and-run accident with a pedestrian, we probably would have been arrested by the police, and charged. Not conservative columnist Robert Novak. From The Politico.com:

Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak was cited by police after he hit a pedestrian with his black Corvette in downtown Washington, D.C., on Wednesday morning.

A Politico reporter saw Novak in the front of a police car with a citation in his hand; a WJLA-TV crew and reporter saw Novak as well. The pedestrian, a 66-year-old man who was not further identified by authorities, was treated at George Washington University Hospital for minor injuries, according to D.C. Fire and EMS. Novak was later released by police and drove away from the scene.

“I didn’t know I hit him. ... I feel terrible,” a shaken Novak told reporters from Politico and WJLA as he was returning to his car. "He's not dead, that's the main thing." Novak said he was a block away from 18th and K streets Northwest, where the accident occurred, when a bicyclist stopped him and said he had hit someone. He said he was cited for failing to yield the right of way.

The bicyclist was David Bono, a partner at Harkins Cunningham, who was on his usual bike commute to work at 1700 K St. N.W. when he witnessed the accident.

As he traveled east on K Street, crossing 18th, Bono said "a black Corvette convertible with top closed plows into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed into the windshield.”

Bono said that the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a "Walk" signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and that Novak then made a right into the service lane of K Street. “This car is speeding away. What’s going through my mind is, you just can’t hit a pedestrian and drive away,” Bono said.

He said he chased Novak half a block down K Street, finally caught up with him and then put his bike in front of the car to block it and called 911. Traffic immediately backed up, horns blaring, until commuters behind Novak backed up so he could pull over.

Bono said that throughout, Novak "keeps trying to get away. He keeps trying to go.” He said he vaguely recognized the longtime political reporter and columnist as a news personality but could not precisely place him.

Finally, Bono said, Novak put his head out the window of his car and motioned him over. Bono said he told him that you can't hit a pedestrian and just drive away. He quoted Novak as responding: “I didn’t see him there.”

A concierge at 1700 K Street said that she saw a bicyclist yelling and walked outside to see what the commotion was about.

"This guy hit somebody and he won't stop so I'm going to stay here until the police come," Aleta Petty quoted Bono as saying, as he stood in K Street, blocking traffic.

D.C. police confirmed that there was an accident at 18th and K streets NW at approximately 10 a.m. involving a black Corvette convertible and that the driver was a white male.

The intersection is in the hub of Washington’s business district and is filled with pedestrians who work in the law firms and lobby shops that line the corridor.

Novak, 77, has earned a reputation around the capital as an aggressive driver, easily identified in his convertible sports car.

In 2001, he cursed at a pedestrian on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 13th streets Northwest for allegedly jaywalking.

“’Learn to read the signs, [bodily orifice]!’ Novak snapped before speeding away,” according to an item in The Washington Post’s Reliable Source column.

Novak explained to the paper: "He was crossing on the red light. I really hate jaywalkers. I despise them. Since I don't run the country, all I can do is yell at 'em. The other option is to run 'em over, but as a compassionate conservative, I would never do that."

Two years later, the same column reported that Novak had gone to a racing school in Florida.

"I've wanted to be a racecar driver all my life, and anyone who has watched me drive can tell you that,” Novak said.

Compassionate conservativism at its best.

More McCain screw-ups

I am just amazed at how Republican presidential candidate John McCain continues to screw up in this election--McCain can't even open his mouth without screwing up by either lying, misstating facts, or just being completely confused. Let us start with some background news from Countdown with Keith Olbermann on McCain's latest gaffes:



First I want to talk about McCain's "confusion" on the historical timeline between the Anbar Awakening and the U.S. troop surge. Here is the CBS News transcript, with McCain's statement that the surge started the Anbar Awakening:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

They were out there. They were protecting these sheiks. We had the Anbar awakening. We now have a government that's effective. We have a legal system that's working, although poorly. And we have progress on all fronts, including an incredible measure of security for the people of Iraq. There will still be attacks. Al Qaeda's not defeated. But the progress has been immense. And to not recognize that, and why it happened, and how it happened, I think is really quite a commentary.

This is a complete, flat-out lie by McCain.

The Anbar Awakening movement started in 2005, when American military commanders approached Sunni sheiks with the proposal of an alliance between U.S. forces and Sunnis to provide security in the Anbar province against al Qaeda insurgents. Consider this March 25, 2007 San Diego Tribune story on the Anbar Awakening:

RAMADI, Iraq – Not long ago it would have been unthinkable: a Sunni sheik allying himself publicly with American forces in a xenophobic city at the epicenter of Iraq's Sunni insurgency.

Today, there is no mistaking whose side Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi is on. Outside his walled home, a U.S. tank is on permanent guard beside a clutch of towering date palms and a protective dirt berm.

The 36-year-old sheik is leading a growing movement of Sunni tribesmen who have turned against al-Qaeda-linked insurgents in Anbar province. The dramatic shift in alliances may have done more in a few months to ease daily street battles and undercut the insurgency here than American forces have achieved in years with arms.

The American commander responsible for Ramadi, Col. John W. Charlton, said the newly friendly sheiks, combined with an aggressive counterinsurgency strategy and the presence of thousands of new Sunni police on the streets, have helped cut attacks in the city by half in recent months.

In November 2005, American commanders held a breakthrough meeting with top Sunni chiefs in Ramadi, hoping to lure them away from the insurgents' fold. The sheiks responded positively, promising cooperation and men for a police force that was then virtually nonexistent.

But in January 2006 a suicide bomber attacked a police recruiting drive, killing 70 people. Insurgents killed at least four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans, and many others fled.

The killings left the effort in limbo, until a turning point; insurgents killed a prominent sheik last year and refused to let family members bury the body for four days, enraging Sunni tribesmen, said U.S. Lt. Col. Miciotto Johnson, who heads the 1st Battalion, 77th Armored Regiment and visits al-Rishawi frequently in western Ramadi.

Al-Rishawi, whose father and three brothers were killed by al-Qaeda assassins, said insurgents were “killing innocent people, anyone suspected of opposing them. They brought us nothing but destruction and we finally said, enough is enough.”

Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did.

[....]

His movement, also known as the Anbar Awakening, now counts 41 tribes or sub-tribes from Anbar, though al-Rishawi acknowledges that some groups in the province have yet to join. It's unclear how many that is, or much support the movement really has.

In November 2005, American commanders proposed the alliance with Sunnis, and the Sunnis responded positively to the idea. In January, 2006, suicide bombers started attacking police recruiting drives, killing 70 people. Insurgents also killed four sheiks for cooperating with the Americans. Sheik Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September, 2006, with the cooperation of dozens of Sunni tribes. The Anbar Salvation Council then became known as the Anbar Awakening.

President Bush did not announce his troop surge until January 10, 2007--four months after the Anbar Awakening.

Even Colonel McFarlane [phonetic] stated that the Anbar Awakening took place before the Bush troop surge. According to the Huffington Post, then-Colonel Sean McFarlane described the Anbar Awakening on September 29, 2006:

With respect to the violence between the Sunnis and the al Qaeda -- actually, I would disagree with the assessment that the al Qaeda have the upper hand. That was true earlier this year when some of the sheikhs began to step forward and some of the insurgent groups began to fight against al Qaeda. The insurgent groups, the nationalist groups, were pretty well beaten by al Qaeda.

This is a different phenomena that's going on right now. I think that it's not so much the insurgent groups that are fighting al Qaeda, it's the -- well, it used to be the fence-sitters, the tribal leaders, are stepping forward and cooperating with the Iraqi security forces against al Qaeda, and it's had a very different result. I think al Qaeda has been pushed up against the ropes by this, and now they're finding themselves trapped between the coalition and ISF on the one side, and the people on the other.

McFarlane [phonetic] then states in this PDF report Anbar Awakens: The Tipping Point, that the Anbar Awakening took place, again, in September 2006. From Anbar Awakens:

On 9 September 2006 Sittar organized a tribal council, attended by over 50 sheiks and the brigade commander, at which he declared the “Anbar Awakening” officially underway. The Awakening Council that emerged from the meeting agreed to first drive AQIZ from Ramadi, and then reestablish rule of law and a local government to support the people. The creation of the Awakening Council, combined with the ongoing recruitment of local security forces, began a snowball effect that resulted in a growing number of tribes either openly supporting the Awakening or withdrawing their support from AQIZ.

Bottom line here is that the Anbar Awakening took place four months before President Bush announced his troop surge. In fact, the Anbar Awakening took place even before the first surge of American soldiers even set foot in Iraq. John McCain has lied to the American people. It is simple as that.

Now I want to go to the next McCain screw-up, which is even more outrageous than his Anbar Awakening lie. Americablog picked up this outrageous McCain attack on Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's patriotism, saying that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." From YouTube:



Here is the actual quote from The Carpetbagger Report:

“[T]his is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

This is just incredible. Usually, the major political candidates stay above the fray, and let their campaign attack dogs, or the 527 committees fling the mud at their opponents. Just look at what the Swift Boaters did to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

But John McCain decided to forgo the mud, and start flinging crap from the toilet at Obama.

Time Magazine's Joe Klein responded to this latest McCain meltdown:

This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

Scurrility Update: Readers should note that I said that I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential. A President exists in the straitjacket of literality. His words mean something. So John McCain has to literally believe that Barack Obama would "rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." I can't imagine that he does. He popped off, out of frustration.

But it is more than just McCain popping off here in frustration. This is a concerted strategy by the McCain campaign to attack Obama's patriotism, to convict him in the political arena of treason. On July 17, 2008, McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann wrote a memo to reporters saying that Barack Obama:

[h]as determined that he would rather lose a war that we are winning than lose an election by alienating his base. This is the reason Obama did not have to wait until his trip to declare his strategy. Iraq is fundamentally a political decision for Barack Obama, not a national security decision.

John McCain has nothing left to campaign on. His economic policy is a continuation of the Bush economic policy of more tax cuts to the rich and more deregulation for Big Business. His chief economic adviser has called Americans a "bunch of whiners," who are suffering from a "mental recession." McCain has mentioned several times that the U.S. recession is "psychological," and that new oil drilling will provide a "psychological" affect on oil prices. McCain's gas tax holiday has been shredded by economists. And now John McCain's signature foreign policy issue, the one that he based his entire presidential campaign on, has been destroyed as Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed Obama's 16-month troop withdrawal plan over McCain's plan to continue the U.S war in Iraq for another 100 years. In one sense, I should not be surprised at how McCain is lashing out like an angry, spoiled, rotten child.

Because John McCain is behaving like an angry, spoiled, rotten child.

Bush: Wall Street got drunk

When you are President of the United States, you should at least be careful of what you say at a public or private event. Because everything will be recorded and posted on YouTube. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush has never learned that lesson, and continues to show the world what a juvenile ass he still is.

ABC television station KTRK sent reporter Miya Shay to a Bush private fundraiser for Republican congressional candidate Pete Olson. And during that July 18th fundraiser, President Bush went about cracking some very bad jokes about how Wall Street got drunk over the excessive greed of the housing boom. You can watch the video through YouTube:



There is not much more to comment, except that Bush finds so much glee in the economic hardships that many Americans are facing due to this mortgage mess, and jokes about Wall Street got drunk with greed? Pity the poor peasants who have lost their homes to those same drunks on Wall Street. President Bush really shows just what an arrogant, insensitive, and stupid ass he is.

John McCain's never-ending war

This is just brilliant. If you want to know more about Republican presidential candidate John McCain's never-ending support for the U.S. war in Iraq, just listen to these video clips of McCain pushing his extreme pro-war stance, starting in October, 2002. From YouTube:



John McCain is a warmonger.

Iraqi government wants U.S. troops out by 2010

The events in Iraq are proceeding at such a furious pace, that even I can't keep up with them. First, Prime Minister Maliki threw his support for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq in 16 months. Then the Bush administration strong-armed the Iraqi government, into saying that Maliki statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated." Now the Iraqi government has reversed itself, saying they want U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2010. From YouTube:



Talk about another monkey wrench being thrown into this mess. It seems like that the American people, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi prime minister, and the Democratic presidential candidate all want U.S. forces out of Iraq. The Pentagon has stated that U.S. troops will need to be removed from Iraq or the U.S. military will be broken. Only President George W. Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain are the only ones that want to continue this disastrous war, regardless of what anyone says.

McCain knows what is best for Iraq, rejects Maliki's timetable

Here we go again. On the July 21, 2008 Today Show program, Republican presidential candidate John McCain again rejected Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's call for a 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Here is McCain speaking on the Today Show from YouTube:



Here is the transcript of McCain's statement:

Vieira: "Senator Obama's timetable of removing U.S. troops from Iraq within that 16-month period seemed to be getting a thumbs up by the Iraqi prime minister when he called it 'the right timeframe for a withdrawal.' He has backed off that somewhat, but the Iraqis have not stopped using the word timetable, so if the Iraqi government were to say -- if you were President -- we want a timetable for troops being to removed, would you agree with that?"

McCain: "I have been there too many times. I've met too many times with him, and I know what they want. They want it based on conditions and of course they would like to have us out, that's what happens when you win wars, you leave. We may have a residual presence there as even Senator Obama has admitted. But the fact is that it should be -- the agreement between Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government and the United states is it will be based on conditions. This is a great success, but it's fragile, and could be reversed very easily. I think we should trust the word of General Petraeus who has orchestrated this dramatic turnaround. And by the way, we would have been out last march if Senator Obama's original wish would have been called for. Not 16 months from now, but last March. He was wrong on the surge, he was wrong today when he says it didn't succeed. And obviously we have challenges in Afghanistan which will require more troops and more NATO participation, but we can win. If we had lost in Iraq, we would have risked a much wider war that would have put enormous challenges and burdens on our military." [Emphasis added].

The arrogance of John McCain here is just incredible. John McCain is saying that we shouldn't listen to what either the Iraqi government, Prime Minister Maliki, or even the Iraqi people want on this war, or the withdrawal of U.S. troops, because John McCain said so. John McCain knows what the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people want--more war! Forget Maliki's withdrawal timetable. Forget that 71 percent of Iraqis want their government "to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less." What is even more insane is that not only does John McCain know what the Iraqi people and government wants regarding this war, but McCain also claims that General Petraeus knows what the Iraqi government and people want from this war. So we should listen to General Petraeus. This is just absolute arrogance on John McCain's part in not just rejecting Maliki's timetable, but rejecting any say in what the Iraqi government, its leaders, and its people, in determining the outcome of this U.S. war in Iraq, and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.