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:

McCain Acts Like A Child After Clark Praises His Military Service

There has been an ongoing tussle over the last few days over some comments that Gen. Wesley Clark made about John McCain. The "controversy" was so ridiculous that I think it warranted much mention, but McCain keeps on pushing it, and the media of course likes nothing more than to not focus on the issues, so it is time to bring it up.

First, Gen. Clark had made comments previously that McCain is "untested and untried" in matters of national security. On Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer questioned Gen. Clark's comments, after gushing about McCain's military service (which isn't all that great when you look at it, but we'll get to that later). This was the response:

Clark: Because in the matters of national security policy making it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gaging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war, he was a hero to me and a hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a war time squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall, he hasn't seen what it is like when diplomats come in and say 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not', 'do you want to take the risk?', 'what about your reputation?" 'how do we handle it publicly?', he hasn't made those calls.

Here I want to stop for a second and point out that Gen. Clark has done all of those things, he has had this executive level experience and responsibility. Here is a short bio on Clark:

Gen. Wesley Kanne Clark is a retired General of the United States Army. Clark was valedictorian of his class at West Point, was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in PPE (Philosophy, Politics & Economics), served in Vietnam, and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Among his many assignments around the world, Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO.

In short, Clark knows what he is talking about, and he is more than qualified to make these statements about what military service does and does not mean. Anyway, continuing:

Schieffer: Well general, maybe, could I just interrupt you, I have to say Barack Obama hasn't had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down, I mean...

Clark: Well I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president...

Schieffer: (Responding with surprise) Really??

Clark: ...But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he's running on his other strengths, hes running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.

This is the most ridiculous part, when Clark said that riding in a fighter plane and being shot down isn't a qualification to be president, Schieffer responded with shock, "Really??", as if it was so obvious that being shot down IS a qualification to be president. Excuse me? How, exactly, does getting shot down make you ANY more qualified to be president? For that matter, how, exactly, does getting tortured make you ANY more qualified to be president?? I'd like Schieffer to explain the logic behind that assertion, because if that is all it takes, there are hundreds of GREAT presidential candidates just sitting around in cages at Guantanamo Bay just waiting to take the oath of office. "Really??" Give me a goddamn break, YES you idiot, really.

But let's stop for a second, did Gen. Clark in any way demean McCain's military service? N, of course not. He clearly stated that he honored his service and even thought it was heroic: "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war, he was a hero to me and a hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war." He just stated, matter-of-factly, that while McCain served bravely, that doesn't automatically mean he had any experience with executive responsibility and other presidential qualifications. Is that a smear? I don't see how. Saying that being shot down doesn't qualify you to be president, was that a smear? No, that is common sense, period. Only an idiot (Schieffer and others) would respond with shock that being shot down doesn't magically give you super presidential abilities. Clark, just like Obama, has repeatedly acknowledged McCain's military service and called him a hero. They have only contended that his military service isn't a magic wand that should give him a free pass to the White House, because he could have flown a billion hours, but that doesn't mean he necessarily has the judgment it takes to be president (see my previous blog post, McCain Would Repeat The War All Over Again, if you need any convincing).

So, predictably, McCain starts whining and accusing Clark of disparaging his military service by having the audacity to point out the obvious truth that nothing in McCain's military service qualifies him to be president, while still praising his military service and calling him a hero. Clark was being more than gracious with that praise (more on that later), yet McCain jumped on Clark, and Obama, for the comments. First came this:

If Barack Obama wants to question John McCain's service to his country, he should have the guts to do it himself and not hide behind his campaign surrogates.

Of course neither Clark nor Obama were questioning McCain's military service, and in fact both have praised McCain's service. But it is nice to see McCain's campaign acting like children taunting their opponents with falsehoods. At this point McCain called on Obama to reject the comments, and Obama's campaign made a statement saying:

As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark.

End of story, right? McCain had no standing to complain in the first place, and certainly that should clear it up. But wait, McCain is falling further and further behind in the polls, he only has a single digit lead in his home state, needless to say he is running scared, he can't even beat Obama on foreign policy or national security, and Wes Clark hit his Achilles heel by exposing the idiocy of the conventional wisdom that says McCain is some kind of expert on national security just because he was in the military, so McCain has to manufacture a distraction "issue" to keep the focus off his embrace of Bush's failed policies, so he continues, even after Obama rejected any attacks on McCain's military service, which never actually happened:

Of course Barack Obama has called many times for a new kind of politics, but his campaign just hasn't lived up to it. We've learned we need to wait and see what Senator Obama actually does, rather than take him at his word.

Of course this wasn't Obama speaking, it was Wes Clark, and of course Clark said nothing at all offensive or uncalled for, he simply praised McCain's service but pointed out that it didn't equal a presidential qualification. There is nothing wrong with that, and that doesn't at all conflict with Obama's message of a new politics.

Then McCain's campaign created a new "truth squad" website to "defend" McCain from "attacks" on his "military record". Former Vietnam vet and McCain supporter Bud Day had this to say:

John was slandered and reviled in the 2000 campaign in a way that denigrated his service enormously...it was absolutely important to face this issue right off the bat.

Please note, it was Bush who trashed McCain with nasty tactics in 2000, and the very people who ran that campaign against him and now working for McCain, running the same sort of campaign against Obama. Oh, and that isn't all, turns out the head of McCain's "anti-swiftboating truth squad" was featured in the Swift Boat Vets ads against John Kerry in 2004, spreading all kinds of actual lies and actual attacks on his military service. It is quite great that when someone praises his military record, but simply points out that he lacked executive responsibility, they are attacking his service to this country, but when the Swift Boat Vets directly attacked Kerry's patriotism and service with distortions and complete lies, that is apparently OK. Interesting how that works huh? (Does the media point out this huge contradiction? Not a chance.)

At this point all the media fuss over this (the media hates focusing on issues that actually matter to Americans) forced Clark to come out and repeat what he had already said, because people didn't seem to understand it the first time around:

There are many important issues in this Presidential election, clearly one of the most important issues is national security and keeping the American people safe. In my opinion, protecting the American people is the most important duty of our next President. I have made comments in the past about John McCain's service and I want to reiterate them in order be crystal clear. As I have said before I honor John McCain's service as a prisoner of war and a Vietnam Veteran. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. I would never dishonor the service of someone who chose to wear the uniform for our nation.

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America. But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Then the McCain campaign responds with even more childishness, sounding even more like a bunch of angsty teenagers, and it just gets ridiculous:

Yesterday, Barack Obama's campaign said he rejected Gen. Clark's attack on John McCain's military service. But last night, Gen. Clark admitted to speaking with the Obama campaign, and then went out and repeated his attacks. It's clear that the Obama campaign isn't telling Wes Clark to apologize, and are either encouraging or tolerating his attacks on John McCain's military service.

The Obama campaign even said they were 'glad' that Gen. Clark 'clarified' a comment they supposedly repudiated. If this kind of wink-and-nod game is how Barack Obama wants to run his campaign, then fine. But spare us the empty talk of 'new politics' and raising the dialogue in this country. We just wonder: Will Barack Obama's actions ever match his words?

Then, one of McCain's POW surrogates trashes Clark's military service:

General Clark probably wouldn't get that much praise from this group [McCain's military supporters]. I can't speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command [Supreme Allied Commander of NATO] I think was somewhat less than stellar.

Now THAT is a personal attack on another person's military service. Clark never said anything negative about how McCain served, or the quality of his service (even though there is plenty there to criticize, more later), yet these same people who are attacking Clark for his so-called "attacks" are ACTUALLY attacking Clark's much more impressive military career. Hypocrisy much? (Does the media pick up on this? Of course not)

And of course there are many veterans who completely agree with Gen. Clark's comments.

Oh yeah, did I mention that in 2003 McCain answered "absolutely not" when asked whether "military service inherently makes someone better equipped to be commander-in-chief", which is essentially what Clark was saying? Yet Clark had to defend himself to the media, again, this time on Good Morning America:

Well, Robin, I want to say first that Senator Obama had nothing to do with this. These are comments that I was asked about several months ago in terms of me as a retired military officer assessing John McCain's qualifications. And so I was on the Sunday interview show, the interviewer brought them up. He actually asked me the question. He's the one who stated it, climbed into an airplane and got shot down. All I did was directly respond to the question. So I'm very sorry that this is distracted from the message of patriotism that Senator Obama wants to put out. But I want to make very clear that as a Democrat and as a former Army officer, I fully respect Senator McCain and all others who have served and especially now on this Fourth of July. I think our country has achieved its independence because men and women were willing to sacrifice for it and I honor every one of our veterans and those in service today.

[...]

I think it depends on how you use that experience and what your judgment is. And so what I've seen is that -- and I'm supporting Barack Obama, as I've said, because I think he's shown superior judgment. And I don't want to get into a critique here on John McCain's judgment, but what I do want to say is I think it's a matter of judgment. If you've learned from the experience and your judgment is proved out, then that's well and good. But if you've had the experience and your judgment still doesn't give you the best decisions for national security, and so my point is, I hope the American people will discriminate between someone's early experiences and the kind of judgment they've taken away from those experiences.

Around this time Senator Jim Webb, also a Vietnam veteran, was on MSNBC to talk about his new GI Bill that just passed, even tough Bush and McCain opposed giving the troops more benefits (yet later hypocritically took credit for the bill they opposed, the media didn't call them on that hypocrisy either, no surprise that), and he weighed in on the "controversy", telling McCain to "calm down" on politicizing the military:

I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Monday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues.

And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas.

[Note: For some background, Webb used to be a Republican, and still blames the Democratic Party and liberals for "losing" the Vietnam War by protesting and opposing it, even though it was a horribly immoral war, and resulted in many more American deaths than Iraq. For this reason alone (though, there are many others), I can't feel good about the idea of Webb as Obama's VP.]

Anyway, McCain's campaign, ever vigilant in finding a new excuse to act like paranoid children, jumped on this, and pointed to a vast conspiracy to "attack" McCain's military service:

If you didn't think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain's credentials before, it's clear now that it is. Barack Obama's surrogates are telling the McCain campaign to "calm down" about attacks on his military record? Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark's attacks are John McCain's fault? It's absurd. If Barack Obama can't control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?

Urg. What can you say to that kind of nonsense. John McCain can't control himself, let alone surrogates, do we really want to go there? Webb's office responds, pointing out that Webb in no way attacked McCain:

I can tell you that Senator Webb has never spoken with Senator Obama about this issue nor has he spoken to Wesley Clark. Senator Webb's comments were not targeted at McCain's military service. He has consistently called for politicians not to insert politics into military service. This is the exact same argument that he used against Lindsay Graham last year in their Meet the Press interview regarding objections to giving troops adequate dwell time at home.

Senator Webb has never, and would never, demean the service of anyone who has stepped forward to serve our country. To the contrary, he was calling on those on all sides of the debate to refrain from implying that their political views are representative of the military writ large.

Obama, when asked about all of this, let loose an absolute shocker: maybe Americans want to focus on real issues!!:

I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we've got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine? I think that, you know, right now we're here to talk about how we can make sure that kids in Zanesville and across Ohio get the kind of support that they need and communities that are impoverished can start to rebuild. I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night.

Obama notably didn't apologize for Clark's comments, or "cut him loose", as McCain's campaign wanted, and he suggested that Clark does not owe McCain any apology, because there is obviously nothing to apologize for. McCain's campaign responds in its characteristic catty manner:

Apparently Barack Obama now thinks that smear attacks on John McCain’s military service are fair game.

Once again, there was no smear, and no attack on McCain's military service.

I came across an excellent diary on Daily Kos entitled "Why is McCain a Delicate Flower Who Needs Constant Asskissing?", which I think nails the mood of the last couple days on its head. Here is an excerpt, but I encourage you to read the whole thing:

I'll be blunt, here.

Just how much ass-kissing does John McCain think he is owed?

Barack Obama has constantly, consistently and repeatedly said he honors John McCain's military service, and what he endured as a prisoner of war.

A quick Google search confirms that Obama has stated just that on numerous occasions. Very unequivocally.

And now that the Republicans are in their phoney pearl-clutching gear again, lying about what General Wesley Clark said and Obama's part it in (none), we once again see John McCain and his surrogates whining about how John McCain has been disrespected.

God in heaven, is there any man in America who has been given MORE respect and deference for his military service than John McCain?

Why is McCain such a delicate flower that any time he's in an election, he starts whining about being disrespected? Is he not capable of having an honest, vigorous policy debate without going into full martyr gear and accusing everyone of being mean to him?

Seriously John, grow the hell up, quit acting like a child, quit accusing everyone of savaging your military service anytime they so much as question the logic behind giving you a free pass on everything just because you were a POW, which you repeat at every available opportunity, even while you say you don't like to make a big deal out of it. Shameless. But like I said before, this is a direct result of McCain getting his ass kicked by Obama in the polls and on the issues, and he reacts with ire when someone points out that the king (or prince) has no clothes.

A revealing moment during his recent trip to Colombia shows how touchy (afraid) McCain is when it comes to people actually taking a closer look (or saying anything that might prompt the media to take a closer look) at his military service:

McCain became visibly angry when I asked him to explain how his Vietnam experience prepared him for the Presidency.

"Please," he said, recoiling back in his seat in distaste at the very question.

When asked a perfectly legitimate question about how his military service exceptionally qualified him for the White House, he got angry and refused to answer, completely dismissing the question as crazy. How exactly is this a crazy question? How is it off the table to ask McCain to explain the logical process that makes him getting shot down into a presidential qualifier? He reacted in the way he did because his military service isn't his strength, it is his weakness, and any critical eye is a threat to the veneer of heroism and exceptional experience that the media presents to the voters on behalf of McCain.

So what about McCain's military service is so off-limits? Why is he so incredibly defensive of people even looking at his service? Why can't we talk about it, in any way whatsoever, even though he is constantly using it as a crutch on the campaign trail? Clark didn't say anything about his record. Neither did Obama. But hell, I'll bite, since McCain brought it up.

First, that plane that was shot down, magically giving McCain supreme Commander-in-Chief abilities, was McCain's fourth plane crash, out of five total. It was the only time McCain crashed a plane due to enemy fire, the other four times were all McCain:

John Sidney McCain III is known among many of his Vietnam flight buddies as "Ace" McCain. This title has not been bestowed upon McCain because he destroyed five enemy aircraft. On the contrary: It was five on our side -- in fact, five of his own. Since throwing his hat into the presidential ring, the fact that McCain was graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy nearly at the bottom of his class has been publicized. His star-crossed flying, on the other hand, remains unknown to most.

It wasn't long after arriving in Pensacola that McCain racked up the first of his five crashes, beginning in 1958, on his way to becoming a "reverse ace." As told by Timberg, "McCain was practicing landings; his engine quit and he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay. Knocked unconscious by the impact, he came to as the plane settled to the bottom."

There was, however, no engine failure with the aircraft. According to one of McCain's former flight instructors, "The engine was removed from the aircraft that afternoon, mounted on a test stand and a new propeller installed. [It] was flushed with fresh water and started. It ran just fine. So the theory of engine failure was proven false."

The instructor added that McCain was "positively one of the weakest students to pass our way, and received consistently poor marks and a number of Dangerous Down grades assigned by more than one instructor. He had no real ability and was clearly out of his element in an airplane, and way over his head even as a junior naval officer."

The second of McCain's crashes occurred while he was deployed in the Mediterranean. "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula," reports Timberg, "he took out some power lines [reminiscent of the 1998 incident in which a Marine Corps jet sliced through the cables of a gondola at an Italian ski resort, killing 20] which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Crash three occurred when McCain was returning from flying a trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. According to Timberg, McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout." He went through the standard relight procedures three times. At one thousand feet, he ejected, landing on the deserted beach moments before the plane slammed into a clump of trees."

That brings us to magical number four, which landed him in a POW camp. I'm assuming he was actually shot down, but if he had just crashed the plane in enemy territory it would have been completely in keeping with his M.O. And yes, he did graduate in the bottom of his class from Annapolis, the bottom 1% in fact. Needless to say, McCain's military record was a running joke, not a heroic tale:

"John McCain," says another Navy pilot and acquaintance of that era, "was the kind of guy you wanted to room with -- not fly with. He was reckless, and that's critical when you start thinking about who's going to be the president," The old pilot laughs, and then continues: "But the Navy accident rate was cut in half the day John McCain was shot down."

"Thank God not all pilots are like McCain," jokes another pilot, "or the government would be buying a hell of a lot more planes."

Yet despite his crashes and horrible grades, Johnny landed the most sought-after Navy assignment: aircraft carrier pilot. Why? Oh, because daddy McCain was an admiral, and so John McCain Jr. got a free ride despite having a record that would have cost any non-heir his wings long before. Oh, the perks didn't stop there though, because McCain got a hell of a lot of medals for his less-than-stellar military career:

"McCain had roughly 20 hours in combat," explains Bill Bell, a veteran of Vietnam and chief of the U.S. Office for POW/MIA Affairs -- the first official U.S. representative in Vietnam since the 1973 fall of Saigon. "Since McCain got 28 medals," Bell continues, "that equals out to about a medal-and-a-half for each hour he spent in combat. There were infantry guys -- grunts on the ground -- who had more than 7,000 hours in combat and I can tell you that there were times and situations where I'm sure a prison cell would have looked pretty good to them by comparison. The question really is how many guys got that number of medals for not being shot down."

Hell, even McCain admitted that his Vietnamese captors treated him better because he was the son of an admiral:

Other guys had it a lot worse. I think they took it easier on me because of who my dad was...when they tied me in ropes, they'd roll my sleeve up to give it a little padding between the rope and my bicep, you know, little things I noticed.

Are we starting to get a picture of why McCain doesn't want people to even mention his military career unless they are worshiping it? Do we now have an idea of why the Navy hasn't released around 600 pages of McCain's service records? Maybe because this is what we would find out about our "war hero":

In his memoir, everything becomes a kind of game of adolescent brinksmanship, how much can one press the limits of the acceptable and elude the powers that be....The [fighter jocks'] ethos of exaggerated, almost aggressive sociability becomes an end in itself and an excuse for license. There is a tendency for people, not simply to believe their own mythology but, indeed, to exaggerate it.... Fighter jocks, like politicians around their campaign contributions, often press the limits of the acceptable. It is a type of mild corruption that takes place in a highly privileged atmosphere, where restraints are loosened and excuses made....McCain gives some hint in his memoirs about where he stood in the hierarchy among carrier flyers. Instead of the sleek and newer Phantoms and Crusaders, McCain flew the dependable Douglas A-4 Skyhawk in an attack, not a fighter squadron. He was thus on the lower end of the flying totem pole.

Oh, and crash #5 for McCain? That one showed he didn't know his limits:

Is McCain now getting away with more by hiding his official history and by having his national security adviser inflate McCain's resume with a bogus promotion to admiral humbly declined? If so, McCain may be attempting to hide why the Navy was in fact slow to promote him upwards despite his suffering as a POW and his distinguished naval heritage.

One possible reason: After McCain had returned from Vietnam as a war hero and was physically rehabilitated, he was urged by his medical caretakers and military colleagues never to fly again. But McCain insisted on going up. As Carl Bernstein reported in Vanity Fair, he piloted an ultra-light, single propeller plane -- and crashed another time. His fifth loss of a plane has vanished from public records, but should be a subject of discussion in his Navy file. It wouldn't be surprising if his naval superiors worried that McCain was just too defiant, too reckless and too crash prone.

Regardless, McCain owes it to the country to release his complete naval records so that American voters can see his documented history and make an informed decision.

Of course if he has such a wonderful and heroic military record, there should be no reason to not release the remaining 600-some pages of his military record to the public. And if his record is something to be proud of, something that boosts his qualifications for being president, why should he be so afraid of anyone actually looking at, or even mentioning, his military service? Why does he lash out at everyone who threatens to disturb the mythology that is his military record? Clark didn't question McCain's military record and neither did Obama or Webb, but maybe someone should, if for no other reason than to give him a reason to whine as much as he has been.

Sorry that was so long, perhaps now you can see why I was hesitant to write about this earlier, and because it was so ridiculous to begin with, and because every day it just got more and more ridiculous, but hopefully now it is over, and hopefully now we can focus on the issues instead of this nonsense that McCain keeps trying to distract Americans with.

McCain Gets Money From Terrorist Funders And Arms Traffickers

John McCain is on a trip to Colombia, and he made some comments about the Colombian terrorist group FARC, which he called "one of the worst" terrorist groups, and then baselessly accused Obama of being unwilling to help fight terrorism in Colombia. If you are familiar with McCain, you might know where this is going.

Yes, last week Carl H. Lindner Jr., former CEO of Chaquita Brands International, co-hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser for McCain and the Republican Party, which raised about $2 million. In addition to that, Lindner also serves on McCain's Ohio Victory Team.

Now Chaquita, while Linder was CEO, gave millions of dollars to FARC, and later to AUC, a violent right-wing paramilitary group designated a terrorist group by the US. Chaquita, via subsidiary Banadex, also engaged in arms trafficking, and provided 3,000 AK-47 rifles and millions of rounds of ammunition to AUC. AUC was also funded by the drug trade.

So of course, McCain criticizes FARC, and Obama for being "soft on terror", yet McCain gets millions from an event co-hosted by a former CEO who oversaw the funding of FARC and another terrorist organization, and was also involved in illegal arms trafficking. But AUC is also opposed to FARC, so I suppose McCain would list this terrorist group as his "allies" on the "war on terror" that Obama doesn't want to support. Maybe it is because Obama doesn't deal with terrorists, and isn't funded by people who support terrorists.

Oh yes, and Charlie Black, McCain's chief advisor and superlobbyist, lobbied for Chaquita multiple times. And we are supposed to believe McCain doesn't have any conflicts of interest in dealing with these issues? Oh yeah, did I mention that McCain has already used his political power to do favors for Lindner?:

However, in the past, McCain has done favors on Lindner's behalf. Last May, the Washington Post reported that in the late 1990s, McCain "promoted a deal in Arizona's Tonto National Forest involving property part-owned by Great American Life Insurance, a company run by billionaire Carl H. Lindner Jr., a prolific contributor to national political parties and presidential candidates."

Quid pro quo. Quid pro quo.

Why is it that McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists with seedy connections to dictators, terrorists and corporate America, yet the media doesn't seem to care at all, even when he is hypocritically attacking Obama and FARC when he is being funded by terrorist supporters and arms traffickers? Why doesn't the media care? Why do they give McCain a free pass on EVERYTHING? This isn't an isolated incident, this scenario has cropped up over and over again with McCain, and every time no one seems to care.

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.

Hillary's "Count Every Vote" Hillpocrisy

Here is a fun bit of hillpocrisy, for those jonesing for an early morning fix. This didn't make the news anywhere, but at the same time Hillary has been running around the country decrying the terrible disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida who voted for her (she wants to disenfranchise every single voter who voted for Obama in Michigan), equating their struggle (okay, actually her struggle because they don't seem to really care) with the suffrage movement and the fight against slavery, and comparing the Florida-Michigan row to Mugabe's anti-democratic actions in Zimbabwe, she has been trying to disenfranchise voters in Texas. Yes, we all know she also doesn't want to count any voters from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, but now she is going after caucus goers in Texas, who just happened to have voted for Obama. Hillary's campaign tried keep an entire county from being seated at the state convention because that county's senate district conventions were held a day late, because there wasn't a large enough venue in the county for the day it was originally scheduled. So Hillary's campaign wants everyone in the county (again, the county went to Obama, just a coincidence I'm sure..) disenfranchised, for breaking the rules, because they essentially had no other choice.

This of course directly contradicts her moral standard she has employed in the Florida-Michigan fiasco, which is that "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Hm, I'm pretty sure these people intended to vote for Obama, so why are you trying so hard to get everyone in that county disenfranchised if you are supposedly the new hero of democracy? What happened to fighting for every single vote to be counted?

Oh, and a Hillary supporter on the credentials committee that would decide the ultimate fate of the votes from Collin County said "What is troubling me...is that it seems to me that this rule is crystal clear." Which is funny, because the rules of the DNC were also crystal clear, even clearer actually because they were warned of the consequences, and yet they violated the rules anyway. In Collin County the local Democratic Party didn't want to break the rules, but they had nowhere to hold their county convention that day, so they had to do it the next day. But regardless, what we see here is that on one hand you have Hillary demanding that every vote (that was for her) be counted, and saying screw the rules, and then on the other hand you have her trying to disenfranchise 40% of the voters from Michigan, not count the votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, and now trying to disenfranchise the voters of an entire county in Texas, and defending the rules as "crystal clear". Funny how that works huh?

But that's hillpocrisy for you!

But this story has a happy ending, for democracy, not Hillary, because last night the Texas Democratic Party's temporary credentials committee voted unanimously to deny the challenge aimed at unseating the entire Collin County delegation from attending next week's state convention. The reason? The man Hillary's campaign had file the actual challenge with the committee on the grounds the change could have confused some voters in the county wasn't even from the county in question!

What Do Hillary, Bush, Mugabe and Saddam All Have In Common?

In a great article in The Guardian, "Clinton Has Run Her Campaign The Same Way Bush Has Run The Country", Gary Younge quite aptly compares Hillary's modus operandi with that of Bush, pointing out the same willingness to lie to voters and distort reality (along with a whole host of other ills like fearmongering and exploiting racism) to further their political agendas. He starts off by setting the groundwork, "In her cynicism-sustained attempt to defeat Obama, she has shown contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy." Even though he is on the other side of the pond, he gets right what the MSM (with the exception of Olbermann) have failed to grasp:

As the primary season draws to a close it has become increasingly apparent that Hillary Clinton has run her campaign with the same contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy that Bush has run the country. Like the Bush administration, her campaign has been sustained by cynicism, divisiveness and fear-mongering, leaving a toxic and rancorous rift in its wake. Like the White House, her aim has been to win at all costs. And like the White House, it has produced the same result. Failure.

It is a continuum not of policies - on that front she is closer to Barack Obama than either of them would concede - but a mindset that has served America ill these past seven years. Creating a bespoke reality out of whole cloth and then hoping people will not just buy it, but wear it.

Younge then proceeds to explain her dance of deception and hypocrisy over Michigan and Florida, and how she unabashedly switched her entire position on those primaries when it served her political interest to do so (and amazingly the MSM here in America never points this very important fact out):

But then she won both. Now everything is different. Speaking before a crowd of senior citizens in Boca Raton, Florida, last week she went into metaphorical hyperbole, comparing the battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan to the suffragettes, the civil rights movement and Zimbabwe - where more than 40 people have been killed in election-related violence. "We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," she explained to a crowd of senior citizens. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote."

Clinton insists she is winning the popular vote. She's right. But only if you tally votes with the same degree of selectivity as Robert Mugabe. For her claim to make sense, you would have to count the discounted Florida and Michigan primaries and discount the legitimate caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state, three of which Obama won. These four states do not reveal popular vote totals. It's like saying if you include your goals that were ruled offside and don't recognise your opponents' headers (it is football [soccer] after all) then you really won the game.

The reason Clinton has had to resort to this sophistry reveals another trait she shares with Bush - hubris. She believed she would have the nomination sewn up by Super Tuesday. She woke up on the following Wednesday out of money, ideas and volunteers. It was a month and nine contests before she won again. By then the momentum was Obama's and, though he has stumbled, he has been running with it since. By most reckonings he leads by about 190 delegates and 400,000 votes. Even if Michigan and Florida were counted, she would still trail in delegates.

I would also like to add that in order for her to win the popular vote, not only would she have to count the discounted Michigan primary, she would have to give Obama ZERO votes in the entire state, even though it is clear that over 40% voted against her, and that the vast majority of those would go to Obama (and the rest mostly to Edwards, who now supports Obama).

Hell, you think Bush bastardized democracy in Florida in 2000, well, you ain't seen nothing yet. Over the weekend Lanny Davis, Hillary supporter and complete idiot, proposed a Michigan "compromise", which gives Hillary all of her votes, and then basically splits the non-Hillary votes between Obama aaannnddd...?

You'd be thinking Edwards right? Well that would be wrong. According to Lanny Davis, around half of the people who didn't vote for Hillary even though she was on the ballot, actually wanted to vote for Hillary. Yes, this complete imbecile thinks Hillary should get half of the votes that were cast against her, and that Obama should get the other half. That makes sense, right? Yes, this is the kind of idiocy that comes from the Clinton camp, and you know why? Because they can't "win" the popular vote without making up asinine "compromises" like that. That should tell you something. So much for when Hillary said this:

Now I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country, that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted.

Okay, so let's set aside your utter hypocrisy here, since you and your top aids supported stripping both states of their delegates when the DNC voted, and you had it within your power to stand up for the voters then but didn't. Let's look past that and look at that last part, "whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their vote should be counted." Okay, so 40% of voters in Michigan CLEARLY did not want to vote for you, so how should that "clear intent" (can't get much clearer than that) guide us? Well give half of those to Hillary! Apparently the best way to count the voters according to their clear intent, at least as far as hypocritical Hillary is concerned, means either:

• 40% of voters voted against Hillary, either for Obama or Edwards, but let's assume not a single voter voted for Obama, or
• 40% of voters voted against Hillary, so around half of those must have intended to vote Hillary, and just couldn't find her name on the ballot, even though it was the only name there.

And yet she still gets away with this self-righteous talk, this blatant hypocrisy, and the media doesn't bat an eyelash. She can talk about the fight against slavery and the fight for women's suffrage and compare this election to Zimbabwe and proclaim that she is in this to make sure every single vote is counted for the sake of democracy, and in the very same breath she ignores the voters from four caucus states and 40% of the voters from Michigan, and sees no problem with a Soviet-style election in which her name was the only name on the ballot, and in which no opposition candidate was allowed to campaign. Apparently she thinks THAT is a legitimate election. Well now we found something her and Mugabe and Putin and Saddam can agree on.

Anyway, back to the article, after discussing her distortions concerning Michigan and Florida, he highlights some other examples of her employment of Republican tactics:

And, like Bush, she has appealed to the basest instincts of the electorate to dig herself out of a hole. First came fear. "It's 3am in the morning and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the telephone [in the White House]," went her ad.

Then there is racism. The most recent example of which was her claiming that Obama's "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", as evidence of her own viability. Later she would concede that equating "white" and "hard- working" was a "dumb comment".

And then he finishes with this, which really is the question we are left with:

Like the Bush administration, the issue is no longer whether she leaves the stage with her reputation irreparably tarnished, but what state she leaves it in and how many people she is prepared to take with her.

McCain And The Republicans Reward The Troops By Denying Them Benefits

It has been a reoccurring theme for the last 7 years that everyone a Republican talks about "supporting the troops" they are talking about supporting their own failed policies, and actually screwing over the troops. Those stupid little jingoistic "support the troops" car magnets came to mean nothing more than "I blindly support the policies that are getting our troops killed".

We saw this from the very beginning, when the Republicans (with the help of some spineless/hawkish Democrats) "supported the troops" by sending them over to Iraq to get killed, maimed and mentally scarred for life. They've supported over 4,000 troops all the way to the grave a little over 5 years later. They've supported the wounding of tens of thousands of troops, the breaking up of families, the emotional scars that tens, or even hundreds of thousands of Americans will carry with them for the rest of their lives, that is unless it becomes too much and they kill themselves, which happens quite frequently.

Then they "supported the troops" by not providing them with adequate armor, and by handing out support services in no-bid contracts for corporations linked to Cheney and other prominent Republicans, which gave us rotting tents and tainted water and electric shows and other kinds of mischief. And it made many corporations and investors very very wealthy in the process.

Then they "supported the troops" by extending their tours of duty, by sending them out on second, third, forth, fifth tours.

Then they "supported the troops" by letting the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center deteriorate to the point where recovering soldiers were plagued by rats, cockroaches and dangerous black mold which is responsible for over 100 types of lung disorders.

Then when soldiers finally come home they "support the troops" by cutting veterans benefits.

But not to be outdone, today Republicans voted against the "21st Century GI Bill" sponsored by Jim Webb and co-sponsored by 58 Senators, including Obama. This bill would have allowed these men and women who have been sent into harms way by our government* to receive a free four-year education at state universities for their trouble. That's it. Yet many Republicans opposed it, apparently the troops are good enough to be used as fodder overseas, but not deserving enough to get educated when they return. John McCain was among the Republicans who "supported the troops" by opposing the GI Bill, by opposing educational benefits to returning soldiers. While Obama made it back to the Senate to vote for the bill, McCain spent the day in California.

And meanwhile:

US army suicides at record level
US veterans sue over 'poor care'
Veterans 'quarter of US homeless'

Howard Dean hit McCain for not supporting the bill:

America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home. The men and women in who volunteer to put on the uniform of the United States of America risk their lives to defend our freedoms*, and we should do everything we can to help them be successful when they come home. While Senator McCain talks about supporting our troops and veterans on the campaign trail, his real record tells a much different story. While we honor his service to our country, Senator McCain's double talk on veterans' benefits is one more reason he is the wrong choice for America's future.

And so did Obama:

I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

Once again, "supporting the troops" is nothing but a slogan for the Republicans, in fact, no one has done more harm to the troops than the Republicans, not al-Qaeda, not Iraqis, no one. The ones who sent the troops over there are the ones to blame for every death, every wound, every terrorist their war recruits. The Democrats have been the only ones supporting the troops for the last 7 years. Many, like Obama, opposed the war from the very beginning. They opposed no-bid contracts, they fought for oversight, they fought for body armor and fought to bring the troops home. They fought the conditions at Walter Reed and they fought for increased veterans benefits, and now they are fighting to give American soldiers an education when they return home.

*Note: I won't say that our soldiers are risking their lives to protect our freedoms, because frankly, they aren't. I actually hate it when people say that, although I understand politicians pretty much have to. It is wrong, and it just perpetuates the myth that they are there to make us safer, which they aren't, at least not in this war. The war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with making America safer, because Iraq was no risk to us. Indeed, this war has actually made us LESS safe, which is something the CIA even acknowledges. So ideally soldiers would only be put in harm's way when Americans were in danger, but that isn't what this war is about. So no, I'm sorry, but the troops aren't risking their lives for "our freedom", they are risking them for a failed policy that was meant to reap huge profits for corporations while increasing the power of the Republican Party. We shouldn't betray that truth with flowery rhetoric about why our soldiers are dying.

Hillary Questions The "Principles" Of The Democratic Party [UPDATED]

Here's some great hillpocrisy for you. Today she took some time out of her busy schedule to trash on the Democratic Party:

I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party.

Again, she clearly only cares about Michigan (and by Michigan I mean only the voters who voted for her) and Florida because they were essentially held in information blackout and thus went to her by decent margins. Let's take a look back at what Hillary was advocating a few months ago:

I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything.

How's that for principles Hillary? But hey, if you want to know why Florida and Michigan can't be seated as is, maybe you should ask your top spokesman Terry McAuliffe, who made the stakes clear in 2004 (the last time Michigan broke the rules):

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

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

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

Oh, you mean there are rules, rules that have a purpose, and they knowingly violates these rules even after they knew of the consequences? Apparently for Hillary rules are meant to be broken, even if breaking them means anarchy in future primaries. On wait, they do know this, they signed a pledge saying as much back in 2007:



Chuck Schumer got one thing right, Hillary changes her position based on what helps her, but Obama has been 100% consistent and 100% in compliance with the DNC rules that everyone agreed to at the beginning. Hillary is the only one here saying one thing and then spinning around and saying the completely opposite for political gain.

But what is really disappointing here is that Hillary would go after the Democratic Party like that, and say that there is something wrong with their principles because they made rules and created consequences for breaking those rules as a way of enforcement. She is basically saying to the people of Florida and Michigan that the Democratic Party is out of touch and doesn't care about them, and I think it is safe to assume she is implying that unless the Democratic Party gives her what she wants and ignores the rules, they will suffer loses in Florida and Michigan in November, which is no doubt what she would like to see since she won't be the nominee.

And of course she went on to repeat her outright lie that she is ahead in the popular vote, which couldn't be further from the truth. Kos did a great job of summing this argument up today:

One of the wonders of this primary season has been the ability of the Clinton campaign -- including Hillary herself -- and their supporters to engage in some of the most patently ridiculous and bald faced lies, knowing that everyone else knows they are engaging in patently ridiculous and bald faced lies.

Chief among those lies is the fiction that Clinton leads in the popular vote.

Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.

Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates.

In fact, it's so insulting to people's intelligence, that it's hurting the credibility of anyone stupid enough to use it.

I'd like to expand a little bit on his first point. This is a delegate race, that is what the agreed upon rules state and there is no mechanism in those rules to accommodate a win by any other metric than delegates. Now if they had decided popular vote would decide the nominee from the beginning, and if Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington were counted (and Florida and Michigan counted fairly--NOT Hillary's way), then the primary could have been decided in that manner, but that means that the strategies would have been very different. Her bringing up ridiculous measures of victory like popular vote, for the Republican system ignores the fact that if we had been playing by different rules Obama wouldn't have chosen the same strategy he did, so you can't assume the results would have been the same. If it had been winner-take-all you can be sure Obama would have fought like hell for California and the bigger states. If it had been all about the popular vote you Obama and Hillary would have focused more on running up the turnout in their home states while focusing on the most populous states and ignoring the majority of the US. But popular vote wasn't the goal, and this was never winner-take-all, so Obama went with the best strategy for winning the most delegates, and he won. Now Hillary can whine and go "but what if.." or "but the Republicans.." or "if only.." and she can try to change the rules and play the victim like she was robbed of the nomination, but those were the rules, the rules she agreed to, and the rules that must be followed. This is about fairness, not about what works best for Hillary. She doesn't seem to understand that. I, for one, am sick of hearing her lie and spin about the popular vote, Michigan, Florida, and all her false excuses for losing. Basically I'm tired of watching Hillary act like a child. It is undignified and embarrassing to the Democratic Party.

Update: Hillary highlights her attack/threat against the Democratic Party:

If we fail to [seat the Michigan and Florida delegates], I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well. We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you.

And then she put counting the delegates from Florida and Michigan (oh, except Obama's) on the same level as the struggle against slavery and other historic fights:

"This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak."

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote."

Yes, she is comparing the issue with Florida and Michigan, whose votes wouldn't even change the outcome of the primary, to universal suffrage and the fight against slavery. Oh, but of course she doesn't have a problem with disenfranchising everyone who voted for Obama or Edwards in Michigan, or the people who voted in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. Funny, the fight for HER voters in Michigan and Florida is suddenly the latest battle for human progress, but everyone else's voters can go to hell. And apparently she doesn't care that the voters in Florida and Michigan didn't really have a choice, as long as voters were put in boxes, it was "democratic" and should be counted. Many a third world dictator would agree whole heartedly. Oh but wait, there is more:

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

So there you have it, in the same breath she lied and said she was ahead in the popular vote, she compared Obama to Bush stealing the 2000 election, and she committed brazen hillpocrisy by saying "if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished" when HER OWN PLAN doesn't count the votes of half the voters in Michigan and completely ignores the voters of FOUR other states!! The ridiculousness of this is astounding, I mean just amazing that she can talk like this with a straight face. How shameless and small, invoking the memory of the great struggles of American history to serve her own political agenda, while committing the same acts of disenfranchisement that she is being all self-righteous about. Shameless.

Next thing you know she'll be saying Christ died for the votes of Florida voters, and only her voters from Michigan, and so that the people of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington got ignored. "You better seat those delegates or Jesus died for nothing!!" Hell, she acts like she has a divine right to the nomination and the presidency, it is only a matter of time before she invokes the will of providence as a new measure of victory.

Update #2: Oh, and I should also add one more thing. You know those super fair and democratic Republicans who Hillary is saying will get all the angry Democratic voters? They cut the delegates from Michigan and Florida by half for breaking the rules. So I can only assume that Hillary would be ok with her delegates from both states being cut in half as well, since that is how the Republicans do things, which is pretty consistently the measure by which she addresses all problems.

Update #3: Here is a statement by a Florida voter who is tired of Hillary speaking for them. This voter is not being disenfranchised. This voter is not being punished.

Update (5/22): NY Governor and Hillary supporter David Paterson profoundly disagrees with Hillary's Michigan-Florida claims:

Paterson, a superdelegate, said he doesn't believe the DNC should change the rules after the fact on Florida and Michigan and added that he's not buying her claims about leading the popular vote if the ballots cast in those states were counted.

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."

On Clinton's claims regarding the popular vote and likening the fight to set the Florida and Michigan delegates to the civil rights movement, Paterson said:

"You have to rule out the undecideds in Michigan. You have to assume she won 100 percent to nothing in Michigan. I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that, nor would they see it as a civil rights issue."