John McCain Exploits The Holocaust As A Cheap Political Attack

Oh. My. God.

Today McCain has stooped to a new low, that is even shocking to those used to his typical Republican smearmongernig. Today John McCain jumped on Obama's words at the Holocaust Museum in Israel to score some cheap political point. How unbelievably shameless. Here was what Obama said at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Here's more:

At the Holocaust memorial, Obama wore a white skullcap as he laid a wreath in memory of the victims of the Nazis.

Later, he said: "I am always taken back to sort of the core question of humanity that the Holocaust raises. That is, on the one hand, man's great capacity for evil, and on the other hand, our ability to come together to stop evil."

He added, "So despite this record of monumental tragedy this ultimately is a place of hope because it reminds us of our obligations and responsibilities hopefully to raise a better future for our children and our grandchildren." He said he hoped he could bring his two young daughters with him on his next trip.

In signing the guestbook, he wrote, "May we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

So we have Obama at Israel's Holocaust Museum, solemnly speaking to the great loss during the Holocaust, and how humanity has a moral imperative to make sure those crimes against humanity are never repeated.

John McCain apparently saw this as something that needs to be politicized, and perverted into some cynical partisan attack. McCain tried to accuse Obama of "flip-flopping" on preventing genocide! Seriously! He attacked Obama because in responding to a question in 2007 about whether the US military should be used to prevent a "potential genocide" in Iraq, Obama responded:

Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done.

In response to this, as if this even deserves a response, I have just two points. First, this was based on a hypothetical situation in which there was some threat of "potential genocide" in Iraq, which there absolutely is not, and no one has claimed there to be any threat of genocide occurring there. Furthermore, US troops have been absolutely powerless to prevent ethnic cleansing all around the country, especially in Baghdad, which contributed greatly to the massive refugee crisis in Iraq, leaving around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees either displaced internally or in neighboring countries. That was with over a hundred thousand US troops on the ground. The number of troops on the ground isn't the problem here.

That leads to my second point, which is that "preventing possible genocide" is a false excuse to remain in Iraq, and that was precisely Obama's point. He was simply noting the double-standard of saying we need to stay in Iraq to "prevent a possible genocide" (that doesn't exist and isn't in danger of occurring), when the US isn't doing a damn thing about ACTUAL genocide which IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sudan. Seriously, it is an asinine proposition that we are in Iraq because of "humanitarian" reasons, when the US has a great track record of ignoring genocide, and this isn't even a case of genocide.

So, simply put, Obama spoke some empathetic and solemn words about the meaning of the Holocaust to humanity, and McCain jumped on it in the most shameless and cynical way possible by distorting Obama's (very accurate and legitimate) comments on a completely different subject and using the occasion to inject political smears into remembering the Holocaust and the very serious topic of genocide.

To say nothing of that fact that McCain is essentially saying Obama would let another Holocaust happen, which is an incredibly offensive and reprehensible accusation, no matter the context, and has absolutely no place in politics, let alone from a presidential candidate. Shameless.

Oh yes, and let's recall what Cindy McCain promised on the Today Show in May:

There are clear differences in this race between whatever candidates wind up against each other. That's the beauty of this race. What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.

Really Cindy? Look at your husband now, who just used the Holocaust to attack his opponent. Is that not negative?? Furthermore, is that a great debate? Is that an honest discussion of the issues that matter to Americans? Is this what Americans deserve in this election??

Shameless.

Update: I should also point out that Samantha Power, the Harvard professor, Pulitzer-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" and outspoken proponent of humanitarian intervention was singled out by Obama to join his campaign after he read her book, because he wanted someone with her values, opinions and expertise advising him on this very topic. To suggest that Obama is opposed to preventing genocide is to have no idea what Obama stands for.

Update #2: And as usual, it is only a matter of time after McCain attacks Obama that his hypocrisy floats to the surface, and this is no exception. Here is McCain back in 1994, talking about the ACTUAL genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and how we shouldn't intervene:

I think it's unacceptable, the situation in Rwanda today. I think that it's unacceptable that in Bosnia there's ethnic cleansing going on. I find it unacceptable in many other parts of the world, terrible things that are happening, but it doesn't mean that we use military force to rectify the situation

Nice John, you are utterly shameless, and a gigantic hypocrite on top of that.

And here are pictures of Obama paying his respects at Yad Vashem:

Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Is Cindy McCain

“ In Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane.

— Cindy McCain - July 2008

Us peasants use roads, but I can't fault Cindy McCain for never leaving the house without her private plane, travel by ground is just so plebeian.

Why Does McCain Hate America?

Hypocrisy is a funny thing, and the Republicans have always been well endowed with it. I've written before about the right-wing's attempts to smear Michelle Obama and paint her to be some America-hating black panther or terrorist. The accusations are ridiculous and predictable, but that doesn't stop a lot of right-wing viewers/listeners of idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity from actually eating it all up like it is real.

The most prolific smear against her has been the Republicans taking her comments that, as a result of the outpouring of democratic activity, energy, and America's acceptance, for the first time in history, of a minority presidential candidate, she was for the first time in her adult life, proud of this country. And literally for months now the Republicans have been screaming about this on TV, radio and on the internet, saying that Michelle Obama is racist, and hates America, blah blah blah. It has been insanity. It is beyond ridiculous that they have grabbed on to what was really a very positive comment about her really being proud of this moment in American history (Laura Bush even came out and said this is what Michelle meant), and tried to twist it into something bad to use to demonize her (Cindy McCain even jumped on the bandwagon repeatedly proclaiming that she has always been proud of this country). But like I said, it is absolutely predictable, because we know the Republicans can't win on the issues, because they are defending policies that have been horrible failures and have screwed this country up for the last 8 years. So they have to resort to ridiculous personal attacks like this.

Last night, Dan Abrams exposed some past comments from John McCain, in which he repeatedly stated the following:

"I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

Woah now, McCain actually admitted, on multiple occasions, that he didn't really love America until he was taken prisoner in Vietnam?? He was 31 years old when that happened. He didn't love America for 31 years...? OH. MY. GOD. And of course the right-wing talk show hosts and pundits are jumping all over this screaming "Why does John McCain hate America?!", right? After all, they've been doing this for months now against Michelle, for comments that we arguably less "offensive" (if you want to call this offensive). Let's stop for a second and compare the comments:

• John McCain said he didn't love his country for 31 years.
• Michelle Obama said for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Michelle has been an adult for 26 years, and she just said "proud", she never said she didn't love America. And also, you have to realize who has been controlling the country for her entire adult life, the Republicans (and Bill Clinton who was Reagan-lite when it came to economic issues), and they have been screwing up everything for that time. All of these problems we are seeing now, none of them started with Bush, Bush just sent them over the edge, but they were all started with Nixon and Reagan. (See my comments below on idiots pretending the US can do no wrong)

So I submit to the most jingoistic, ultra-patriotic, red-blooded, beef-eating, flag-waving Americans out there, which is worse, not loving your country, or not being proud of it? Something tells me if you didn't tell them who said which, they'd point to the person who didn't love their country for over three decades as the anti-American terrorist-hugger. Yet somehow when it turns out that a white Republican male said it, it is OK, and suddenly the black woman Democrat is the American hater, while the Republican is just a hero. Do you see the hypocrisy? Do you see the double-standards? That happens because it isn't really about love for country or patriotism or any of that, it is about politics, it is about exploiting patriotism, and it is probably mixed in with a fair amount of bigotry and racial double-standards.

Dan Abrams, to his credit, actually made a point of calling the Republicans on their double-standards, he challenged his Republican guests, the same people who have taken part in the smears against Michelle, and asked what if she had admitted to not loving America until some event (let's say this election)? Would they be making excuses for the comments like they are with McCain? Or would they be screaming bloody murder and calling her an America-hater and a racist? We all know the answer, it is obvious, they would be demonizing her and raising hell about it coast to coast. Yet with McCain, they don't care, and they just praise him as being an American hero. Shameless.

The first part of the video shows McCain repeatedly making the "I didn't really love America" comments, and then Abrams and the guests fight it out for the rest of the clip. If you watch the rest of it, you'll hear the Republican guests make some ridiculous comments. For instance one of the guests says:

• Michelle said America is "mean". I have never heard of Michelle Obama saying that America is mean, a meanie-face, or any variation on the "mean" theme.
• Michelle said that average people can't make it in America. Where the hell has this guy been? This is just like those idiots who tried to say that Obama was wrong and people aren't bitter about being ignored by Washington and left behind economically. The middle class in America is wilting away. Unemployment is going up, prices of everything from food to gas are soaring. The price of education is soaring out of reach. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are happening left and right. We have BIG issues in this country, and average people are being shut out of opportunity. To say they aren't just exposes either how disingenuous the lying Republican hack who is making the comment is, or how completely out of touch and truly elitist they are. Just like those idiots who try to say that people making over $200,000 that would possibly have their taxes raised by Obama are "average people", if you really think that the top 3.5% of Americans who make $200,000+ a year are "average" or "middle class", you have been sipping champaign and cruising on yachts for far too long.
• Michelle said the country does horrible things. Again, I never remember her saying that the country does horrible things, but if she did she would be absolutely correct. Take an easy example: Iraq. We have done horrible things there, our invasion has lead to the deaths of over a million people and over 4.5 million refugees, to say nothing of the terror, the wounded people, the psychological trauma, or the ethnic cleansing. Our government has tortured people, I'd put that in the "horrible things" category. We have fought efforts and curbing global warming even though the consequences of inaction are enormous. I'd call that negligent, and horrible. Our country has a long long history of doing horrible things, going all the way back to before we were even a country, when we came to this land and started an ethnic cleansing campaign against the indigenous population. If that happened today we'd call it genocide. Our country has done some good here and abroad, but we've also done a lot of very bad things, to ignore that, and to attack someone who simply acknowledges that we aren't (or haven't been) angels, is insane, and intellectually bankrupt. This Republican hack, and anyone who repeats these ridiculous attacks just expose themselves as complete idiots.
• Michelle is "friends with terrorists" (William Ayers). First, I'm unaware of Michelle even ever meeting William Ayers. Second, William Ayers was never charged with any terrorist acts, and was never imprisoned. Third, all of the questionable things he was involved with happened in the 60s, back when Michelle and Barack Obama were still riding bikes with training wheels. Today Ayers is a college professor and active in the community, he is not a radical, not a terrorist, and a simply knowing the guy doesn't make anyone else guilty of anything. Like I said, he is a teacher, does this mean that every student that takes a course from him is suddenly enrolled in a terrorist training camp and comes out a suicide bomber? Of course not. These attempts to connect Michelle and Barack Obama to terrorists is RIDICULOUS. Ayers is a prominent member of the community that Obama represented in the state legislature. Obama's predecessor introduced him to Ayers and they've spoken on a few occasions. Ayers also happened to be on a board that Obama was also on. Does that mean they had slumber parties and painted each other's toenails? No. Obama was cordial, as any normal person would be. Yet here we have it again, the right-wing's transparent attempts to demonize people and link them to their opponents through guilt-by-association tricks because they can't win on the issues, so they have to play voters for fools. And to think, they try to make Ayers out to be some psycho mass murderer, while they embrace Bush, who has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on his hands. How's that for a double standard?

Later, another Republican guest (or maybe the same one) also makes the ridiculous comment that Michelle has it all, and doesn't see America as the land of opportunity, this despite her humble upbringing in the South Side of Chicago, and despite the fact she continually praises America as the land of opportunity where the American dream is possible by using her own life as an example. She has never forgotten the wonderful opportunities she has had, and she uses that experience to call for us to fix America and make it greater so that everyone will have the same opportunities that she had. She wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and you won't find a more down-to-earth first lady. She doesn't take anything for granted, and these idiots who try to demonize her know absolutely nothing about her, and as Dan Abrams and his more rational guests quite effectively pointed out, the Republicans cynically take her comments out of context to smear her, while they would never do the same to McCain or any of their own. And there you have it, like I said before, it has nothing to do with America or patriotism or her comments or his comments or anything of the sort, it is all about hypocritically and cynically distorting their opponents (or their family and anyone they ever met) for political gain, so they can once again distract voters from the real issues, playing them for fools, so they can be voted back into power so they can continue to whore themselves out for the wealthy while screwing over average, everyday Americans.



I should just note that I agree wholeheartedly with Dan Abrams, and I find nothing wrong with McCain's comments. I don't think anyone should be required to "love" their country, or even necessarily be proud of it, especially in light of all that is wrong with it. I expect people to be realistic about their country's history and what it stands for, and I expect that they want to make it better, which is the ultimate expression of love for country. I can't respect people who blindly profess love for something, essentially giving it a blanket endorsement, while completely overlooking reality. You can't love something or be proud of something you don't even know. It isn't love, it is lust, and not even for America, but for power and for yourself.

What A Viral Video Says About McCain's Character

Okay, I'm going to start this post with a naughty word warning:

Warning: Naughty Words!
Do Not Continue If Easily Offended!
Now that that is out of the way, I should make it clear that these aren't my naughty words, they belong to John McCain, and I don't approve of them, and I'm only repeating them here because I don't believe in censorship either. You will find no sugarcoating with cute little ***'s here, nope, I'm going to be true to reality, and serve it up unabridged. So here we go.

Many people are aware that John McCain called his wife, Cindy McCain, perhaps the most offensive (to women), misogynistic word out there, a cunt:

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, "You’re getting a little thin up there." McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt."

Now to those who know about John McCain's character, this should come as no surprise. A) He is NOTORIOUS for his vicious temper, B) He is notorious for his potty mouth, and C) He has repeatedly shown his disrespect for women by repeated cheating on his first wife with many women (including current wife Cindy), and then divorced her after a car accident for a skinnier, much richer wife (again, Cindy).

Now there is a viral video out on the internet which is a critique of the media's silence on this horribly offensive comment coming from a presidential candidate, even though they had an orgy of Obama bashing for nearly two months over a couple out of context sound bites from his former pastor that had absolutely nothing to do with him. So this video has a legitimate point, several actually, but some may find it offensive (because it repeatedly uses McCain's naughty word), or a bit over the top, which it may be for some viewers. I went back and forth with myself over whether or not I'd post about it here, because I wasn't sure if it was too much, but in the end I decided it was fair game, for the following reasons:

• It isn't just sliming McCain for the sake of a cheap attack, it actually has a point, and unlike many right-wing smears against Barack and Michelle Obama, which try to paint them as terrorists or militant angry blacks, this is actually true and has been confirmed by several witnesses.
• It highlights the double standard the media used in attacking Obama over ridiculous guilt-by-association smears, while essentially ignoring ANYTHING negative about McCain, especially his past (while they have picked Obama's apart).
• It highlights a part of McCain that most people don't know about (because again, the MSM doesn't even talk about it), which is his explosive temper. While this shouldn't be a major campaign issue (there are so many more important issues out there), it should at least be known, because having a hothead like McCain in the White House with a history of yelling obscenities at people his disagrees with is a bad idea. We need someone who can calmly negotiate with foreign leaders we disagree with, someone who won't jump to name calling or reckless decisions fueled by rage or hurt pride instead of facts and judgment. Obama has shown himself to be just the kind of leader we need in the White House, but McCain has a long history of having very poor character when it comes to judgment, his temper, and his arrogance. The voters have a right to know more about the person who wants to control the most powerful military in history.
• Women deserve to know, specifically the minority of women who supported Hillary and were angry at her loss, and now intend to spite Obama and the Democratic Party by supporting McCain, even though Hillary lost according to the rules, and there was no unfair treatment, and sexism had nothing to do with her loss. These people deserve to understand more about the person they intend on supporting, they deserve to know the low regard he has shown for women, repeatedly, just as they need to know that he is against reproductive rights for women, and would extend Bush's policies toward limiting choice, and would likely have it in his power, if elected, to overturn Roe v. Wade. Before they rush into supporting him out of spite, they need to be well aware that they are hurting themselves in doing so.

So the video is funny, but is also serious. Many may not get that it is intended to provoke a more serious look at John McCain's character, especially from within the MSM which has had a love affair with him for years now. It is vulgar, but only because McCain's comments were vulgar, and its true purpose is to educate, not just get cheap laughs. And people should also be mindful that "cunt" is a horribly offensive and misogynistic word, and it not OK to use against anyone, especially not your own wife. People made a big deal about some people, generally Republicans, calling Hillary a bitch, and needless to say this word is a lot more offensive than even bitch. It should also be noted that this video has no relation to Obama's campaign, or any fixture of the Democratic Party, unlike the majority of the smears coming from the right-wing, most of which seem to originate from the Tennessee GOP. Anyway, without further ado, the video (do NOT watch this at work without headphones):



Okay, for the weak-hearted, here is the censored version.

And for anyone who doubts that the word "cunt" isn't always resting on the tip of his tongue, watch this.

Cindy McCain, Just Like Rachel Ray, Only A Complete Phoney

You may recall back in April there was a bit of a plagiarism debacle surrounding Cindy McCain and her "family recipes".

You see, in an attempt to make Cindy McCain look less like the icy, corporate, super rich trophy wife of an angry pathological flip-flopper, and more like a warm and family-oriented potential First Lady, the McCain's included a section on John McCain's website with a couple "McCain Family Recipes" that just warmed the soul.

It turns out the McCain's weren't wealthy conservatives out to continue the failed right-wing policies of Bush after all, they were just a normal family as American as apple pie.

Oh, until this happened:

Lauren Handel, an eagle-eyed attorney from New York, was searching for a specific recipe from Giada DeLaurentis, a chef on the Food Network. Yet whenever she Googled the different ingredients in the recipe, the oddest thing happened: not only did the Food Network's site come up, as expected, but so did John McCain's campaign site.

On a section of McCain's site called "Cindy's Recipes," you can find seven recipes attributed to Cindy McCain, each with the heading "McCain Family Recipe." Ms. Handel quickly realized that some of the "McCain Family Recipes," were in fact, word-for-word copies of recipes on the Food Network site.

At least three of the "McCain Family Recipes" appear to be lifted directly from the Food Network, while at least one is a Rachael Ray recipe with minor changes.

Oops. Yeah, Cindy McCain never struck me as the kind of person who spent a lot of time in the kitchen. So it turns out that the McCain's tried to warm Cindy's image with a healthy serving of plagiarism. Kind of embarrassing, but pretty much lost in the midst of the intense Democratic primary battle. In the end they blamed in on a lowly intern, who apparently was tasked with coming up with "McCain Family Recipes" on his own, but instead of having to decency of creating his own recipes from scratch like a good intern, the lazy little worm went and copy and pasted recipes off the internet. Gosh, good help is hard to find, and $100 million Cindy would know.

Oh well, in the past, water under the bridge, lessons learned, you can't fake authentic.

Until yesterday, when the potential First Ladies, as customary, submitted their recipes to Family Circle magazine for a contest, which they brag has correctly identified the winner of the past four presidential elections (note: cookie recipes determine "winning" by the terms and conditions of Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)). Michelle Obama's is a family recipe for shortbread cookies with zest of lemon and orange, and a hint of Amaretto, handed down to her by Mama Kaye, the godmother of both her daughters, Sasha and Malia. Cindy McCain's? Well:

Cindy McCain, who earlier this year had to apologize for plagiarizing a recipe for passion fruit mousse [among others] from Food Network, went for oatmeal butterscotch cookies.

They are "an absolute must whenever the whole family gets together," says the multi-millionaire heiress to a large beer distribution firm, married to Republican presidential hopeful John McCain.

Only those oatmeal butterscotch cookies, straight Hershey's. That's right, she did it again. I wonder if they can find another intern to scapegoat this time for her "family recipe" mixup.

I guess this is what happens when you try to construct an artificial persona to shove down Americans' throats. And meanwhile the right-wing is hard at work trying to tear down and demonize Michelle Obama, a genuine, hard-working mother and professional, who puts her family first and doesn't try to bullshit the American people with fakery. I guess if you can't beat 'em, go Tonya Harding on their asses.

Update: Go give Michelle's cookies some love here, vote them up!

Update #2: It turns out that "Bill Clinton's Oatmeal Cookies" aren't his either, they are Betty Crocker's. But are any of us really surprised? I think Michelle Obama wins this by default because hers were the only ones not copied directly from the Food Network or Betty Crocker.

Update #3: Despite nasty GOP attacks against Michelle, and generally unfavorable media coverage, a just-released ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 48% of Americans view Michelle favorably, compared to only 39% who view Cindy favorably. My faith in Americans is starting to come back after 8 years of disappointment.

The Great McCain Credit Card Mystery

Some odd news was uncovered yesterday, which was that John and Cindy McCain have between $225,000 and $565,000 (yes, that's over half a million dollars) in credit card debt, held on multiple American Express credit cards. Now you may recall that John and Cindy McCain are worth over $100 million, and they could easily pay off their credit cards, and in fact there is little reason for them to even use credit cards, yet they still have somewhere between a quarter million to half a million in debts owed to American Express. So the question is, why do they have so much debt?

Now it isn't as bad as it looks, it isn't like they have to pay interest on their credit cards, because rich, politically connected people don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else, as Huffington Post points out:

But not all credit card debts are created equal. In fact, according to a prior disclosure form filed in May that was provided to The Huffington Post, a significant amount of the McCains' credit card debt is being held by American Express at an interest rate of zero percent -- making their debt a lot less like the costly credit card pitfalls facing many Americans and a lot more like the big sweetheart loans that can get national political figures in hot water.

Zero-percent credit card interest rates are not exclusively for the rich or well-connected, of course. But the most common offers of that kind are often capped at a few-thousand dollars and shed their zero percent rate after six to nine months.

Hmm...so American Express seems to be doing the McCains a big favor by letting them spend American Expresses money, and then not having to pay any interest on it for quite some time. The only benefit of this to the McCains, as far as I can tell, is that they can continue to have that money they already spent still sitting in their savings accounts or other investments gaining interest, whereas if they were normal people they would have already spent that money, and they wouldn't be making interest off of it. Now for normal people, interest isn't a big deal, because we don't have enough money to yield much in interest, but when you have that kind of money, it adds up. For instance, worst case scenario for the McCain's, say they had that money in a savings or money market account at a mere 3.5% interest, compounded monthly, for a year. They would have saved between $8,000 and $20,000 just by having American Express hold their debt for them interest free. Now it is more likely that the McCains have their money in much higher yield investments (a 10% return would get the McCains $24,000-$59,000 in a year--and they could probably do much better than 10%), making a lot more money for them, so you can see the benefit of what American Express is doing for them.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, I don't see any other reason John and Cindy McCain would be putting anything on credit cards, let alone not paying off the credit cards, considering how filthy rich they are. It seems to me like American Express is doing a US Senator and presidential hopeful a big favor by letting them do what they are doing. American Express is losing money by doing this, but they don't care. Why? Because it costs money to make money, and I suppose they expect their favor to be returned at some point.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

McCain, PC or Mac? Or Abacus?

A while back ago John McCain was asked if he used a Mac or a PC. Sure, not a question of any relevance to anyone, that is, until his answer:

Neither, I'm an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get.

A chimp can use a computer, how the hell can a US Senator, someone running to run the most powerful country in the world, not know how to work a damn computer after they have been around for over two decades?? It isn't that hard, you play around with it for an hour and you'll figure it out. Kids can do it before they learn to read. And John McCain can't?

Atrios summed it up nicely:

I think in 2008 computer use and understanding of the internet should be part of the basic skill set we expect from people in positions of prominent public leadership. It's pretty much impossible to have any kind of understanding of how people in the modern world go about their lives and work without that. The internet is not a fad or the playground for 17 year olds.

And Kos puts it in a larger perspective:

Technology now infects every corner of our lives, from cell phones to computers to the internet. It has given us access to the worlds' libraries, empowering us with direct access to information. It has connected us with people all over this country and world, dramatically redefining what the word "community" means. It is dramatically reshaping entire sectors of our economy -- from the nation's thriving tech sector, to legacy sectors like publishing, music, motion picture, medicine, and retail. And how many workplaces remain without computers?

How can a candidate who admits he is stuck in the 20th century lead a country in the 21st, when he lacks even the most basic understanding of how this brave new century operates? He doesn't know how people interact and communicate. He doesn't know have the faintest idea of how they work. And this from the guy who once chaired the commerce committee!

Is it any wonder that McCain has been completely unable to adapt to the rigors of a 21st century campaign, in which YouTube and blogs can instantaneously expose every single one of his myriad flip flops and capture every one of his ghastly grins?

And no, age is no excuse, because there are plenty of people his age and older who have learned how to use a computer. If he doesn't have the cognitive abilities to adapt to new technology (in other words the cognitive abilities of a 6 year old), how the hell is he supposed to keep up with the constant challenges of leading a nation? The other possibility is perhaps even more disconcerting--if McCain does have the mental capacity to learn new things, why on earth has he resisted learning how to use a computer, when computers have become such a fundamental part of our society? Computers and the internet have unlocked historically unprecedented access to knowledge and information, access that has and will continue to change the shape of society, and yet in a society where knowledge is power, McCain remains willfully ignorant of even the most fundamental tool of unlocking all of this potential? Why? What does that mean about McCain? I don't want to make too much out of this, but seriously, how could you be surrounded by this technology, this incredibly important, history-changing technology, and not at least be curious, not at least learn the basics, especially when you are a US Senator??

I don't know what to make of it, but I think it speaks volumes about McCain's character, we just don't know whether it is saying that he is hopelessly dysfunctional, or stubbornly anti-change.

Watch the video here:

McCain's Love & Respect For Women

This is something I think every female Hillary supporter who is so upset that their female candidate didn't win they are willing to vote for John McCain to spite the Democratic Party. If you think the Democratic Party is sexist for having rules and following them, I think you need to take a look at who you intend to support in November. This is all about how McCain came back from Vietnam to find that is wife had been in a car accident and wasn't trophy enough for his big ego anymore, so he whored around with other women, and then traded her up for his current (and rich) wife. This is also the same man who called his current wife, Cindy a "cunt". Swell guy, definitely loves and respects women, I'm sure he'll be happy for your vote:

The Wife U.S. Republican John McCain Callously Left Behind
by Sharon Churcher, The Daily Mail, UK

McCain's Republican Corruption Bona Fides

The Huffington Post has a nice compilation of some of John McCain's bigger conflict of interest/lobbyist scandals, which I think everyone who would ever consider voting for McCain should read, as well as anyone that have delusions of McCain being ethical or some kind of maverick. McCain is an establishment Republican, through and through, and he has the corruption bona fides to prove it:

McCain's Lobbyist Scandals Prompt Additional Scrutiny
by The Huffington Post

Also, on the same topic is Cindy McCain's refusal to disclose financial records related to her corporate fortune. I wrote about it before, and since then she has been criticized for her refusal and lack of transparency in three major newspapers and faced additional demands that she release her tax returns:

Cindy McCain's Tax Returns Called For By Three Op-Eds
by, The Huffington Post

Update: Even more nasty connections, one of McCain's top advisors has connections to multiple murderous dictators (more here):



Update #2: And here are some more examples of McCain's corruption and unethical dealings:

McCain Busted in Land Deal benefiting Fundraisers over Environment with McSame History
by kubla000, Daily Kos

One has to wonder when the media's love affair with McCain will end. For someone who has been in the public realm for decades most people know very very little about him. I think the next five or so months are going to be quite educational, at least for those paying attention to non-traditional media. I'm not so sure the MSM will do the digging for us.

The New York Times Faults The McCains And The Clintons On Transparency

The New York Times is troubled, troubled by a disturbing lack of transparency, which has become a pattern, for some of our country's presidential aspirants. One candidate they aren't troubled by is Barack Obama, who has led the way in transparency and ethics, and the Times praised him accordingly. But let's look at the bad apples, starting with the apples that actually matter still:

John McCain

John McCain is old. Too old? Who knows. But he is old, and he has had a history of health problems, most notably an aggressive form of skin cancer in 2000. Now hopefully it is fine, but voters have no idea. He could be dying and no one would know, because he continually refuses to release his medical records to the public. He managed to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee, without letting the voters know about the health of a man who is 71, who will turn 72 a couple months before election day, and who could conceivably be 80 upon leaving office. I'm not picking on the guy here, and neither is the New York Times, the American people have a right to know whether or not their potential president is going to pull a William Henry Harrison on them. As the Times stated the other day in an editorial, "No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health. And Mr. McCain, in particular, knows that. ... Voters are entitled to know about other potential health concerns for an average 71-year-old man." Yet McCain has continued to stall, which would not make much sense unless he had something to hide. John McCain has also not released nearly as many financial records as Obama has released, which the Times criticized as well.

Cindy McCain

Cindy McCain is dirty filthy rich, as the daughter of a major beer distributor, and now the corporation's chair. Cindy used her fortune to finance McCain's first congressional election back in the 80s, thus he essentially owes his political career to her and her corporate money. Yet Cindy McCain won't release her financial information. Even today on the Today Show she said unequivocally that she will never disclose her financial records, even if she becomes First Lady. The Times disagrees, saying it is vital that she disclose her financial records "to gain public trust and to air potential conflicts of interest". Apparently Cindy McCain is hoping Americans don't care about McCain's relationship to corporate money, his conflicts of interest, and his campaign joyriding on corporate jets owned by Cindy's company.

It should also be noted that in the same interview she repeatedly promised that McCain will not run a negative campaign with negative attacks, and said that they would rather lose than resort to that -- this coming after McCain's attempts to say that terrorists support Obama because a spokesman of Hamas commented that he wanted Obama to win (or conversely just didn't want another neoconservative to win), because apparently wanting America to change it's neoimperialistic warmongering, as the whole world wants, is a crazy pro-terrorist thing. McCain obviously hasn't noticed that the majority of people in almost every country want Obama to win the presidency, people want change. So so much for no negative campaigning...and I guarantee there will be a lot more where that came from, so I'll probably be referring back to this interview with Cindy McCain from time to time.

The Clintons

After much delay the Clintons finally released some of their financial records a few weeks ago, showing us that in the last few years they have made over $100 million. Left out were tax returns from 2007, as well as a full accounting of where Bill's money came from, leading to further questions of potential conflicts of interest. As the Times notes:

The public is still owed a more complete accounting of the sources and amounts of Mr. Clinton’s speaking fees and business income. Still missing, too, is a complete list of the major donors who have been supporting the Clinton presidential library and foundation.

Also Hillary still refuses to release most of her records from her time as First Lady, a period that includes all of her claims to superior experience. Of course the matter is pretty much moot at this point, because she has lost, but it is just further evidence of the Clintons' proclivity for secrecy and their resistance to transparency in government, a resistance we've lived with for the last 8 years in the White House, and a resistance shared by the McCains.

The editorial ends by saying, "The extent of a candidate’s candor is a good measure of how candid he or she will be in the White House."

Exactly, yet another area where Obama sets a high bar, and the Clintons and McCain fail to pass a low bar.

Update: Here is Obama's very presidential response to McCain's "Hamas" pathetic smear attempts: