The world is watching

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM - John McCain claims he's been tested.

Londoner — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:20:57 EDT

Please can the campaign team, please challenge McCain on his claim that "he's been tested" I must have missed something here, please can you get him to explain how, when and where.. Why are you not hammering him on this.. saying that when the nation faced it's greatest test.. he failed..

To the Campaign Team

Londoner — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:29:09 EDT

Dear sirs, Something really needs to done about FOXNEWS.. Can't the DNC take legal action against the channel for racism and political bias.. Today was the last straw for me.. Today FOXNEWS aired a program called SAVING OUR ECONOMY and guess who gets the blame for our current crisis, yes you guessed it.. Barack Obama.. they also portrayed John McCain as the person who tried to stop the meltdown, by raising alarm bells years ago, all the whilst forgetting to mention all the dubious links surrounding John McCain and all his surrogates.. This kind of blatant smear needs to be addressed ASAP.. I know its only 30days to the election, but FOXNEWS is pulling out all the stops now to influence people against Obama.. Neil Cavuto had some ex catholic bishop on his show, who said that if they voted democrat, they would go to hell..

Be cautious -Joe Biden

Londoner — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:40:42 EDT

Sarah Palin may win the Vice-Presidential debate. This is not spin. Nor is it a matter of low expectations. The Republicans are doing a masterful job of lulling the Obama campaign into a false sense of security that she is very difficult to teach, and that he will win hands-down.

Yes, Joe Biden oozes gravitas, and in troubling times that can be appealing. And, yes, Palin projects school-girl naïveté. Her comments about world leaders all being "foreigners", that she has foreign policy experience because Putin rears his head and flies into the airspace in Alaska is not much different than the Miss Teen South Carolina who was an internet smash, rambling about "US-Americans." At least the latter was only 19, and not running for Vice-President with a 72 year-old man with a history of melanoma.

But, how much more clueless is Palin than was George W Bush running against incumbent Governor Ann Richards or Al Gore? And, they both had the same teacher: Karl Rove.

Biden does not need coaching on the issues. What he does need is a strategy for the debate. How is he going to handle the following advantages for Palin that play into her winning the debate:

1. The press is cowed. By all rights Palin should be asked to address examples of her naïveté. After all, she is running to be a heartbeat, or brain metastasis, away from the Presidency. But, what can they ask Biden in this respect that would make the debate seem "fair"? Nothing, really. Paradoxically, then, Biden's expertise may prevent Palin's naïveté from being exposed.

Gwen Ifill, the moderator, bright as she is, will not wish to embarrass Palin. It is uncomfortable to watch someone self-destruct. As absurd a Vice-Presidential choice as she is, the natural human emotion of not wishing to be present as someone else self-destructs will supersede the rational conclusion that it is for this very reason that she needs to be exposed.

Moreover, the McCain campaign has already redefined a "gotcha question" as anything that Palin flubs. And, since Palin knows almost nothing substantive about anything, any question that probes beyond the rambling nonsense is deemed "gotcha." A voter asks her about Pakistan, and she rambles herself into invading it, and that's "gotcha."

She will never be asked the one question she cannot answer: "explain."

And, never forget: the press tries to keep the race close, so that people will tune in. Hence, there is a vested interested in not embarrassing Palin.

2. Palin is being prepped to repeat just a few simple answers. When George W Bush debated Ann Richards, Rove had him just repeat 4 simple messages regardless of the question. Palin will toss in the words, "maverick", "reform", and "against the special interests" over-and-over again.

It will not matter whether she is coherent on most questions so long as she seems to be so on one. They will choose energy, and she will come back to that because it does touch each of us, as well as our whole economy. She will seem to be speaking knowledgeably, and will likely throw in a few details to demonstrate, as John McCain said, that "she knows more about energy than anyone in the country."

If Palin sounds coherent about one subject, people will impute similar coherence to her other answers, assuming they were not listening closely enough to what is actually gibberish. Moreover, by restricting her to a few simple, repeated answers, she may not wander off into the wild blue yonder, invading Pakistan and shouting at Putin's plane overhead in the process.

3. Much of Palin's nonsense is feel-good stuff. While Biden may have spoken knowledgeably, for example, about a particular foreign policy matter, it will come across as ponderous. By contrast Palin, unburdened from any expertise, will spout some stuff that feels good--"foreign leaders?", "sure, just bring'em to the United States, introduce them to ordinary Americans, and they will see the world as we do".

Nonsense, of course. But, which feels better, Biden or Palin?

Biden may lay out their plans for energy independence. Good, well-thought out, highly praised, with a strong financial commitment to back it up, and windfall profits' taxes to help pay for it. Makes sense, but, again, ponderous.

And, Biden will repeat "ladies and gentlemen" at least 100 times as he introduces and concludes his answers, boring everyone to tears.

Palin will respond by offering us Alaska (as if it is hers to offer, and as if the VP has to be from Alaska to exploit its resources, but people will hear that she has something unique to offer them, and they already know Alaska is part of the United States).

Again, which feels better?

What Democrats, especially like Biden, forget is this: People rarely recall what you say. What they remember is how you made them feel. If Palin is simple and makes them feel good, and Biden is ponderous, they will go for Palin.

So long as Gwen Ifill does not say, "explain" when Palin spouts nonsense--and it was only that question from Katie Couric that revealed her shallowness--Palin wins.

If Palin makes people feel good, if she demonstrates one area of knowledge above the 8th grade level, then the spin will take care of the rest of it. "The questions were 'gotcha'." "Biden was not pressed as hard". "She showed herself capable of dealing with energy, the nation's #1 problem."

4. Biden is cowed, and getting poor 'advice' from the media. Sarah Palin's gender and her cluelessness have encouraged the so-called pundits to paint Biden into a corner, that he must be especially gentle with her for fear of coming across as sexist, and thus turning off blue-collar women voters.

The first mistake is assuming that the goal is to 'win' the debate. It is not. The goal is to expose Palin for what she is, and thus make voters properly uncomfortable about her when they enter that voting booth. It is a perception that needs to be built over time.

Biden need not be snide or condescending (which would come across as sexist), and he ought not make the conclusory statements "she just does not understand." But, he can very firmly take the argument to her, individually, as McCain's representative and replacement, and as a symbol of the Republican brand. It may be that the immediate post-debate reaction is that Biden was too tough, or played 'gotcha,' but the goal is the longer term exposure of the absurdity of Palin.

When Palin refers to her executive experience, Biden should counter that George Bush said exactly the same thing in 2000, that Bush was Governor of Texas, population 24 million, for 6 years, and look at the mess he has caused: from Katrina, to Iraq, to the financial meltdown. She's been Governor of Alaska for 2 years, population 675,000. This is not nasty, nor sexist. It is a simple statement of fact. He should not shy away from it.

When Palin references her and McCain being "mavericks" that she will do repeatedly, Biden should respond with key topline issues on which they are not:

-An economic philosophy of deregulation, non-enforcement, and high risk poker with other peoples' money.
-Opposing healthcare as a right of all Americans, period.
-Continued taxcuts for the wealthiest Americans while at war and with gaping deficits.
-Privatizing social security
-Tax loopholes for oil companies, no money for alternative energy.
-An open checkbook, open-ended commitment to Iraq.
-Opposition in principle to a minimum wage law.

And, Biden should mention that she agreed first to cooperate fully with investigations into her conduct as Governor, that the McCain campaign is now shutting down. George Bush resisted oversight and accountability for 8 years. If she is not going to be accountable and transparent now, this will be another 4 years of hiding from the American people. Again, this is not nasty or sexist. It asks her to be accountable.

When Palin claims expertise on energy, Biden ought to emphasize that, whatever expertise she has is related to oil and gas, the country needs a far broader approach. Cite the Obama-Biden plan. He then ought to say: "we've had two oilmen in the White House for the last 8 years, and look what it got us," and "we should be concerned if the expertise in the White House favors oil over alternative energy sources, and if the VP candidate only recently admitted that global warming was in part man-made."

Reducing her claimed stature as an "expert" on energy will reduce the likelihood that viewers will give her a "pass" on the gobbledygook she confabulates on other subjects.

On creationism in the schools, Palin will invoke "freedom of speech" and "teaching the controversy." This is feel-good stuff, and must be countered by feel-not-so-good reality. Make it an economic competition issue...Biden should say he believes in evolution, and that there is no scientific controversy, just science vs. religion. If we try to get non-science taught as science in the schools, our children will fall further behind their competitors around the world. Parents can teach their children their religious beliefs at home, and teach that controversy if that is what they believe.

On foreign policy Biden should challenge McCain, and let her try defending McCain. She will get bollixed. He ought to mention, again, McCain's strategy of not sitting down with the Spanish Prime Minister. "John McCain does not want to talk to our enemies, and he seems not to want to speak with our friends either."

Let Palin try to defend McCain.

On Iraq, Biden should contrast the general positions: an open-checkbook, open-ended commitment to Iraq vs. a phased withdrawal by a date-certain that limits our exposure.

Biden ought to speak in grand principles, not ponderous detail: that we must restore our prestige abroad, as Barack Obama showed he could do with his summer tour, and John McCain has shown no ability to do. That we are most successful when we support and listen to our friends, talk but make clear our positions with our enemies, try in all cases for negotiated solutions, and remember what Yitzhak Rabin said: "you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends." (And, he should quote Rabin by name).

Bet that Palin is going to suggest that she has as much, or more, experience than Obama. Biden should counter that Obama has been in public office for 16 years, that he has been vetted by the American people, that he has dealt with issues of national security, and been grilled on foreign and domestic policy for 20 months now, and was chosen by more than 18 million people to be the nominee. Biden should add: "Governor Palin was chosen by one person, impulsively, and has not had a single press conference where she could be asked followup questions."

Unless Biden sticks to principles and not ponderous details, and unless he takes her on and holds her accountable -- contrary to the punditocracy that says he should leave her alone--unless he realizes that he is not there to score debating points, but to expose Palin for the shallow, uninformed person she is, that Palin will win the debate and her stature will be resurrected.

One more point: on abortion. Biden ought to say that he is Catholic, but he believes that an individual woman should have to right to determine whether to carry to term a pregnancy that arose from rape, whereas Governor Palin would have the GOVERNMENT force the woman to keep that child. That is not a place for the government.

Hopefully, Joe will avoid his "ladies and gentlemens," will speak in grand principles and not ponderous detail, and will not be shy about holding her accountable. If he does not, Palin will win the debate.

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM: Biden/Palin Vp Debate

Londoner — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:06:10 EDT

To the Campaign

I would like to offer a peice of advice, which I hope you follow.

Joe Biden must not be passive when debating Palin, she is almost certainly going to attack from the start.
When Palin starts stating her policy positions, Joe showed follow up her statement, by asking her to explain how she'd implement them.
Ask questions of her, to gauge her depth of knowledge on the subject or policy.
Treat her like any other candidate running for Vice President, do not let her gender be an issue.
The debate format has been altered to hide or cover up her lack of knowledge and her now obvious incompetence. Highlight her lack of experience to land zingers.
Do not lose your cool or be condescending or disrespectful, just concise and factual.
Do not over state your positions, but challenge all hers.
She will hope the you wander of topic and make gaffes, be controlled.
Do not state your personal views as this may contridict the campaigns position.
Revise Barack's policy position, know them as if they were your own.
The MSM will declare Palin the winner by how many times she lands unchallenged 1 line zingers. Use humor to defuse, then combat her by getting her off her memorised talking points.
Palin has had to cram numerous policys and information in a short space of time, confuse her into making mistakes by asking nuanced questions, with more than 1answer.

Remember Palin may be good at giving a rehearsed stump speech, but it is your job to expose her flaws and obvious inexperience. Get her to contridict herself and the policy position of John McCain..

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM

Londoner — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:29:47 EDT

To Senator Barack Obama.. Sir you need to assert your leadership now as John McCain is using the crisis for obvious political gains.. You need to drop this bi-partisan approach now as your the only 1 running for President wishing to be bi-partisan. You need now to draw a line in the sand and stick up for your principals and for the best outcome for the American people. If you let John McCain seize and determine the outcome of these negotiations, you lose the election. The public has a very short memory as to who caused this problem. The new proposals of the house GOP apparently calls for little regulations of the markets, abolishing capital gains tax etc. Now the GOP knows that this won't get the necessary approval from the senate Democrats, so insteps John Wayne McCain to save the day, with a much watered down proposal aimed at getting cross party consensus. If you fall for this obvious ploy, you would have lost the leadership mantle, which you have just recently gained. Please stop being passive and just call John McCain out now. He is definately putting campaign before country.

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM

Londoner — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:23:08 EDT

To the powers that be.. Listen you must be proactive now and keep on the offensive.. Sean Hannity and O'reilly have stepped up the propaganda against Barack.. by trying to re-hash Rev Wright and Ayers.. Watching Foxnews and Friends today.. they were promoting the fact that John McCain will now be ramping up the untruthful negative ads, by including Rev Wright and Ayers to scare people... I hope the campaign team take of the gloves and really go for McCain... you MUST mention the KEATING 5, ALL MCCAIN'S PASTORS, MCCAIN'S MILLITARY RECORDS or lack off, CALL HIM OUT ON HIS LACK OF HONOR and any more i may have missed... don't let them get away with this...

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM

Londoner — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:04:54 EDT

Now is the time to raise the issue of the KEATING 5 scandal, now John McCain has said he is for the re-regulation of wall st. I like the majority of America do not know or remember about McCains pivotal role in the S&L scandal, but i know it would make political sense to raise it now, probably via 527 groups or other party's.. John McCain is on the back foot.. now lets knock him over.

Campaign Team

Londoner — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:30:59 EDT

Next Ad idea;

1) You should show all the recent lies and distortions by both McCain and Palin, then contrast it with the truth and facts. The punchline could be WOULD YOU BUY A HOUSE OR CAR FROM THESE 2? Depict them as shady hustlers.

2) This Idea is cheap but effective; Show both Palin and McCain in wanted posters, with a bounty on their heads. Punchline WANTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE; OR FOR TELLING LIES and if you want to really hit hard, add a bounty of $500.00. This could even be made into posters and placed in areas and states you know they will both be visiting.

The GOP trying to stop eligible Africa-Americans from voting in several states

Londoner — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:52:59 EDT

It was a mainstay of Jim Crow segregation: for 100 years after the Civil War, Southern white Democrats kept eligible blacks from voting with poll taxes, literacy tests and property requirements. Starting in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court declared these assaults on the heart of American democracy unconstitutional.

Now, with the help of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, Crawford vs. Marion County (Indiana) Election Board, white Republicans in some areas will keep eligible blacks from voting by requiring driver's licenses. Not only is this new-fangled discrimination constitutional, it's spreading.

GOP proponents of the move say they are merely trying to reduce voter fraud. But while occasional efforts to stuff ballot boxes through phony absentee voting still surface, the incidence of individual vote fraud—voting when you aren't eligible—is virtually non-existent, as "The Truth About Vote Fraud," a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, clearly shows. In other words, the problem Republicans claim they want to combat with increased ID requirements doesn't exist. Meanwhile, those ID hurdles facing individuals do nothing to stop the organized insiders who still try to game the system.

The motive here is political, not racial. Republicans aren't bigots like the Jim Crow segregationists. But they know that increased turnout in poor, black neighborhoods is good for Democrats. In that sense, the effort to suppress voting still amounts to the practical equivalent of racism.

In Crawford, the court upheld an Indiana law essentially requiring a passport or driver's license in order to vote. But more than two thirds of Indiana adults have no passports and nearly 15 percent have no driver's licenses. These eligible voters, disproportionately African-American, will need to take a bus or catch a ride from a friend down to the motor vehicles bureau to make sure they obtain a nondriver photo ID. Otherwise, they cannot vote in Indiana this year.

To get an idea of how many African-Americans nationwide lack driver's licenses, recall Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when thousands were stranded without transportation. "Crawford Republicans" could make the old "Jim Crow Democrats" look like pikers when it comes to voter suppression.

Consider Wisconsin, a swing state. Republicans officials there are suing to enforce a "no match, no vote" provision in state regulations, where voters must not only show a photo ID, but establish that it matches the name and number in the Department of Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration database. (Democrats are resisting the suit.) These lists are riddled with errors in every state, as the Brennan Center has proven in its report, "Restoring the Right to Vote."

I HOPE THE CAMPAIGN ARE AWARE OF THIS. THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ASAP. CAN SOMEONE FROM THE CAMPAIGN TEAM POST SOME INFORMATION ON THIS SO AS TO REASSURE US THAT EVERYTHING IS IN HAND.

This should be made into an Ad

Londoner — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:17:52 EDT

MCCAIN WANTS MORE ENERGY FROM OFF SHORE DRILLING FROM THE EARTH...

OBAMA WANTS MORE NATURAL ENERGY FROM THE SUN AND WIND FROM THE EARTH...

MCCAIN RUNNING HIS MOUTH ABOUT WHAT THE PEOPLE OF FLOODED IOWA SHOULD DO...

OBAMA WANTS TO WORK TO HELP THOSE OF FLOODED IOWA INSTEAD OF RUNNING HIS MOUTH...

MCCAIN WANT'S WAR AND DESTRUCTION...FOLLOWED WITH DEATH...

OBAMA WANT'S PEACE AND PROSPERITY...FOLLOWED WITH LIFE...

MCCAIN WANTS EVERYONE TO THINK THAT HE HAD GOOD JUDGEMENT ON THE IRAQIC WAR...

OBAMA WANTS PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT HE HAD GOOD JUDGEMENT NOT TO GO TO WAR...

MCCAINS WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DEFEATED THE TERRORIST THREAT...

THROUGH OUR MISGUIDED JUDGEMENT OBAMA WANTS US TO UNDERSTAND THAT

WE HAVE CREATED FUTURE ONES...

MCCAIN SAIDS OUR TROOPS HAVE BEEN WELL TAKEN CARE OF DATING BACK TO THE

VIETNAM WAR...

OBAMA WANTS MCCAIN TO EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY HE VOTED

AGAINST THE 2008 GI BILL TO HELP VETS FROM BEING HOMELESS...

THROUGH MCCAINS ENERGY PLANS, THIS IS HOW OUR PLANET WILL LOOK EIGHT YEARS FROM NOW...

THROUGH OBAMA'S ENERGY PLANS, THIS IS HOW OUR PLANET WILL LOOK AFTER IT BEGINS TO HEAL ITSELF IN EIGHT YEARS...

JOHN MCCAIN WANTS TO SELL YOU WOLF TICKETS ABOUT KATRINA AND

THAT IF HE IS PRESIDENT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

OBAMA WANTS MCCAIN TO START TALKING STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT HOW HE TRULY FEELS ABOUT THE KATRINA VICTIMS, AND WHAT HE WAS DOING WHILE THEY DROWNED AND DIED IN THEIR ATTICS...

NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE CANDIDATES TRULY WANT... WHAT DO YOU WANT?

The Spook who sat by the door.

The Bush Doctrine

Londoner — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 21:19:54 EDT

Now that McCains lies have been exposed by some of the Main Stream media, it is now time to go for the kill.. We your loyal supporters have not forsaken the campaign, but were frustrated with the in action. I think the Campaign team should adopt the 'BUSH DOCTRINE' and apply it to McCain. McCain has shown that he will do or say anything to win. You must hit him hard and non stop till November. We want you to call him out aggessively, whilst contrasting your policy stance. You can only defeat force, with force. Fire with fire. No more Mr Nice guy. The nation knows your a decent honourable man, with high moral values but the nation now needs to see you bare your teeth. If you wan't to be President, you're gonna have to fight for it. Lets go on the offensive..

Why John McCain and Sarah Palin are NOT fit to lead in 5 words.

Londoner — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:04:18 EDT

JUDEGEMENT

INTEGRITY

RECTITUDE

HONOR

FORTITUDE

Please check the definition of these words

KEEP THE FAITH.

Londoner — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:09:55 EDT

My friends, today I remembered a valuable lesson, which I had forgotten. I wanna share what I now remember with you. This campaign is historic in more than the obvious way.Everything about this campaign has been historic. Listen we have CREATED A MOVEMENT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT OR POWER (MAINSTREAM MEDIA) What your thinking, how? Remember when this campaign was just starting out, nobody give Barack a chance, I mean the odds were heavily stacked against him, But he prevailed and totally confounded the so called professional pundits and pollsters, time and time again. Nobody knows how big this is, so how can they measure it? All the templates of old they use to predict campaigns, have to be thrown away. All states are in play, if we stay focused and on message and all do our part. We are leading all polls by more than 12 - 15 pt in most swing states. How? The Majority of our support are not contacted by land line calls, plus most pollsters target certain demographics THEY believe are most likely to vote, over 50. If only a pollster would poll using mobile phones, then you'd see what I mean. The people in real POWER know the truth and some have even gone on record to admit it (RUPERT MURDOCH) That's why Foxnews, cnn and most pundits are doing their utmost to steer people against and away from supporting Barack. But their fighting a losing battle, because like I said, it's beyond the control of all the Main Stream Media (Propaganda and Influence peddling) Let me give you a couple of examples and my list is long to choose from. Over hyped so called scandals; Rev Wright, Rezko etc.. it took us of message, but we bounced back. So many abnormal and disgraceful things have happened, which would end most if not all other candidates campaign, but we prevailed and grew. Hillary Clinton's campaign had no answer against this 'phenomenon'. because they did not know what they were up against.

The media are trying to divide us into groups and everyone of them is saying the race is close. Lies,

Here's another example of how weak to Media is; Rush Limbach tried to get all republicans to vote for HC in the primary's, to 'so called disrupt' the primary. It never worked, because no matter how many republicans came out and voted, more of us turned out to support Barack in numbers never seen before. They do not no our numbers, so they CANNOT predict our numbers. The media have now resorted to bias reporting, where all McCains and Palins lies, gaffes are not reported. But they're quick to over sensationalise any incident involving Barack.They are reinforcing positive images and things about Palin and McCain, trying to paint or re invent them as something their NOT. Mavericks and Reformers, in the hope of hoodwinking America, whilst painting Barack as 'Questionable' or 'Other' This has been done before and America fell for it twice and Re-elected Bush. We are smarter now.

On Friday, 2 pollsters came on the Bill O'Reilly factor (Rasmussen and the guy from Gallup) O'Reilly and Hannity was upset that Obama had gotten a 7pt DNC bounce in Gallup. O'Reilly on his show, kept prompting the man from Gallup into saying that the GOP bounce wouldn't be known until Monday. The funny thing was that both these pollsters had different polls for the DNC bounce. Monday the polls came out and 'WHOOSH' the GOP ticket got a 10pt bounce and it was similar by Rasmussen poll. TRUTH is McCain/Palin got no bounce and Obama leads by 7pts. Over this weekend Foxnews kept playing Palins made up Bio over and over again, I counted 8 times in 24hrs. This was done Saturday and Sunday. The Right wing press and party are trying to make us believe that we are in trouble and that John McCain is leading amongst Women.. Not true.. All I can say is thank GOD for the web and youtube. If you wanna hear more from me about the 'Forces controlling this campaign' leave a comment.

Remember when you first heard Barack or went to a rally and how you was Inspired.. REMEMBER THAT FEELING.. Don't stop donating, matter of fact donate more if you can, and KEEP SPREADING THE WORD AND DISPELLING THE FALSEHOODS AND KEEP THE FAITH. Lets take back AMERICA..

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:56:49 EDT

foxnews have just shown via ticker on the Hannity and Colmes show, that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere.. The amazing and outrageous thing here is that they quote a source as the Chigago Daily Observer. I went online to investigate and found the Chicago Daily Observer is in actual fact a blog page and not a daily press as I was led to believe. This bias type of journalism cannot be tolerated. The campaign team needs to sanction foxnews asap.. There trying there utmost to debunk your message against McCain and Palin.

UPDATE: In actual fact foxnews are claiming not only did Joe and Barack support the bridge to nowhere, but when given the chance to vote against the bill and send money instead to aid katrina, they voted for the bill... NO WAY I CAN'T BELIEVE THER ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS SHIT.

Im starting to think that the GOP is planting all the negative stuff about Palin family.

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:18:10 EDT

I really have to wonder if the GOP ain't the ones planting all the negative stuff on the Internet about the Palins daughter Bristol, to undermine the Election and cause divisions along racial lines. Now I don't know if this is true so please make up your own minds as im not gonna say this is fact.

http://africanamericanopinion.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=EFC0A4E62B8FEDA0ACC9604CF2F5C116?diaryId=75

Tinted Coloured Glasses

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:44:42 EDT

If we do lose this election, it won't be down to our brilliant candidates. Fault would lie with the bias media. Today I learned that all media in America is owned by four corporations. We really have to solidify our base and from now till polling day. Get out the numbers in every state. I would like for the campaign team and the candidates on the stump, to keep on telling people what they stand to lose and what they will get. Forcefully.(Four more years of McBus) pls see link below.. its a hard read but i believe its true. WE SHOULD NOW ALL START ASKING MORE FROM THE PRESS. WE SHOULD DEMAND UN BIAS NEWS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html

Im in totally disbelief.. Bill O'reilly, stuck 2 fingers up (offensive gesture) at Obama during interview on tax, whilst pretending to gesture the amount 2

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:19:26 EDT

I am proper pissed, I was watching Foxnews not so exclusive interview with Barack and i've just seen Bill O'reilly stick 2 fingers up at Barack during interview.. Now everybody who was taught manners, including insulting gestures, knows that when gesturing the amount 2, one should always do so with your palm out. Bill O'relly chose to do the opposite.. Did anyone else pick that up. My 7 year old daughter who was half asleep on the sofa, jumped up and said, not even knowing what the conversation was about on TV said, oh daddy, that man swore. I then looked at my cable box to make sure it was recording the incident and it was. I am totally offended by Bill the racist O'reilly insult to Obama. I have emailed foxnews and sky to complain. Please all do the same.

WHAT ABOUT HONOR, JOHN McCAIN

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:45:34 EDT

My essential character check list for persons running for high office or the presidency

JUDGEMENT: The capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions; ability to make good judgments or the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions.

RECTITUDE: Rightness of principle or practice; exact conformity to truth, or to the rules prescribed for moral conduct, either by divine or human laws; uprightness of mind as a consequence of being honourable and honest.; integrity; justice, right judgment.

INTEGRITY: Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; used more often with reference to the fulfilment of contracts, uprightness; rectitude; unimpaired; unadulterated.

HONOR: That which rightfully attracts esteem, respect, or consideration; self-respect; dignity; courage; fidelity; especially, excellence of character; high moral worth; virtue; nobleness; specifically in men, integrity; uprightness; trustworthiness; in women, purity; chastity.

FORTITUDE: The mental strength that enables courage in the face of adversity.

Fortitude is bravery on the side of justice.

Here are just a few of the everyday attributes the American people should expect to see in all their political leaders, but especially the persons running for the office of vice President and President. These attributes are very rarely seen or practiced by Individuals or politicians, so when it is seen in 2 people, you know you’ve struck gold. I would like anybody looking to vote in the fall, whether you’re a Democrat, Republican or Independent, from any and all walks of life, to pause for a moment and consider these character traits before you cast your vote. If there’s truth in your heart and commonsense in your head, you would truly be choosing the best team to lead America into its future. We live in a time when cynicism and doubt, especially in regard to leaders and their motives are rampant in every area of our culture, including not only corporate, but also government and non profit organizations. Would be leaders, to be effective and ultimately successful, must demonstrate to those they expect to lead, the personal integrity required to develop within themselves these few attributes. To live out these attributes, not perfectly, but humanly, including failing, admitting failure and learning from it. Thereby, leaders can instill within their followers the loyalty and commitment necessary for them to accept the high standards the leader sets, models and mentors; adopt the leader’s vision as their own and accept the inevitable hard decisions; for their leaders are out front, visible; providing hope for the future.

"Do Honorable people lie?"

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:41:30 EDT

TO THE CAMPAIGN TEAM. I HAVE SUGGESTED THIS LINE OFQUESTIONING FOR OVER A WEEK NOW, IT IS COMMONSENSE. PLEASE CALL THEM OUT ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.IF YOU DON'T WANNA TAKE MY ADVICE.PLEASE READ THE ADVICE FROM ANOTHER SOURCE BELOW.

by maalox

Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM PDT

I have a suggestion for an attack ad that is based on my own "The Incredible Hulk" theory of human psychology (note: only valid in elections against John McCain).

maalox's diary :: ::

In The Incredible Hulk TV show, Bruce Banner's catch phrase was “Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.”

The thing is, it was incredibly easy to make him angry. Some bar patron would poke him with a stick and he'd be like "ARGGGH! HULK SMASH!" And then destroy the entire bar. Or he'd lend a friend a record and it would come back with a scratch and he'd be like “ARGGH! HULK NO LIKE SCRATCH ON ABBA RECORD! HULK SMASK!" And then lay waste to his friend's entire Doobie Brothers collection.

McCain is like this about his honor. From his autobiography:

"As a young man, I would respond aggressively and sometimes irresponsibly to anyone who I perceived to have questioned my sense of honor and self-respect. Those responses often got me in a fair amount of trouble earlier in life."

McCain: A Question of Temperament

But that was as a young man. He has cooled down by now, right? Nope. It was only two weeks ago that he got irritated when a Time reporter asked him to define what honor meant. He didn't question McCain's honor. He just asked for a definition of what honor means to McCain, and McCain got pissed.

I have a strong suspicion that if Obama went after McCain's honor, McCain would lose control and have an Incredible Hulk moment. Which makes for good TV, but it's not something people want to see in a President.

How do you attack McCain's honor? With the truth. As many of you know, the McCain campaign has flat-out lied about Obama's record. Not mere misrepresentations, or half-truths. Actual, deliberate lies. It has been documented in the press and by fact-checking organizations. They have lied many times, and they continue to do so.

Not only does the Obama campaign need to call them out on this, but they can attack McCain's honor at the same time with a tough but true argument.

Honorable people don't lie.

McCain has lied repeatedly about Obama's record.

McCain used to be an honorable man. Then he gave up his honor and principles for a chance to win.

This is the script I would use for the attack ad:

***
FEMALE VO: “ Do honorable people lie? Mr. McCain's ads on taxes are just plain false. Washington Post.” (Aug 31, 2008)

FEMALE VO: “McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. Factcheck.org.” (Sept 2, 2008)

FEMALE VO: “McCain ad...crosses a new line into dishonesty. ABC News, Jake Tapper.” (August 27, 2008)

FEMALE VO: “And then he tells us that he's a maverick. Mavericks don't vote with President Bush 90% of the time.”

FEMALE VO: “John McCain used to be an honorable man. Then he sold his principles for a chance to win. John, honorable people don't lie. And you've lost your sense of honor.”
***

It's a tough, negative attack. Perhaps too negative for the Obama campaign. (This is one of those times I wished Obama hadn't hamstrung MoveOn.org). But it's completely true. Of course, Obama would have to stop calling McCain an honorable man. Wouldn't you like to hear Obama say something like this?

OBAMA: “In the past, I've called John McCain an honorable man. And I meant it then. But for the past few months, he has been deliberately lying about my record. And honorable people don't lie. John McCain, until you stop lying about my record, until you stop lying about my positions, until you stop lying to the American people, I'm not calling you honorable anymore. Because you're not. You've lost your sense of honor, and it's one of the saddest things I've seen in politics.”

McCain hates Obama. He thinks Obama is a phony who never accomplished anything in his life. If Obama were to lecture McCain on what it means to be honorable, I can almost guarantee you it would drive McCain insane. He would erupt in a rage and over-react. It would create press, put McCain on the defensive, and change the public perception of McCain's campaign.

Each lie after that moment would be amplified because people would be looking for them now. And I think Obama could get away with a tough ad like this because he's not just attacking, he is defending himself. And he has facts and most of the press to back him up.

I don't normally ask for recs, but if you think this would be a good tactic for the Obama campaign, help it get some attention.

Thanks,
Jason

WELL DONE CAMPAIGN TEAM..IT'S GREAT TO KNOW YOUR LISTENING

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:17:10 EDT

Thank God..

Now that the Obama campaign is challenging McCain and Palin about their obvious lies, where do you go from here? I've noted that the McCain campaign are trying to downplay the truth by calling out the Obama team for using 'hysterics'.. The next move is to allow all and every surrogate to denounce their lies at every oppurtunity and to blatantly call them what they are, liars.. I mean if they lie about themselves and their accomplishments, what else are they prepared to lie about.. This is not a character attribute we the people want in a president.. All McCains policys are being covered up by lies. Sarah Palin being painted as some reformer, is all lies. They both need to be held accountable for this.. Where's McCains honor? Tell the people who Sarah Palin is and what she stands for.. No more tip toeing around issues, when you know them to be blatant lies, call out all the bias press everytime they repeat or use these lies as truth.. this must and should be done at every occassion. There are a few media stations and daily press, who are obviously batting for a McCain election win, no need to point out the main culprits. This cannot go on. They are systematically diluting your message, whilst promoting McCains lies..Remember Nice Guys always finish second.

When thinking to much can be a hindrence

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:08:30 EDT

Barack stop thinking to much.. Let your instincts kick in. If a badman attacked your family, would you just sit about thinking of what to do next? Your hope and dreams for this nation is being attacked, defend us please.

THE CAMPAIGN TEAM

Londoner — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:44:04 EDT

Barack the time has come for you to take off the restraints and put the gloves on. I know you have to walk a thin line with regards to how you get your message across, but surely you can see now that not all the people are hearing it. It is time to change direction. John McCain's lies are obviously resonating with a fair amount of the electorate, so now you have to debunk their lies. The nation has wondered if you are tough enough to get down in the mud with McCain. McCain is playing dirty and is prepared to do anything to win. You must call him on all his lies and I mean tell him there lies, If not, you run the risk of losing because he's painting you as 'other'. Please if you do lose this election, go down swinging. I like many people all around the world, are actually placing our future in your hands. God forbid if McCain wins. It would really drive me mad to see you on talk shows, explaining where you went wrong and wishing you went after him aggressively. If you call him on his lies, how can he defend it.. Please take my advice as I have given you sound advice before and have been proven right. Now is not the time for more words, the people need to see action.. In life the good guys normally always come second, plus the girls seem always to prefer men, who can play rough when needed to, I think this is a security thing..

The best way to debate Palin.. Go at her hard and keep to the Issues

Londoner — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:14:56 EDT

I've been watching the GOP and the media, try to spin a fallacy that a man can't debate a woman strongly, Aggressively without being or coming across as sexist. What I stupid argument. I hope Joe goes at her hard and throughly, whilst keeping on point with the issues. This person has a lot to answer to the American people for. I would like to see Joe take her in every direction in the debate and treat her like any other person running for the vice presidency. Any man if he so choose's can debate or even argue with any woman as long as he stick to the issues. Tell me if im wrong, but this seems like common sense to me.. Plus if she can't stand up to sharp debates or hold her own amongst men, then that in itself proves that she is not fit to lead the nation. Governor Palin needs to remember that most, it not all the tyrannical leaders of the world are men.. What she won't debate them.. The GOP are trying to pass Sarah Palin as the second coming of Lady Margeret Thatcher.. If you know anything about british politics and history. Margeret Thatcher was nick named 'The Iron Lady' and was a formidable debator and was very rarely bettered by anybody let alone a humble man. Female MP's in England, Scotland, Wales and all over Europe, debate men effectively everyday of the week.. So Joe.. Sarah Palin Is gonna try hit you hard.. Picture her as Lady Thatcher and blow her away with your knowledge, experience and sound judgement. You never chose the GOP's candidate and they knew before their decision to choose her, that she'd face you.. Treat her no differently from debating a man.. This issue was raised on British political channels and the female guest found this laughable.

If anybody dissagree's with me, please leave a comment..

I Think this could really work....

Londoner — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:39:43 EDT

Dear Barack,

Next time someone asks what you think of Sarah Palin, please don't just call her a "skilled politician" with a "compelling biography." Call her a liar, too. Here's how that would work:

Reporter: What do you think of Sarah Palin?
You: She's a skilled politician with a compelling biography who lies a great deal.
Reporter: Wow! That's a pretty serious charge.
You: Actually, [insert name of reporter], it's not a charge. It's what certain people in your profession call "a fact."
Reporter (suspiciously): So you're calling her "a liar"?
You: Right. As in someone who lies a lot.
Reporter (gravely): With all due respect, Senator, if you're going to make that kind of accusation, you'd better be specific.
You: Sure. Remember when she said I'd never written a major piece of legislation? That was a lie. And when she said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere? That was also a lie. And when she said I would raise taxes on American families? Again: a lie. And you know how she talks about opposing earmarks. Given that she hired a Jack Abramhoff-affiliated lobbyist to haul in $27 million in earmarks for her beloved small town, that's a real whopper. So she lies a lot, about my record and her own record. Just as a reminder, though, I'm not running against Sarah Palin. I'm running against John McCain, who is also a liar.
Reporter (even more gravely): Wait a second, so now you're saying --
You: Yes, John McCain is a liar. He routinely lies about my tax plan, which will cut taxes for 95 percent of families with children. He lies about his own tax plan, which will continue the tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires he once called "irresponsible." He lies about his support of renewable energy. He lies about his judgment on the Iraq War, a war he himself declared over five years ago, on national TV. He lies about his vetting of Sarah Palin, which was clearly reckless and inadequate. Virtually every time he opens his mouth he lies.
Reporter (frankly aghast): These are harsh words, Senator.
You: Not really. I'm just tired of listening to the Republican nominees and their surrogates lie with impunity. And the only way these liars are going to stop telling lies is for reporters like you, [insert name of reporter], to report when they lie. I urge you to show the same concern for the truth with us Democrats. Politicians shouldn't be rewarded for lying.

What would happen if you actually said this -- even some toned down version?
1. You completely dominate the news.
2. You force the media to assess your "inflammatory" claims, which, as it turns out, are true.
3. You force McCain/Palin/surrogates to stop lying, or at least risk being held accountable.
4. You reassure those who are worried you're not tough enough to protect the homeland.
5. You show us, your loyal supporters, that you don't plan to pull a Kerry/Gore.
6. Maybe (just maybe) the race starts to become more about real issues, where the Republicans get slaughtered.

Oh, and next time Bill O'Reilly asks you to admit you were wrong about the surge, tell him John McCain needs to admit he was wrong about the entire war, and to stop lying about his failure to support veterans. Honestly, dude, quit making John Stewart do all the heavy lifting.

More concerned than ever,

Steve.. Please consider..

The Best of Men

Londoner — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:19:46 EDT

My essential character check list for persons running for high office or the presidency

INTEGRITY: Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; used more often with reference to the fulfilment of contracts, uprightness; rectitude; unimpaired; unadulterated.

FORTITUDE: The mental strength that enables courage in the face of adversity.

Fortitude is bravery on the side of justice.

The Best of Men

Londoner — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 07:56:21 EDT

My essential character check list for persons running for high office or the presidency

INTEGRITY: Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; used more often with reference to the fulfilment of contracts, uprightness; rectitude; unimpaired; unadulterated.

FORTITUDE: The mental strength that enables courage in the face of adversity.

Fortitude is bravery on the side of justice.

CNN BIAS, THERE DEFINING PALIN ON ANDERSON 360

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:29:33 EDT

Today on Anderson 360 CNN, Anderson say he'd Investigate Troopergate, how he attempts to do this is by Interviewing the Trooper first. The Interview paints the Trooper as the baddie, so when the Investigation is complete and damning against Palin, the public will sympathise with Palin.. THIS MUST STOP NOW..

Did you know that John McCain has 169 Lobbyist in his campaign..

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:21:29 EDT

Why isn't the facts that 169 Lobbyist are working in John McCains campaign team.. Why aint there Ads

highlighting these facts?

Why are we letting the press give Palin a free pass and not answer questions?

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:14:17 EDT

SOMETHING WE ALL SHOULD DO

I AM CALLING ALL 100 MILLION OF US OBAMA FANS TO EMAIL LOBBY AND CALL OUT ALL THE

MAINSTREAM MEDIA, AS TO WHY THEY ARE FAILING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY NOT PURSUING HER

NOW..THIS SITUATION IS RIDICULUS. PALIN IS ONLY GONNA TALK TO THE PRESS WHEN SHE HAS

BEEN SCHOOLED. THE WORRY THAT AMERICANS HAVE NOW, IS THAT PALIN IS NOT A FIT

CANDIDATE NOW AS SHE HAS NO FOREIGN POLICY OR DOMESTIC POLICY EXPERIENCE.. ACT

NOW!!!!

Has John McCain shown good Judgement?

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:58:53 EDT

Again lets see.. he must pass this 1.

judgement 3Definition: the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions

judgement 4Definition: ability to make good judgments

judgement 5Definition: the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions

judgement 6Definition: an opinion formed by judging something; "he was reluctant to make his judgment known"; "she changed her mind"

Has John McCain shown Rectitude?

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:52:27 EDT

Again lets just see if he can pass this test..

Rectitude 2Definition: Rightness of principle or practice; exact conformity to truth, or to the rules prescribed for moral conduct, either by divine or human laws; uprightness of mind; uprightness; integrity; honesty; justice.

Rectitude 3Definition: Right judgment.

rectitude 4Definition: uprightness as a consequence of being honorable and honest

Has John McCain shown Integrity?

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:47:33 EDT

Let's see using a common dictionary as reference.

Integrity 2Definition: Moral soundness; honesty; freedom from corrupting influence or motive; used especially with reference to the fulfillment of contracts, the discharge of agencies, trusts, and the like; uprightness; rectitude.

Integrity 3Definition: Unimpaired, unadulterated, or genuine state; entire correspondence with an original condition; purity.

Integrity 4

Definition: moral soundness

Err John McCain has shown none in this election. Another failure.. please comment

Is John McCain a man of honor?

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:29:40 EDT

Let's see if John McCain is a man of honor, by a common dictionary definition.

Honor Definition: That which rightfully attracts esteem, respect, or consideration; self-respect; dignity; courage; fidelity; especially, excellence of character; high moral worth; virtue; nobleness; specif., in men, integrity; uprightness; trustworthness; in women, purity; chastity.

Err I don't think so.. please comment.

PLEASE DEFINE PALIN BEFORE FOXNEWS DOES IT ON SUNDAY

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:09:25 EDT

To the campaign team, foxnews are starting from saturday are gonna introduce palin to America, I warned you against going on foxnews last week.. I also told you that your 'EXCLUSIVE' Interview would be leaked within 5mins of it's completion.. You are in a unique position as Palin has not been vetted properly or has been defined, it also strikes me that your campaign team has not pulled up the MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOR NOT PURSUING PALIN WITH QUESTIONS AS SHE IS NOT GIVING INTERVIEWS TO THE PRESS..ARE YOU GONNA ALLOW HER STUDY LEAVE?.. PLEASE WISE UP OR JUST HAND IT TO THEM..THIS IS BECOMING PAINFUL FOR ME..

FAO: CAMPAIGN TEAM coutesy of signsansified

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:00:37 EDT

Friday, September 05, 2008 The Wrong Strategy The Politico reports the following:

As Sarah Palin transforms herself from obscure Alaska governor tothe Republican Party's newest rising star and most effective attack dog, Barack Obama's campaign will largely sit back, watch her rise and hope she falls.

The Obama campaign has no silver bullet to use against the Palin. Instead, Obama has decided to largely avoid directly engaging her and will instead keep his focus largely on John McCain and on linking the Republican ticket to President George W. Bush. The Obama campaign will leave Palin to navigate the same cycle of celebrity that Obama has weathered, and the same peril that her nascent image will be defined by questions and contradictions from her Alaska past.

Attention Obama campaign: this is an exceptionally ill-advised strategy. Yes, it's possible that new dirt about Palin will be uncovered or she will commit a few "potatoe" moments on the campaign trail and end up being a drag on the ticket. But sitting around and hoping that something like that will happen is not a good plan. Here's why.

John McCain's decision to pick a running mate who is virtually unknown to most Americas and members of the media provided the Obama campaign with a rare opportunity. It's very seldom in politics that you get the chance to define your opponent at the ground floor level. Right now, the public image of Sarah Palin is still very much in flux. Opinions of her, both among voters and members of the media, are not fully formed. They're just impressions that haven't yet hardened.

But it doesn't take long for impressions to harden and once they do, they're very hard to budge. That's why John McCain is still perceived to be a "maverick" and a "straight-talker" in the minds of many voters, even though it's been years since he did anything to warrant those descriptions.

I understand the tendency among long time political veterans to discount the importance of the vice presidential pick. Vice presidential candidates usually don't end up making much of a difference even when they're poorly received (see, e.g., Dan Quayle). But there's good reason to believe this year will be very different. First, there's no precedent for Palin. She's a young, socially conservative woman who has instantly reached rock star status among movement conservatives and has dominated news coverage. She's not going to disappear into the background as running mates often do. Second, and more importantly for the Obama campaign, there's reason to believe that--if defined effectively--she could become a major drag on the Republican ticket.

Nate Silver breaks down the day-by-day data for both the Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking polls and what he finds is interesting. Obama's best day of polling, by far, was the day that news of Bristol Palin's pregnancy broke. He was up +10 and +11 in those polls respectively. You have to be really careful reading too much into polls, but if I had to guess, I'd say that news of Palin's daughter's pregnancy underscored in people's minds the fact that they really didn't know anything about this woman and probably caused them to question McCain's judgment in choosing her.

But since then, Palin has been introduced to the country in a very carefully choreographed way. The McCain campaign is trying hard to define her to the public as a reformer, a maverick from the Wild Frontier, a sort of Davy Crocket-like figure. And judging from the movement in the tracking polls, it seems to be working.

But the doubts are still there. Impressions are fresh. Opinions are still in the formative stage and can be changed. But that's not going to happen unless the Obama campaign makes an affirmative effort to do so. They have to try to define her and they only have a narrow window of time to do so. They need to push back against the reformer/maverick image that the McCain campaign is constructing and raise doubts about her readiness to be president. They also need to aggressively highlight the parts of the Palin myth (e.g. the Bridge to Nowhere) that are outright lies. She is not a straight-talker, and voters need to know that.

Obviously the Obama campaign needs to be careful about how they do this, but that's no excuse for not trying. If they can succeed in planting doubts about her in the minds of independents and swing voters, they'll accomplish two important things: 1) they'll undermine her popularity in her own right, and 2) they'll cause these voters to question McCain's judgment and devalue his experience.

You get very few chances in presidential campaigns to paint on a blank canvass, to influence voters' very first impressions of a rival candidate. That's the opportunity the Obama campaign has been presented with here, and if they just sit back and allow others to do all the painting, it'll be political malpractice.

Obama a true modern day hero

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:41:47 EDT

What is it that makes someone a hero?
Is it great bravery?
Superior intellect?
A noble heart?

Maybe

A hero has all these things,
But what makes him a hero
Is more than that.

It's using his fortune and destiny,
To help those whom fate
Has not smiled on so kindly.

It's his compassion and reverence,
For the quality of life
That ALL people deserve.

It's knowing that but for his circumstances,
He is no better or worse
Than those he seeks to help.

Heroes are all around us in everyday life.
They do what must be done....
Even if their deeds go unnoticed,
And their praises go unsung.

For true heroism is selfless
And does not seek recognition.
But we have heard its name

And know its face when we see it.

Copyright July 21, 1998 by The Gypsy

I wonder if any of these traits apply to John McCain.

GOP running scared of Biden pick

Londoner — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:31:51 EDT

Today I keep hearing over and over from people like Ginrich, Limbach and of course foxnews. That Obama should get rid of Biden.. I have always been happy with the Biden selection and I hope he chews and spits Palin out in October. Funny how since Palin has become the nominee she hasn't given no press interviews, I wonder why?..LoL.. She must be sitting down doing her homework. Lets not be over confident. And I do like the stateman like positions Both Obama and Biden has taken in light of the crazy VP pick of Palin.. Obama/Biden 08

What the fricking heck is the going on

Londoner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:53:50 EDT

What the hell is going on in the campaign, are the campaign team so stupid as to expose Barack to the obvious and the deliberate attempt by Foxnews to undermine his run for president. Listen if Barack loses this election, it would be down to his stupid decision to go on the O'reilly factor. I have been watching foxnews now for the last six months and not 1 day has passed have they not tried to discredit, smear and form the publics opinion against his candidacy.. I am totally miffed at this decision. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes has a vested interest in Obama not getting elected..(fairness doctrine) You are knowingly putting your head into the mouth of lions and hoping they won't bite. Please do not do this. Have faith in the American people and do not listen to opinion polls as your ardent supporters are not the types that these companies poll. You are ahead, leading the race, why take such a LEAP OF FAITH.. Bill O'reilly will try to set you up in this interview and portray you as 'other' You are the hope of not only Americans, but the rest of the world. Please do not fcuk up now.. A concerned follower.

BARACK, IF YOU KEEP ON TAKING THESE RECKLESS LEAPS OF FAITH, WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT TO DESTROY YOU, THEN YOU ARE INDEED SHOWING POOR JUDGEMENT AND LACK OF POLITICAL NOUSE.. THE FOX CORP HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN MCCAIN WINNING THE ELECTION.. I HOPE TO THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND THE NEXT 60 DAYS EXPLAINING AWAY ISSUES RAISED BY O'REILLY, IF SO PALIN GETS A PASS AND MCCAIN WINS.. KEEP DIGGING HOLES FOR YOURSELF. WHY LET THE WORST BRANCH (NEO CONSERVATIVES) OF THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA RESURFACE THESE PLAYED OUT ISSUES..YOU GAVE THIS INTERVIEW JUST BEFORE MCCAINS SPEECH.. DON'T YOU THINK THAT THIS INTERVIEW HAS AIDED MCCAIN, BECAUSE AS SOON AS YOUR INTERVIEW CONCLUDED, O'REILLY PASSED THE NOTES ONTO MCCAIN, AS I AM TYPING THIS, LINDSAY GRAHAM IS ON STAGE AT THE RNC QUOTING THAT THE SURGE HAS WORKED.. MAYBE MCCAIN IS RIGHT YOU ARE POLITICALLY INEXPERIENCED. THIS IS SO FC*KING PATHETIC.. I AM DREADING MCCAINS SPEECH..

Remember my earlier blog call 'Have you lost your fricking mind Barack!!!

Londoner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:38:22 EDT

This post was posted on monday... Having just watched the anticipated O'reilly factor with an interview by Barack Obama, I have to say i told you so.. Bill O'reilly played the gotcha game with Barack, so much so in a earlier segment with Newt Gingrich, he told Ginrich that in his interview with Barack he mentions that he calls him on all his associates including Rezko, Aires and the like and ends this by telling Newt that he'll love this, Newt smiles and then Bill O says its interesting and will be shown next tuesday.. BARACK, IF YOU KEEP ON TAKING THESE RECKLESS LEAPS OF FAITH, WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT TO DESTROY YOU, THEN YOU ARE INDEED SHOWING POOR JUDGEMENT AND LACK OF POLITICAL NOUSE.. THE FOX CORP HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN MCCAIN WINNING THE ELECTION.. I HOPE TO THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND THE NEXT 60 DAYS EXPLAINING AWAY ISSUES RAISED BY O'REILLY, IF SO PALIN GETS A PASS AND MCCAIN WINS.. KEEP DIGGING HOLES FOR YOURSELF

New Ad Idea

Londoner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:54:57 EDT

John McCain and Sarah Palin - Mavericks? Reformers?

Mavericks or Reformers don't support

Bridges to nowhere

Roads to nowhere

Policy's to nowhere

Im Londoner and I endorse this message

The best type of defence is offence (Democrats 101)

Londoner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:49:59 EDT

To all Americans a crisis now befalls us, the ~~republican~~ repugnant party has with lies and

falsehoods attempted to con us into believing, that the choice of John McCain and Sarah Palin is

the best form of change and hope for the American people. Yesterday was the last straw, when a

bunch of nobody's stood in succession at the RNC and delivered smears, lies, fear mongering and

and out right propaganda to hide the fact that nobody in that party has any solutions to the

problems now facing America and potentially the world. They will try to hold onto power by any

means neccessary. These haneous acts of deceit have to be challenged at all times and on every

occasion. If this is not done now, the repugnant party, with the bias help of the main stream

media, will hood wink the American people into electing John 'Wayne' McCain and Sarah 'no

resume' Palin into the White House. This cannot be tolerated as i can only see four more years of

living in fear, incompetence to the utmost degree and with John McCains un predictable

temperament, which would lead us into future wars. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have shown

over this past week that they cannot not live upto the morals and standards that they would try to

impose on middle America.

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION

Contact all and every newspaper, radio and TV network and challenge any bias reporting and ask for further investigations and responsible Journalism. Bombard them with un precidented amount of emails and calls. Address all correspondence to the editor or producer. Remember not to spread any salacious rumour about any of these persons family members, just highlight your concerns and if you've heard any questionable stories, bring it to the attention of the Media e.g The republican party has attempted to suppress the fact that Sarah Palin is being investigated by various magazines for having had extramarital affairs, now you might not think information of this nature is not relevant, but it is as Mrs Palin professes to abide by the highest moral standards. This information is the main reason why the republicans have turned on the media, accusing them of double standards. There is a fear amongst the GOP that once this is known by the public, it would kill Sarah Palin's candidacy. The national enquirer (magazine that exposed John Edwards) has been threatened with legal action if they continue they're further line of investigations. The magazine has already made the claim of SP affair with Todd Palin's business partner into the public realm. This is fair game, and we should all support responsible journalism.The magazine has said that it will continue to drip feed this story to the public regardless of any attempts by the GOP to scare it off, which would imply that they believe they're onto a good thing.The main stream mediahas helped elect G W Bush and has fuelled the fires of war. Lets now hold them responsible for they're actions.

LETS TAKE BACK AMERICA

Remember it was Community organisors and the will of the people that over threw all the extreme governments of Europe and the world.

The best type of defence is offence (Democrats 101)

Londoner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:31:13 EDT

To all Americans a crisis now befalls us, the ~~republican~~ repugnant party has with lies and

falsehoods attempted to con us into believing, that the choice of John McCain and Sarah Palin is

the best form of change and hope for the American people. Yesterday was the last straw, when a

bunch of nobody's stood in succession at the RNC and delivered smears, lies, fear mongering and

and out right propaganda to hide the fact that nobody in that party has any solutions to the

problems now facing America and potentially the world. They will try to hold onto power by any

means neccessay. These haneous acts of deceit have to be challenged at all times and on every

occasion. If this is not done now, the repugnant party, with the bias help of the main stream

media, will hood wink the American people into electing John 'Wayne' McCain and Sarah 'no

resume' Palin into the White House. This cannot be tolerated as i can only see four more years of

living in fear, incompetence to the utmost degree and with John McCains un predictable

temperament, which would lead us into future wars. Both John McCain and Sarah Palin have shown

over this past week that they cannot not live upto the morals and standards that they would try to

impose on middle America.

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION

Contact all and every newspaper, radio and TV network and challenge any bias reporting and ask for further investigations and responsible Journalism. Bombard them with un precidented amount of emails and calls. Address all correspondence to the editor or producer. Remember not to spread any salacious rumour about any of these persons family members, just highlight your concerns and if you've heard any questionable stories, bring it to the attention of the Media e.g The republican party has attempted to suppress the fact that Sarah Palin is being investigated by various magazines for having had extramarital affairs, now you might not think information of this nature is not relevant, but it is as Mrs Palin professes to abide by the highest moral standards. This information is the main reason why the republicans have turned on the media, accusing them of double standards. There is a fear amongst the GOP that once this is known by the public, it would kill Sarah Palin's candidacy. The national enquirer (magazine that exposed John Edwards) has been threatened with legal action if they continue they're further line of investigations. The magazine has already made the claim of SP affair with Todd Palin's business partner into the public realm. This is fair game, and we should all support responsible journalism.The magazine has said that it will continue to drip feed this story to the public regardless of any attempts by the GOP to scare it off, which would imply that they believe they're onto a good thing.The main stream mediahas helped elect G W Bush and has fuelled the fires of war. Lets now hold them responsble for they're actions.

LETS TAKE BACK AMERICA

Remember it was Community organisors and the will of the people that over threw all the extreme governments of Europe and the world.

The best line of defence is offence (Conservatism 101)

Londoner — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:32:14 EDT

To the people's of America, please hear my call.

Last night I witnessed a truly horrifying scene, The re-birth of Sarah Palin. I knew it was coming, but I never planned on the Republicans to use such under handed tactics. Lets revisit the begining. Sarah Palin was an irrational Shot from the hip, Hail mary pass, or born out of a momentary bout of insanity.

Sarah Palin was offered the VP tag, she readily accepted it, without even thinking about all the hoo hah that comes from getting thrown head first into the lions pit called the mainstream media.

What was McCain thinking you may ask yourselves, this is what I think went through his head. I am sliding in the polls and Obama's just given another one of his brilliant speeches in front of an audience of 85.000 people and was watched on television by well over 40 million people, hmm he scratched his head and gathered all his strategist round him, he even borrowed Bush's cronies and everyone huddled into one of his houses for a POW WOW.

The usual names were floating around the room, Mitt Romney, Gov Pawlenty and his personal favorite Joe the schmo liebermann. The decision was made, Joe the schmo, the room erupted, the Bushites were incensed and was shouting, what about the base, others were saying choose Pawlenty he the safest bet, chairs began flying, soon to follow was fists, A strategist was hitting a Bushey over the head with a briefcase. Stop! came from a high pitched voice at the entrance of the room, it was Cindy McCain, I've got it.. I've read on the Internet about this small town Governor up in Alaska, who i think would be perfect for the job. Alaska! Alaska! who the f*** lives in Alaska? John cried out.

Tune in later for part2

Have you lost your fricking mind Barack!!!!

Londoner — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:14:57 EDT

the o'reilly factor

Londoner — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:23:33 EDT

why is barack going onto that obvious racist and bias foxnews on 04/09/2008

Please campaign team.. take this advice...

Londoner — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:52:25 EDT

Brand First, Equivocate Later: The Message of Denver and the Importance Defining McCain-Palin before they Define Themselves stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.html mixx.com

Posted August 31, 2008 | 08:28 PM (EST)

Read More: Barack Obama DNC Speech, Democratic Convention, John McCain, Mccain Palin Ticket, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Abortion, Sarah Palin Extremist, Sarah Palin Reaction, Politics News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up. ( function() { var check = false; if (/reddit.com/.test(document.referrer)) { $('yahoo').className = 'reddit_string_def'; $('message_digg').className = 'right_now_reddit'; $('message_digg').innerHTML = "Vote this story up on Reddit.com!"; reddit_url = "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.html"; reddit_title = "Brand%20First%2C%20Equivocate%20Later%3A%20%20The%20Message%20of%20Denver%20and%20the%20Importance%20Defining%20McCain-Palin%20before%20they%20Define%20Themselves"; document.write(""); check = true; } BOOKMARKSNIFF.run(); if (BOOKMARKSNIFF.runstate.visitedlinks["yahoo"] && !check) { document.write("huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.html"); check = true; } if (BOOKMARKSNIFF.runstate.visitedlinks["reddit"] && !check) { $('yahoo').className = 'reddit_string_def'; $('message_digg').className = 'right_now_reddit'; $('message_digg').innerHTML = "Vote this story up on Reddit.com!"; reddit_url = "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.html"; reddit_title = "Brand%20First%2C%20Equivocate%20Later%3A%20%20The%20Message%20of%20Denver%20and%20the%20Importance%20Defining%20McCain-Palin%20before%20they%20Define%20Themselves"; document.write(""); check = true; } if (!check) { document.write("huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.html"); } } )() huffington_post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/brand-first-equivocate-la_b_122855.htmlBuzz up!

document.write(' Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address '); Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

The Democratic Convention this year was simply stunning, with multiple-base hits by many of the players and triples or homeruns by all its superstars. It was bookended by two picture-perfect speeches. In the first, Michelle Obama accomplished exactly what she needed to: to make clear that she is a mother, an American, one of "us," and hardly the stereotype of the angry black woman with the chip on her shoulder that the conservatives were trying to activate. She made clear that she and her husband share the same values and aspirations for their two beautiful children as most Americans for theirs.

Barack Obama's speech did exactly what it needed to, and did it poignantly, substantively, and forcefully. It laid out his indictment of the Bush years, something he has been loath to do and is precisely what the American people have been waiting for, to see if this is a man with fire in his belly, who has the capacity for both the restraint he has shown and the ability to be forceful and aggressive he has not previously shown that are both essential qualities in a commander-in-chief. It told the story of who Obama is and how his seemingly exotic life story intersects with all of our life stories and with where we are today as a nation, and how and why he can understand the pain most middle class families have been enduring after 8 long years of the most corrupt, inept, destructive administration in modern American history. It branded McCain as four more years of the same, as a man armed with 20th century ideas for 21st century problems. And it addressed straight-on most of the attacks leveled at Obama that he has never so forcefully responded to before: that he is an elitist, that he is just an empty celebrity (by putting meat on the bones of "change" without boring the listening public with the usual Democratic litany of 12-point plans on every issue), that he is un-American, that he is unpatriotic, and that he will put something or someone other than America first.

Between these speeches was a rising crescendo of voices saying, as Obama finally spoke the words, "Enough!" It would be difficult to list all the emotionally powerful moments of the speeches that marked this convention, even the prime-time speeches. Hillary Clinton, like Al Gore and John Kerry, gave the speech of her life, and they all showed more of who they all really are than any of them ever showed in their long campaigns for the hearts and minds of the American people while saddled with all the usual advice from the usual Democratic suspects--a lesson Democrats should remember, that nothing "sells" as well as being genuine and firm in your convictions. Hillary not only spoke from her gut but had none of the staged facial expressions that had marked her performances earlier in the campaign and should have been coached out of her repertoire the first time they appeared (and would have been if her consultants were Republicans, who understand the importance of nonverbals). Beau Biden's story of how his father put family first through an extraordinary ordeal that could only lead viewers to feel for Biden the person and to admire his capacity, even as a young man, to balance work and family under the most adverse circumstances; Joe Biden's speech showing how you can attack your opponent's vision without unfairly attacking his character; and Bill Clinton doing what only Bill Clinton can do were just among the highlights of a superbly orchestrated event that both informed and inspired.

In my book, The Political Brain, I argued that if you do exactly what the Democrats did last week--both inspire voters with your vision of what could be and raise legitimate anger or concern about what your opponent and his party have done or likely will do--you win elections. The latest polling data from Gallup bear that out: Obama went from 2 points behind just before the convention to 8 points ahead, reaching a high for two straight days of 49 to 41 against McCain. The convention reversed the momentum of a dreadful July and August campaign that made every standard Democratic error outlined in the book, starting with the campaign's stubborn refusal to brand McCain before he could brand himself or to respond to his successful efforts to brand Obama--as other, different, empty celebrity, uppity, narcissistic, and elitist.

Obama is now poised to break 50 percent in the polls. Whether he does so, and whether he wins or loses in November, will likely depend on whether he, his campaign team, and the Democrats learn the lessons of this convention, or whether they backslide in debates and public statements into the politics of meandering, dispassionate prose; failure to demonstrate toughness, resolve, and, yes, aggression where appropriate; and failure to understand that the best time to shape the public discourse is before the other side has had a chance to "sell" its version of truth to the American people. Decades of research in social psychology have demonstrated that two of most important principles of persuasion when people have a choice between options are to get there first--to tell your side of the story--and to inoculate against what the other side is likely to say. Democratic consultants need to read that research--tonight--and stop relying on the same intuitions that have proven wrong in election after election. We are supposed to be the party of science, yet we constantly practice political creationism.

A case in point is the way the Obama campaign appears poised to respond (or, more accurately, not to respond) to McCain's choice of a running mate, which they need to do immediately, before the start of the GOP Convention. Paul Begala has described how the narratives that sway the electorate are like constellations of stars in the sky. If your opponent picks and chooses just the right stars to place in the sky (and which ones to leave out, because they get in the way of the story he is trying to tell), he can create a constellation that shines like stars on a crystal clear night, whether that constellation is one designed to make his own stars twinkle or your candidate's stars flame out or obscured by cloud cover. It's a campaign's job to put the right stars up in the sky to create the constellations that tell the story it wants to tell about both its own candidate and its opponent. In the language of neuroscience, a campaign needs to connect the dots for voters to create networks of associations--an interconnected set of thoughts, images, ideas, metaphors, and feelings--toward each candidate that tell a compelling story about each, and to repeat that those stories enough times and in enough ways to make them "stick."

Story continues below advertisement (function() { ad_spec = { "zone_info": "huffpost.politics/longpost;politics=1;nickname=drew-westen;entry_id=122855;barack-obama-dnc-speech=1;democratic-convention=1;john-mccain=1;mccain-palin-ticket=1;sarah-palin=1;sarah-palin-abortion=1;sarah-palin-extremist=1;sarah-palin-reaction=1", "ord": 1220233016, "tile": 3, "width": 300, "height": 250, "el_id": "ad_300_250_inline", "class_name": "ad_block ad_wide", "type": "iframe" } HuffPoUtil.WEDGJE.write(ad_spec); })();

Several Democrats began doing precisely that the moment McCain made his announcement of his choice of a running mate, from Rahm Emanuel to Barbara Boxer. They were as right to do so, both neurologically and politically. It is much harder to change an accepted narrative, particularly an emotionally compelling one, than to undercut it before it can take hold in the popular imagination. You don't want to let the other side blaze a neural trail in the wilderness (in this case, defining a political newcomer) that becomes the trail voters' minds naturally follow and then resist deviating from because it is the first and only story being told, without offering a counter-narrative that creates very different associations and activates very different feelings toward the candidates (in this case, toward both McCain and Palin).

The constellation McCain would like to project this week is that this was a bold move of a maverick reformer, an effort to break the glass ceiling for women, an effort to bring executive experience to his team, and the elevation to prominence of a young, socially conservative reformer with a moving story of her commitment to the crusade against all abortions. Palin decided last year not to abort a baby she knew would suffer from Down Syndrome, and she will no doubt showcase that decision and her new baby at the GOP Convention. But by putting a richer collection of stars in the sky, the Obama campaign can create an entirely different set of constellations before the GOP even begins its branding of McCain's decision and his running mate this week.

Democrats could offer at least three alternative renderings of the McCain decision, and they need to do so before the gavel bangs in Minneapolis. First, McCain is not the straight shooter who is committed to his principles (he's changed back and forth on virtually all of them, even vowing to vote against the immigration bill he himself sponsored when it was politically expedient to abandon it). Clearly the main principle guiding his actions is that he wants to be president (he wrote as much in his autobiography), and he's willing to put political calculations above the search for even a modestly competent candidate for VP. In choosing Palin, he put winning, not country, first (contrary to the tagline of his recent campaign and ads). He is hoping that picking a religious extremist who is also a woman will kill two birds with one stone, simultaneously getting his base to the polls and convincing female swing voters who initially supported Hillary to swing to him (and perhaps to deliver him Alaska, which has been thrown into the toss-up column by a series of corruption scandals, including one in which Governor Palin has been implicated). With the right stars in alignment, this story makes McCain a hypocrite of the worst sort, having blasted Obama for months for his lack of experience, particularly in foreign policy, and then choosing a person who is only 20 months into her term as governor of a small state. (Prior to that, she was mayor of a town of 9000, responsible for making sure the dogsleds ran on time.) Is this really a person who should have been on McCain's short list of, say, the 10,000 Americans most qualified to be Vice President--and, by extension, potentially the leader of the free world?

Second, McCain has just given Democrats license to raise an issue about which they have been very ginger to date, which has been on voters' minds for months: his age and health. At 72, with recurring melanomas that the public can see for itself as his face repeatedly grows new bulges, it is a sad fact but one that needs to be openly discussed (if not by Obama at least by Biden or other Democrats) that he may well not survive his first term in office. McCain knows that as well as anyone, and it made it incumbent upon him to choose a tested running mate with gravitas, who has been thoroughly vetted and has all the qualities we expect of a President of the United States. There is simply no way to construe a person with Governor Palin's resume as fit to be a heartbeat away from an aging President with recurring melanomas. It would now be grossly negligent for the media not to bring on experts to talk about melanoma and McCain's prognosis over the long run (or, for that matter, to talk about changes in the brain in the 70s, particularly in a person under the severe stress of the presidency, given his confusion about such basic facts as who the Sunnis and the Shiites are). It would be equally negligent for Democrats not to run again Palin as they would run against a Presidential candidate, because she is in essence a candidate for President like no other running mate has been before.

Third, Palin is a religious zealot who is outside the mainstream, and polls are increasingly showing that Americans have had enough of intrusions of religious zealotry into our politics. This story is essential to tell about Palin before she tells the moving story of how she and her husband made what most people who find a painful, difficult, and highly personal decision, with four children already, not to abort an apparently accidental pregnancy that prenatal testing revealed would yield a baby with Down Syndrome.

Now it is one thing to honor and respect that decision, and Obama and Biden should certainly do that. But they should also make clear that McCain and Palin believe that the millions of parents faced with painful decisions much like the one Governor Palin and her husband faced should not have any decision to make at all. Rather than deciding what's best for their own families based on their own faith, values, and circumstances, McCain and Palin would force married couples as well as single women to take any baby to term no matter how serious, painful, or debilitating the birth defect, or no matter what the impact on their lives, because McCain and Palin, like President Bush, believe they have to the right to use the government to force one person to live by another person's faith--specifically, their own.

Both McCain and Palin want to overturn Roe v. Wade and to appoint judges like Scalia who are determined to do so as soon as one more extremist is appointed to the Supreme Court if not before. Palin apparently even believes in forcing teenage incest survivors and rape victims to bear their rapists' babies (which is actually the only morally consistent position for someone who believes life begins at conception, and is a slippery slope down which Democrats should be pushing Republicans all over the country, given that 85% of Americans find it morally repugnant). McCain and Palin would also presumably have to support the death penalty (which they both support) not only for those who have or perform abortions (because they are committing premeditated murder, and if a fertilized egg is a person, it has the same standing as a fully formed person) but for the millions of parents who become pregnant through in vitro fertilization, which fertilizes more eggs than can be successfully implanted, who in McCain-Palin world are all mass-murderers. The most serious serial killers, of course, are doctors who practice fertility medicine, who occupy the same rungs of hell as Joseph Mengele for all the people they murder without remorse by using the wonders of modern medicine to help couples experience the miracle of birth. The choice between the two parties and the two pairs of candidates could not be clear: one believes that the most painful, personal life decisions should be made by a woman, couple, or family, and the other believes the government knows best when a man and a woman should or shouldn't start their family.

Palin may be a woman, but she does not share the agenda of any woman who voted for Hillary Clinton (and Democrats should speak out against the implication that she is picking up where Hillary Clinton, a woman of tremendous stature who could have assumed the role of commander-in-chief in a heartbeat, left off). Rather, if you take her position to its logical conclusion, Palin believes that every rapist has the right to pick the mother of his child. Her position is tantamount to a Rapist's Bill of Rights, which privileges the rights of rapists and child molesters over the rights of their victims. Those are McCain-Palin's "family values," and they are not mainstream American values. Stan Greenberg and I recently identified seven different messages on abortion that beat a well-crafted, well-branded Republican message about life beginning at conception by 15-20 points, and McCain has just given Democratic and progressive candidates every reason to play offense on abortion this year instead of assuming their usual defensive crouch. In fact, McCain has just forced them to play offense, and they should do so immediately, because the extremist position he and his new running mate would impose by force is offensive to the vast majority of Americans, and it will become the law of the land if the Republicans succeed this week in pulling the heartstrings of the American people with Palin's personal choice in a way that makes them forget that others should have the same choice and may decide differently than she did, and that this should not be a governmental decision. Polling data, ours included, further suggest that Democrats everywhere should ask their opponents' to state their stand on President Bush's policy of hiring of anti-contraception zealots in key governmental positions on family planning and his blackmailing of school systems into eliminating the comprehensive sex education programs that over 85% of Americans--including the vast majority of evangelical Christians--want for their children, in favor of his absurd abstinence-only policy, a policy neither he nor McCain ever practiced in their personal lives.

Palin's nomination is one that should put the nails in the coffin of McCain's candidacy in the wake of the extraordinary success of the Democratic Convention. It exposes both a poverty of judgment and a surfeit of hypocrisy and pandering to both the religious right and to the female center. But if the Democrats do not act before the GOP Convention, McCain's reckless move could become transformed by the media and then the public into the bold move of a straight-talking maverick with the foresight to catch a rising star.

That's a story that should never be allowed to reach the moment of conception.

A fascinating insight

Londoner — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:45:07 EDT

It's His Party Barack Obama might be running on a post-partisan platform, but he is more focused on building the Democratic Party than any other candidate in recent history. Dana Goldstein and Ezra Klein | August 18, 2008

An unassuming building at 430 South Capitol Street, in a forlorn corner between the Capitol and a highway overpass, is the home address of the Democratic Party. But though mail still gets delivered to the Washington, D.C., address, many of the Democratic National Committee's employees--the men and women who make up the party's central infrastructure--are no longer around to receive it. They are in Chicago, where Barack Obama moved them after he captured the Democratic Party's nomination.

It was a peculiar decision for Obama, who had built his campaign, and even his political identity, around an eloquently stated, post-partisan revulsion with the divisiveness of modern party politics. Following the strategy of "outsider" candidates before him, Obama set his headquarters outside the District in order to create distance, both physical and perceptual, between himself and the consultants, interest groups, party hacks, and congressional busybodies who populate the nation's capital.

The effort was so successful that some feared the Obama phenomenon--the millions of young people passionate about his campaign, the thousands who have lined roadsides just to wave at the Illinois senator's motorcade--had become a force unto itself, indifferent to the fortunes of the traditional Democratic Party, unbound by a commitment to progressive ideology, and wholly dependent on the character of Barack Obama. As blogger Matt Stoller writes on OpenLeft.com, "Power and money in the Democratic Party is being centralized around a key iconic figure. [Obama] is consolidating power within the party."

This was a new critique of Obama: not that he was beyond parties but that he had personalized them. That rather than building the Democratic Party, he was building an Obama Party, with all the good and bad that that centralization entailed. Though some were nervous when Obama sent the moving trucks to South Capitol Street, further tightening his hold over the party apparatus, the relocation neatly fit the broader, and rather unexpected, reality of this campaign: For all the talk of post-partisan "unity," Barack Obama has been proving himself the most party-focused presidential candidate in recent history--possibly ever. Paradoxically, although Obama's success has been more dependent on personal charisma than any recent nominee's has, he's been leveraging that charisma to build a broader Democratic infrastructure less dependent on the presidential nominee.

This should be no surprise. Though Obama himself is a newcomer to Washington, the upper echelons of his Senate and campaign staff are populated almost exclusively by experienced Democratic Party operatives. Continuity with the established party infrastructure is a defining characteristic of the Obama campaign. When Hillary Clinton conceded the nomination, Obama's first major staff change was not the incorporation of a former Clinton operative meant to heal the divisions of the primary, nor the elevation of a national-security graybeard meant to reassure general-election voters of Obama's commander-in-chief credentials. Rather, it was to install Paul Tewes, the skilled organizer who served as the architect of Obama's crucial victory in Iowa, at the DNC to head up the committee's election-year efforts. A few weeks later, it was announced that the DNC would cease accepting contributions from lobbyists or political action committees.

Then it came out that much of the DNC was moving to Chicago. In the months that have followed, the Obama campaign has announced plans for training camps that will turn out thousands of new organizers dedicated to electing Democrats, and has signaled that it will spend millions in blood-red states where Democrats haven't seriously invested in building party infrastructure for decades. The campaign has constructed a fundraising machine based around small-donors that promises to end the age-old competition for dollars between different wings of the Democratic establishment, enabling the creation of a unified electoral strategy. It has argued that "real change" requires the sort of legislative successes that only a strong congressional party can produce. In short, the candidate running on his exhaustion with traditional party politics has directed his campaign to build a new kind of Democratic Party--one that may put to shame anything that came before it.

***

The aftermath of the 2002 elections was a low point for the Democratic Party. Much of the blame fell on the shoulders of Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt, the Senate and House party leaders judged responsible not just for the political failure of losing seats in the midterm election but for graver substantive deficiencies: Gephardt was complicit, some would say crucial, in George W. Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq. Daschle was, at best, ineffectual against it. Both paid for those failings. In 2004, distracted by events in Washington, Daschle lost to Republican John Thune, and Gephardt retired after losing the Democratic presidential primary to John Kerry. Their staffs paid, too; come January of 2005, the experienced legislative tacticians and political operatives who had served the party's congressional leadership found themselves abruptly unemployed.

The bright spot of the 2004 election was the emergence of a brilliant, charismatic, young African American politician named Barack Obama. Obama burst onto the scene with a keynote speech at the Democratic Convention that would probably be remembered as little more than a neat piece of oratory if Kerry hadn't lost and congressional Democrats hadn't been wiped out. But, in a dark moment for Democrats, Obama was one of the very few points of light. Which is probably how he got a meeting with Pete Rouse in the first place.

Often called "the 101st Senator," Rouse, an understated 62-year-old with 30-odd years of Capitol Hill experience, had been Tom Daschle's powerful chief of staff. When Daschle was ejected from the Senate, he hoped Rouse would continue to work with him in the private sector. But Rouse received an expected call from Cassandra Butts, the policy director on Dick Gephardt's 2004 presidential campaign and an old law school chum of Obama's. Butts asked Rouse to meet with the newly elected Obama. Grudgingly, Rouse had lunch with the young senator. Obama asked him to sign on as chief of staff--a demotion of sorts, dropping Rouse from the office of the most powerful Senate Democrat to that of the most junior member of the body. Rouse politely declined. Obama kept asking. Eventually, Rouse accepted.

Most outsider candidates for the presidency recruit an outsider team to deliver it. Bill Clinton's main strategists in 1992 were the little-known Paul Begala and James Carville. His first chief of staff was Mack McLarty, a childhood friend who had risen to become chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party. It was a team untainted by Washington but also unschooled in how Washington worked.

The Obama campaign and Senate staff, by contrast, are full of Daschle and Gephardt veterans--an unexpected rebirth of the power bases and reputations of two politicians who had long been written off. Obama's chief of staff is the aforementioned Daschle associate, Pete Rouse. His deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, managed Daschle's 2004 campaign. His director for battleground states, Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, and his director of communications, Dan Pfeiffer, were both deputy campaign managers for Daschle in 2004. Obama's foreign-policy director, Denis McDonough, was Daschle's foreign-policy adviser, and his finance director, Julianna Smoot, was head of Daschle's PAC. Many of those who didn't come from the Senate minority leader's office came from the House minority leader's office. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, was Gephardt's deputy campaign manager in 2004. His head of delegate operations, Jeff Berman, played the same role for Gephardt. His national press secretary, Bill Burton, was Gephardt's Iowa press secretary. Dozens of others come from related arms of the party, in particular the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

It's a tremendous operation for a first-term senator who hadn't worked a day in Washington before 2004. But it's exactly the team you'd expect a former chief of staff to the Senate minority leader to construct. "The person most responsible for this was Pete Rouse," says Tom Daschle, sounding almost wistful. After all, Obama's campaign was in part based on plans Rouse had drawn up for Daschle in 2004, before Daschle decided to sit out the presidential race. The Obama staff's familiarity with the workings of the party and comfort with its procedures proved crucial in the primaries. Obama won the nomination largely because his team better understood the byzantine mechanics by which the Democratic Party chooses its nominee: The campaign used proportional-apportionment rules to hold down Clinton's delegate totals in large states and pumped resources into caucus states to run up Obama's delegate numbers. The Obama campaign succeeded, in other words, through a superior respect for the party's internal infrastructure.

***

Historically, the Democratic Party has operated less as a strong party than as an uncertain coalition. It has been regionally fractured, racially divided, ideologically torn, and economically disparate, frustrating those who believed that voting for the more-left party should further a progressive policy agenda. A broad ideological range is good for constructing raw congressional majorities but tricky when you're trying to reconcile the fiscal conservatism of the Blue Dogs with the social investment favored by liberals. Rather than acting as a single institution united around a common agenda, the party was all too often a nominal nation-state in which sets of warring fiefdoms protected their properties and sought expansion.

By the early 1990s, this incoherence had left the party bereft of a single agenda and full of tired incumbents interested in little but the protection of their own power and patrons. As a result, the Democratic brand had turned toxic, a scarlet D that national candidates had to hide or publicly burn off. "I was the polling adviser for the Democratic Leadership Council back then," says pollster Stan Greenberg. "Clinton's candidacy, and that effort, was very much focused on addressing the historical problems of the Democratic Party." Those problems included a long-standing perception that the party was soft on crime, captured by an array of entrenched interest groups, fiscally profligate, and, at least in Congress, simply corrupt. Before Clinton could build a new image of the party, however, he had to get elected. That meant not strengthening the party but holding it at arm's length, except as a useful vehicle for fundraising. This was explicit in his campaign: Clinton ran as a "New Democrat," a symbolic break from the actual Democratic Party--especially its liberal wing.

That strategy had its logic, but it also had its drawbacks. "Clinton became very identified with the presidential wing of the party," says a former member of Clinton's famed campaign war room. "But there was a lot of resentment from the Daschle and Gephardt people to the way they were treated by the Clinton people. I think the people who acted in Clinton's name didn't generate an awful lot of goodwill for them." This wasn't widely understood until 2008, when Hillary Clinton ran for president only to find that the party's leadership was devoid of individuals with any connection or loyalty to her husband's administration. Of the three most powerful Democrats—Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean—none could be considered Clintonites, and Dean's ascension was, in many ways, an explicit repudiation of the Clintons. The cool relationship between the Clintons and the leadership continued down into Congress. "Obama got more Senate endorsements than Hillary did," continues the Clinton insider. "That's incredible. The guy's been there for three fucking years!"

***

Obama's staff, however, had been there much longer. His is a political team whose understanding of power is inextricably linked with the central question it asked every day in Congress: "How many votes do we have?" Thus, Obama's campaign operation was built to amass two different types of votes: those that will win Obama the election and those that will pass his legislation if he becomes president. For Obama's advisers, years in the party's non-executive wing have bred a visceral understanding that the president is simply one part of a larger political infrastructure, and if the president is to succeed, the rest of that infrastructure must be healthy. It's an unusually sophisticated and holistic understanding of political power, and it's come to underlie Obama's campaign for the presidency.

But the will to build the party would have been little more than an airy pile of good intentions if the party's brand, coherence, and finances hadn't improved since the 1980s and 1990s.

A fairly good indicator of the health of a party is the attitudes of young voters who are being exposed to it for the first time. In the 1990s, Generation X was coming of political age, and according to polls conducted by the Pew Research group, Republicans held a 1 percent edge in party identification. In 2008, it is Generation Y that is choosing political allegiances for the first time, and these under-30-somethings show an astonishing 24 percent preference for the Democrats. Even Generation X, which gave Republicans a 3 percent edge as recently as 2004, now prefers Democrats by a margin of 12 percent. In sharp contrast to the early 1990s, it is Republicans who now have a nominee best known for his apostasies against his own party. Democrats don't have to run from their party anymore. And so Obama hasn't. Rather, he has run against polarization, against legislative gridlock, against special interests. This is why he could bring the DNC to Chicago: The problem isn't Democrats. It's the atmosphere and working relationships that impede their work in Washington.

There's also a sense that the party is more ideologically unified than it has been in the past. "There's no center-left divide in this nominating fight," says Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama. "All the candidates lined up within 20 yards of each other on virtually every question. That is an important, interesting change that shouldn't be overlooked in the Democratic Party." It is, in part, the function of being in the opposition. But it's also the product of the electoral realignment of the last 15 years, in which white Southerners moved solidly into the Republican bloc and socially liberal suburbanites finally became Democrats.

Money has also proven a powerful unifying force. Partly as a result of the party's increasing health, and partly as a result of the birth of Internet-driven small-donor democracy, the party and many of its candidates suddenly found themselves flush with funds. "Fundraising was a zero-sum game for a significant part of the Democratic Party's recent history," says Davis. During the 1990s, the Clintons had worked assiduously to build out the party's capacity for fundraising, putting legendary moneyman Terry McAuliffe in charge of the Democratic National Committee. "Clinton viewed the DNC and the party in general as a vehicle for fundraising and media," says Mike Lux, a former special assistant to Clinton. It was an outlook born of the pre-McCain-Feingold period, in which Democratic candidates were strapped for cash, while the DNC was free of many of the current legal restrictions on fundraising. That spurred candidates to treat the party as an ATM of sorts, responsible for generating as much cash as possible, from any source willing to donate.

This cycle, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has raised over $70 million. The Democratic National Committee has raised over $80 million. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised over $100 million. And Obama has raised almost $330 million, much of it from small donors. "When you were raising your money mostly through large donors and PACs, there was a continual sense that there was a limited amount of money that could be raised, and if you spent it now, you couldn't spend it later," Greenberg says. "Now there's a totally different view of money: the more you spend, the more you raise." That view, however, is not the work of Barack Obama. It is the work of his predecessor, Howard Dean.

***

If Barack Obama is, in some ways, the accidental beneficiary of the long-delayed strong-party opportunity, he is also succeeding because he, and the party veterans who surround him, understand the moment's promise and consciously chose a strategy capable of fulfilling it.

Their approach has amounted to picking sides in what has been an unusually bitter battle over the correct strategic direction for the party. In 2004, John Kerry ran as the nominee of an impoverished, regionally fractured Democratic Party. The Democratic National Committee was still headed by a Clinton loyalist, Terry McAuliffe. Though Howard Dean had run a revolutionary primary campaign, using the Internet to mobilize grass-roots support and attract more small donations than ever before, the party's Beltway apparatus seemed more frightened than inspired by his example. In the meantime, congressional candidates across the country were forced to compete with one another for the attention and resources of the DNC, which was working off of a small list of swing states targeted by Kerry's people and McAuliffe.

Chris Gates, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party from 2003 to 2005, remembers the resentments bred by the party's targeting plan. The Kerry campaign painted a big red bull's-eye on Colorado, in no small part due to the efforts of Gates, who understood that being "targeted" could mean the difference between map-changing victories and down-the-ballot losses. The DNC set up dozens of field offices in Colorado and flooded the state with hundreds of staff and volunteers. The Kerry campaign ran television and radio advertisements there, and although Kerry lost Colorado by about five points, Democrats picked up a Senate seat with Ken Salazar and a House seat with his brother, John Salazar--one of only two Democratic House pick-ups that year.

"We benefited from the thing people complained about, which was that Kerry was hardcore about targeting," recalls Gates. "If you were targeted, you got everything you needed, and if you weren't, you got nothing. People who weren't targeted were pretty bitter being told that if they wanted buttons they had to go to the Kerry Web site and buy them," Gates says. "As good as it was for Colorado, it wasn't a sustainable model."

Backlash took the form of Howard Dean's 2005 campaign to become DNC chair, which was calibrated to answer the frustrations of party activists in states written off by the party establishment. Dean promised a "50-State Strategy" in which the DNC would send paid organizers to every state in the nation, even to the Deep South. Not every state would receive the same resources--swing states like Ohio, Nevada, and Florida would still be the subjects of intense targeting efforts--but every state would receive something.

The theory was simple: Dean believed winning county-executive and school-board races today would mean winning congressional seats and electoral college votes in coming years. He believed the DNC was well situated to focus on the party's long-term future rather than its short-term fortunes; it just needed the courage to do so. Grass-roots Democratic activists agreed, electing Dean chair.

Dean's vision brought him into conflict with those accustomed to the party's more traditional role. In 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then-chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, got into a screaming match with Dean over the 50-State Strategy. Emanuel, whose outlook was typical of former members of the Bill Clinton war room, was furious because he didn't feel Dean was raising enough to justify spending dollars in states Democrats had no chance at winning. Dean was organizing when he should have been fundraising.

Dean saw things differently. As an insurgent candidate in 2004, he had outraised the scions of the establishment with ease, riding an enthused base to a huge cash advantage. His comportment at the DNC reflected his residual trust in that base: If the party spoke to its supporters, the money would be there. Dean was proven right. The party picked up 31 House and six Senate seats in the 2006 midterm elections, and many 50-State skeptics became supporters.

Among those watching was the Obama team. Obama's field operation essentially implemented a 50-State Strategy modified for the primary season. So in part, it was no surprise that once he clinched the nomination, Obama chose to keep Dean in place as DNC chair, even as he merged the DNC into his own campaign. The two men have been remarkably in sync. "I am proud of the fact that we're the first campaign in a generation to run a 50-State Strategy," Obama told the Netroots Nation convention in Austin, Texas, in a taped statement. "Not a 50 percent-plus-one strategy, but a 50-State Strategy made possible by the volunteer activism and organizing you and others have made on the ground and support by Governor Dean's efforts at the DNC."

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign's most aggressive effort to influence the down-ticket races that Democrats traditionally ignore is playing out in solidly Republican Texas. In June, Obama sent his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to Houston to deliver an important message to Texas Democratic funders. The Obama campaign had decided, Axelrod announced to a crowd of 250 at the downtown Wortham Center, to send 15 paid staffers to the state and organize thousands of volunteers to get out the vote, an unprecedented commitment of resources to the Lone Star State from a Democratic presidential campaign. The goal isn't for Obama to win Texas' 34 electoral votes. Rather, by registering Democrats, Obama hopes to help the Texas Democratic Party regain control of its state legislature, which would allow Democrats to redistrict the state's congressional delegation for 2010, potentially winning House seats in the process. That's not simply down-ballot organizing--it's way down-ballot organizing, reaching into state legislatures to influence coming congressional reapportionments in order to create large national majorities years down the line. Obama, looking ahead to governing with as large a congressional majority as possible, is determined to take advantage of a population boom in the Houston area, which is increasingly dominated by immigrants.

At times, the campaign's down-ticket energy takes on a life of its own. Jeremy Bird, field director for Obama's record-breaking victory in South Carolina, likes to tell the story of Stephen Wukela. Wukela, an attorney in his early 30s, was an Obama neighborhood team leader in Florence, South Carolina. Energized by his work with the campaign, Wukela decided to challenge Frank Willis, the 13-year incumbent mayor of Florence. It seemed a quixotic idea, but Wukela tapped into the activist network built by Obama's organizers, ran a campaign straight out of his hero's playbook ("a Real Democrat for Real Change"), and won--by a single vote. "It shows what we were able to do," says Bird, "which is not only win, but leave something behind, so we can begin to turn South Carolina blue in the years to come."

***

Of course, Obama's party-building may not be successful in winning him the presidency, and there are still skeptics within the Democratic Party who question some of his tactics. There has been some grousing from congressional Democrats that the Obama campaign isn't coordinating with them enough and has a tendency toward insularity. The 50-State Strategy remains controversial, particularly with those Democrats who were seared by the experiences of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. They see it as a waste of money and staff time.

Chris Gates, the former Colorado Democratic Party chair, says that Obama has smoothed over tensions in the Democratic Party about field organizing but that fault lines still exist under the surface. "The 50-State Strategy is certainly not the unanimous strategy," he says. "If Obama were to lose, those folks would come out of the woodwork."

On the other hand, some grass-roots activists worry Obama isn't committed enough to the 50-State Strategy. Aside from sharing information from the newly centralized DNC voter list, the campaign has no uniform way of coordinating with state Democratic parties. In Iowa, the Obama team took over the state party's door-to-door operation, leading to worries that state-legislature candidates would be given short shrift by the White House–focused national campaign. In Colorado, Obama's staff is doing its own fieldwork, despite the existence of a state party–coordinated campaign in support of the entire Democratic ticket, somewhat of a duplication of resources. And in Ohio, Obama canvassers are joining the already-existing, locally coordinated ground campaign, going door to door to identify undecided voters for both congressional races and the presidential.

There is even some eye-raising at Obama's ties to the congressional Old Guard. After all, the candidate promising to change the culture of Washington hasn't surrounded himself with 20-somethings forged in the crucible of the Netroots, but rather with veterans of the party's impotent era. Independence from Congress can be just as important as the ability to work within its internecine power structures, says Rep. George Miller, a 33-year House veteran who serves as chairman of the crucial Education and Labor Committee. "There are a lot of people in this Congress who are heavily invested in the status quo," Miller says. "Obama has got to guide Congress to get the results that he wants. It's a tough relationship."

What Obama wants is, in some ways, the key question. If Bill Clinton's project for the Democratic Party was mostly ideological, Obama's is mostly organizational. Clinton sought to change the party's ideas; Obama is more interested in building its infrastructure. But for what? Obama's health-care plan was the least ambitious of the three major candidates, and his recent gestures toward the center on government wiretapping, choice, and gun control have some of his supporters concerned. At times, Obama can seem so focused on building that it's unclear if he's really thought through the blueprints.

Obama's supporters have invested so much in their candidate that betrayal, or even insufficient fulfillment, could be devastating. It's bad enough to be disappointed by a candidate you don't believe in. Being let down by the one who inspires you is a much more demoralizing experience. "The issue," says Joe Trippi, who ran both Dean's and John Edwards' presidential campaigns, "is not what happens if Obama loses or if he wins and continues to build, but if he gets there and leaves out his grass roots." winning elections, counting votes. There's little new about that. Obama's theory of change is simultaneously less inspiring and far more pragmatic than he's given credit for. It relies less on a new vision of politics than on an uncommon mastery of old procedures, institutions, and organizing tactics.

"We're building lasting infrastructure which will not only help us win in November but build the progressive movement for years to come," Obama says. "Our 50-State Strategy isn't just about winning the presidential election but lifting Democrats up and down the ticket. We have a historic opportunity to elect more Democrats at every level, from city councils to state legislatures to the United States Congress, and that's how we're going to bring about a working Democratic majority, and that's how we're going to see real change in America." It is a vision of political power that requires more than a strong president: It requires a strong party. The strategy is not necessarily in opposition to Obama's top-level message of bringing the country together and healing partisan divisions, but it mostly seeks to do so through the machinery of the Democratic Party, by building party organizations in counties where voters haven't had a respectful conversation with a Democrat in decades, and electing the sort of governing majorities that can end the legislative gridlock that so enrages the polity. The theory is that Democratic successes--or at least Obama successes--will ease divisions because voters will be glad to see something finally getting done.

A focus on legislative achievement as an answer to polarization was always, to some degree, implicit in Obama's rhetoric. He described divisiveness as the result of ineffectual politics and unity as the reward for effective policy-making. "I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes, not incremental changes, not small changes," said Obama last January. "I think that there are a whole host of Republicans, and certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who don't believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, [who] don't believe what politicians say. And we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change."

At the time, observers focused on Obama's promised outreach to independents and Republicans. His rhetoric has often signaled an appetite for compromise that has left some wondering about what, exactly, Obama's core policy commitments would be in office. But less attention was given to what Obama seemed to think would attract folks from across the aisle: real policy-making, which Obama's campaign believes requires a Democratic Party infrastructure strong enough to pass the president's priorities. In other words, strong parties aren't the problem; they're the solution. And now that he has one of his own, Obama is determined to prove it.

Why wont John McCain release his full military records?

Londoner — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:25:52 EDT

When Are We Going to See McCain's Actual Military Record? by Gregory Wonderwheel Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 08:24:55 AM PDT

Subtitle: Where are real investigative reporters when we need them?

If you saw or heard headlines like MSNBC's

Navy releases McCain's military record
Unadorned paragraphs bestow some of nation's top military honors

reporting the story by JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer, you might believe that the Navy has released McCain's military records.

If you do, you would be wrong. The main stream media propaganda being what it is you would be understandably wrong but still wrong.

According to Kuhnhenn,

The Navy recently released McCain's military record most of it citations for medals during his Navy career after a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press.

If you look at the link to the records that were released you will see that Kuhnhenn was misrepresenting the facts by calling this small collection of only 19 pages McCain's "military record".

Gregory Wonderwheel's diary :: ::

This Associated Press headline "Navy Releases McCain's Military Record" is all over the internet as it was picked up as a story in very many local media outlets both printed and television.

Apparently what the Navy released were the copies of citations, a couple of pages listing his eligibility for service citations, and a little over one page of a typed outline listing brief biographical data including dates of promotions and assignments on a plain page of paper without even a military letterhead.

Now, I never served in the military. My older brother was a Marine in Vietnam and based on his stories, on what I knew aboout the history of Vietnam from the information available at the time, and on my own developing beleifs in non-violence as a better way, when I was had to register for the draft in 1967 I registered as a conscientious objector. I just didn't buy the story that the communists in Vietnam were planning to march down the streets of Los Angeles, as my draft board said they would, if I did't join the military.

So there may be things in these documents that I don't understand based on their military point of view. But I can see where dates don't agree. And it doesn't take a military mind to see that vast amounts of information on McCain's military service are missing.

I'm writing this diary based on the story that these 19 pages are considered the release of McCain's military records. If I am wrong and there are other more complete versions of McCain's military records that have been released, then please, anyone, let me know and I will modify or delete this diary as appropriate.

But based on the reported story, my first question is, why did Kuhnhenn and the Associated Press report this paltry handful of 19 pages as the "release" of McCain's "military record"?

Where are the rest of McCain's military records?

Where are the reports on McCain's Naval Academy grades?

Where are the reports on McCain's transfers from one unit to another and why he was transferred?

Where are the reports on McCain's assignment to pilot training in Florida and the references to his Naval Academy grades qualifying him for such an assignment? Where are the letters indicating who recommended him for that assignment? Where are the records of how his training went?

The slim list of his service assignments states that after Naval Air Basic Training, McCain had two short assignments with the third being to VA-65 from November 1960 to October 1963. Then in November 1963 McCain was reassigned back to Naval Air Basic Training? Why? What happend at VA-65? At Air Basic Training was he getting retraining for himself or was he assigned to train others?

Where are the reports on the five wrecked jet planes that McCain was involved in during his military career?

After McCain's second stint at Air Basic Training he was assinged to the Training Squadron SEVEN ad Meridian Mississippi for a little over two years. Where are his military records from this assignment?

He then went to VA-44 at Cecil Field Florida for six months until April 1967.

In May 1967 McCain was transferred to VA-46 where the "record" says he served for only four months to September 1967 howerver this dae is sucpect as discussed below. Why was he transferred out of VA-46 after only four months? VA-46 was duty on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59). Could it have anything to do with the fact that on July 29, 1967, about two months after McCain began his duty with VA-46 on its very first combat deployment that there was a terrible disaster on deck where a ZUNI missle was set off that created a chain reaction of explosions and fire that killed up to 134? Where are the military records of McCain's involvement in the USS Forestal incident?

Note: I have seen three different dates on the internet references to the USS Forrestal incident written as the date of the fire, July 20, July 26 and July 29, of which the 29th is the official date.

Here's a video of the incident which states "134 men were killed or missing." This video is used now for training purposes to scare sailors into taking ship fires seriously and to get them to take their fire fighting instruction seriously.

Note that the video begins by saying "On deck somehow a ZUNI rocket has been triggered." Where is the Navy's investigation report on how the missle was set off and who was responsible? Could it be that the rumors that the Zuni missle was set off because of McCain's negligence are true? One story has it that McCain was in his jet at the time and he was showing off and trying to scare the pilot behind him, so McCain made a big flash of explosion of jet fuel happen when he "wet started" his engine, and because the flash was too large it set off the Zuni missle on the plane behind him and the missle shot out under McCain's plane and several others until it hit a nother plane down the row as shown in the video.

McCain's campaign biography says he was on the USS Forrestal on July 29. Here's McCain's official description of the event.

On July 29 1967, John narrowly survived the first of many near-death experiences during his lifetime while preparing to take off on a bombing mission over North Vietnam from his ship, the USS Forrestal. A missile accidentally fired from a nearby plane struck the fuel tanks on John's plane and created a deadly inferno aboard the ship. John barely escaped the fiery disaster that killed 134 men, injured hundreds more and destroyed 20 planes.

Again, the missle "accidentally" fired.

According to WAYNE MADSEN/WAYNE MADSEN REPORT

WMR has learned additional details regarding the deadly fire aboard the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, on July 19, 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The additional details point to then-Lt. Commander John McCain playing more of a role in triggering the fire and explosions than previously reported.

On January 16, 2006, WMR reported that according to a US Navy sailor who was aboard the Forrestal on the fateful day of the fire, "McCain and the Forrestal’s skipper, Capt. John K. Beling, were warned about the danger of using M-65 1000-lb. bombs manufactured in 1935, which were deemed too dangerous to use during World War II and, later, on B-52 bombers. The fire from the Zuni missle misfire resulted in the heavy 1000 pound bombs being knocked loose from the pylons of McCain’s A-4 aircraft, which were only designed to hold 500-pound bombs."

WMR further reported, "The unstable bombs had a 60-second cook-off threshold in a fire situation and this warning was known to both Beling and McCain prior to the disaster." WMR also cited the potential that McCain’s Navy records were used against him by the neo-cons in control of the Pentagon, "The neo-cons, who have had five years to examine every file within the Department of Defense, have likely accessed documents that could prove embarrassing to McCain, who was on board the USS Forrestal on July 29, 1967, and whose A-4 Skyhawk was struck by an air-toground Zuni missile that had misfired from an F-4 Phantom

WMR has been informed that crewmen aboard the Forrestal have provided additional information about the Forrestal incident. It is believed by many crewmen and those who have investigated the case that McCain deliberately "wet-started" his A-4E to shake up the guy in the plane behind his A-4. "Wet-starts", done either deliberately or accidentally, shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft.

In McCain’s case, the "wet-start" apparently "cooked off" and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration. "Wet starting" was apparently a common practice among young "hot-dog" pilots.

McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred). Three months later, McCain was shot down over North Vietnam on October 26, 1967.

The unofficial looking list of assignments in McCain's released military record states that McCain was reassinged out of the VA-46 (thus off the USS Forrestal) in September 1967 and assigned to VA-163 in October 1967. But the official Air Medal citation "for meritorious service" in VA-163 on "the USS Oriskany (CVA-34)" states that his service there "during missions in support of combat operations" was "from 25 July to 21 October 1967." So the citation says McCain was transferred to the VA-163 on the USS Oriskany not in September two months after the USS Forestal disaster but four days before the fire.

What is the cause of this discrepancy in the military records? What was the date that McCain was transferred from the USS Forrestal to the USS Oriskany?

Why does the plain sheet of paper in the military record say he was transferred off the USS Forrestal in Septemeber 1967 but the citation for service on the USS Oriskany says he began his service there on July 25, 1967, four days before the fire on the USS Forrestal?

Did McCain transfer off the USS Forrestal after the fire but have his records altered at the time to appear that he transferred off before the fire? Did he transfer in July or in September? Could it be that McCain's quick transfer off the USS Forestal and out of VA-46 and the confusion of the dates were because he was found to be responsible for the fire? Could it be that he was transferred so quickly so the sailors wouldn't frag him for having casued the death of their fellow sailors? Or could it be something innocent like there just weren't enough planes to go around after the 20 to 21 planes were damaged? I don't know, but perhaps the full military records would clear this up if we ever got to see them.

Knowing how many other pilots were transferred off the USS Forrestal after the fire and how quickly they were they transferred would also help explain if there was anything unsual about McCain's transfer and why the records that were released have such a discrepancy. The USS Forrestal certainly wasn't put out of commission by the incident and other planes could have been brought in, so were they? Was McCain the only pilot transferred off of the Forrestal so quickly?

Is the USS Forrestal incident McCain's Chappaquiddick with the records being buried by the military? Release of the full and complete records would help clarify these points.

McCain's official boigraphy next says,

Instead of taking the option to return home after the Forrestal disaster, Senator McCain volunteered for more combat duty - a fateful decision that stopped the clock on his life and separated him from his family, and country, for five and a half years.

Excuse me, why would he be given "the option to return home" after the Forrestal disaster? He was in the military so he couldn't just "return home." Combat pilots were needed so why would the Navy offer to let him "return home" if there was no responsibility for the disaster on his part? And since when do combat trained pilots get to volunteer for combat duty rather than be assigned to such duty? Perhaps the military records could clarify what "volunteer" for combat duty means in in a war time environment. Are there any military personnel out there who could help me understand this point?

So next after the USS Forrestal disaster, McCain was assigned to VA-163 on the USS Oriskany and was shot down either in the very same month or 3 months later depending on which of the two dates of the transfer is correct. The citations don't make it clear what the difference is between "combat support missions" and actual combat missions. Acccording to the citations his combat support missions were between July 25 and October 21 and he engaged in combat missions worthy of citation on the 18th and 25th of October and on the 26th when he was shot down.

The citation for his Silver Star says that from October 27 to December 8 1967,

His captors, completely ignoring international agreements, subjected him to extreme mental and physical cruelties in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes.

Wait a minute? What does it mean "attempted"? McCain has admitted that he was successfully broken down by his captors and that he did make and sign "false confessions." So this citation is for his resistance before he broke down. None of the citations referring to his POW experience mention that he signed confessions. I'm not faulting him at all. I probably would have signed any false confession they put before me without any torture. The point is not that he didn't demonstrate valorous resistance before he was broken down, but that these are not complete military records if they don't include the references to the confessions that he did sign afterwards. These citations by their very purpose just cherry-pick the things the superiors could write down as deserving of citation and they ignor any other facts. That is understandable in a document whose sole purpose is to justify a citation, but it is not a military record of the whole incident itself.

After McCain was released from capture, where are the military reports on McCain's debriefing after being a POW?

After McCain was relaeased from the hospital in July 1973 he was promoted to Commander and assigned to the National War College for 11 months. Then he was assigned to VA-174 where he served for three years until July 1977 without promotion though he received a citation for his safety record, personnel training, and promoting the "Human Resources Developmnet program".

McCain was then transferred in July 1977 to the Office of Legislative Affairs in Washington DC where he served as "Director of the Senate Liason". In other words McCain was serving as a lobbyist for the Navy. Two years later in August 1979 he was promoted to Captain and less than two years later in March 1981 he retired from the Navy to take up his political career.

At his retirement after serving as Director of the Senate Liason, McCain received the Legion of Merit award. The citation is pretty funny to read as it clearly describes his political savy as a Navy lobbyist at working the system for the benefit of the Navy. Here's what the Navy's praise of its lobbyists sounds like:

Captain McCain's unique talents, exceptional knowledge of politico-military matters, and keen and unusally perceptive insights into the interests and relationships between key members of the Congress provided Navy leadership with sage advice and sound judgement for enacting critical legislation during a period of severe fiscal constraint. His performance in this sensitive and critical postition contributed directly and significantly to the success of navy programs before the Congress, ensuring both readiness and modernization of the fleet.

So McCain was promoted to Captian and awarded the Legion of Merit by the Navy for performing the duties of a good lobbyist.

The next year McCain the former Navy lobbyist was elected to Congress and another fox was let loose in the hen house.

Kuhnhenn reports that the AP received the records as a result of a Freedoom of Information Act request. But Kuhnhenn did not report why he only received 19 pages. He didn't report what the nature of his request was or whether there was any response indicating why he didn't receive a complete record. Why hasn't McCain voluntarily waived confidentiality and released his full military records on his own?

So with all these unanswered questions about his military career, I can only ask where are John McCain's real, actual, and complete military records and when will they be released?

Exclusive - US / Isreali conspiracy to start conflict with Russia

Londoner — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:54:07 EDT

Now, I know many would see this post and think hey, Londoners lost his mind, but see and check these facts for your self. Also ask yourself this question. Why when this story broke, John McCain took a one sided berligerant stance against Russia, when in actual documented facts states that the Georgians did in fact invade South Ossetia first and no criticism was laid at the Geogians floor. I believe John McCain/Bush orchestrated these events for political advantages and also help Isreal get green light to bomb Iran. Please investigate these facts for yourself.

Countless dead civilians in South Ossetia. But you will not hear or see nothing about it on CNN or Faux News. Because they are too busy reporting ad nauseam about the extramarital shenanigans of CFR darling John Edwards.

In order to find out what’s really going on in Georgia, you have to read the international press on the internet. Bush, McCain, and Obama may cast blame on Russia, but reading the international press you get a different perspective.

Russia accuses U.S. of orchestrating conflict

“Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo,” reports Pravda, the Russian newspaper.

Recall the CIA admitting it “helped to train the Kosovo Liberation Army before Nato’s bombing of Yugoslavia,” according to The Sunday Times. The KLA is a perfect outfit for the CIA. “Known for its extensive links to Albanian and European crime syndicates, the KLA was supported from the outset in the mid-1990s by the CIA and Germany’s intelligence agency, the Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND). In the course of the 1999 war, the KLA was supported directly by NATO,” writes Michel Chossudovsky. “The KLA had extensive links to Al Qaeda, which was also involved in military training. Mujahideen mercenaries from a number of countries integrated the ranks of the KLA, which was involved in terrorist activities as well as political assassinations.” Of course, “links to Al Qaeda” translate into links to the CIA.

“The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq – we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. South Ossetian defense officials used to make statements about imminent aggression from Georgia, but the latter denied everything, whereas the US Department of State released no comments on the matter. In essence, they have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals. They are responsible for this. The world community will learn about it,” Vasilyev told Pravda.

Indeed, the world will learn about it, but not by way of America’s corporate media, more interested in the entirely meaningless baby-making of Clay Aiken and Jaymes Foster. Bread and circuses shall suffice in America.

U.S. loads up Georgia with weapons to fight “al-Qaeda”

The Federation of American Scientists website reveals that Georgia

is the most recent recipient of U.S. weapons and aid, receiving 10 UH-1H Huey helicopters (four for spare parts only) and $64 million in military aid and training to fight Arab soldiers with alleged ties to Al Qaeda that have been participating in the Chechen war and are now taking refuge in the Pankisi Gorge region in northern Georgia. Like many of the recent aid recipients, claims that Georgia has become an al Qaeda sanctuary are dubious at best.

“The rapid increase in US strategic influence in the Caucasus has alarmed Russian policy planners. Moscow is keen to take steps to shore up its eroding position in the region. However, Russian officials have limited options with which to counter US moves while at the same time maintaining cordial relations with Washington,” Eurasia.net reported on April 8, 2002. “The most prominent US moves in the Caucasus are the decision to dispatch military advisers to Georgia and a March 29 State Department announcement on the lifting of an arms embargo imposed on Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both actions have the potential to tilt the military establishments of all three Caucasus nations away from Russia and towards NATO.”

Imagine Canada decided to enter a military and diplomatic alliance with Russia and Canada began arming itself to the teeth with Russian weapons and training with Russian military advisers. Can you guess what the reaction of Bush and the neocons would be?

It doesn’t take much imagination.

CIA engineered Georgia’s Rose Revolution

Of course, this al-Qaeda presence is not so dubious when one considers the well documented fact the supposed Islamic terror group is a CIA contrivance. As well, this absurd concern for al-Qaeda’s presence under Georgian beds helped make possible Georgia’s so-called Rose Revolution. “The Rose Revolution was not a simple uprising but was aided by the CIA and Ambassador Richard Miles (think Serbia). From early 2002 onwards the CIA had been operating in Georgia, supposedly to combat Al Qaeda,” explains researcher James Schneider.

It appears the CIA has worked behind the scenes for quite a while in Georgia. Back in 1993, for instance, CIA agent Fred Woodruff was assassinated by unknown assailants outside of Tbilisi. “Spokesmen for the State Department and the C.I.A. declined to confirm that Mr. Woodruff was working for the intelligence agency. But high-ranking Administration officials said he was, adding that he was not spying on Georgian officials but was training Mr. [Eduard] Shevardnadze’s security forces,” the New York Times reported at the time. So tight was the CIA with the former president of Georgia, they engineered the “bloodless” Rose Revolution and pitched him out on his ear.

In the wake of Georgia’s much vaunted — by the U.S. corporate media — “revolution,” the installed government of autocrat Mikheil Saakashvilli wasted little time imposing “democracy” neocon-style, resulting in violent suppression of opposition political rallies. “Georgia was rocked by opposition rallies for six days last November as protesters occupied central Tbilisi demanding Saakashvili’s resignation over allegations of corruption and increasing authoritarianism,” reported RIA Novosti. “The Georgian leader responded by sending in riot police to crack down on protesters on November 7. Over 500 people were injured according to Human Rights Watch as police used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons to break up the demonstrations.” In addition, Saakashvilli’s goons used “non-lethal” weapons of the sort developed by the Pentagon (see video).

U.S. military holds “exercises” in Georgia immediately prior to conflict

Last month, Aljazeera reported that “a total of around 1,650 soldiers form the US, Georgia and several other East European countries, have begun exercises on the formerly Russian-controlled Vaziani base, the Georgian defense ministry said.”

NowPublic reported on July 17:

US officials insist the long-planned wargames have nothing to do with the recent dispute between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But they give Washington a chance to support pro-west Tbilisi at a critical time.

If you believe this, I have a bridge for sale.

In fact, these “long-planned wargames” were so important the State Department packed up and shipped off Condi Rice to Georgia. Her arrival was nicely timed to coincide with “a deadly firefight between Georgian troops and separatists in a Russian-backed breakaway region…. Ahead of Rice’s arrival, a senior State Department official who did not want to be identified told reporters that unchecked conflict in the region could lead to catastrophe. The official also said Moscow should realize its Soviet empire is gone.”

Catastrophe, indeed, although Russia’s response to Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia demonstrated Russia’s resolve to reclaim its supposedly evaporated empire.

Israel gets in on the act

Let’s not forget America’s junior partner in chaos and mass murder, Israel. “In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert based in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military,” reports the International Herald Tribune.

No wonder the horrific photos emerging from South Ossetia have that Lebanon invasion look about them. Israel has over fifty years of experience in invading small countries and has consistently specialized in murdering and tormenting civilians.

Blind eyes all around

As Lavrov explains it, the “Georgian administration has found the use to its arms, which they have been purchasing during the recent several years… We have repeatedly warned that the international community should not turn a blind eye on massive purchases of offensive arms, in which the Georgian administration has been involved during the recent two years.”

Unfortunately, the international community will likely “turn a blind eye” to the U.S. and Israel arming, training, and obviously orchestrating the current conflict, same as they by and large turned a blind eye to Israel’s criminal invasion of Lebanon back in 2005 and the U.S. invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. In regard to the latter, the “international community” — indeed, the whole of the American people — are so disorganized and demoralized they cannot address the simple fact the neocons lied a nation into war. Nixon was bounced for far less.

It looks like Russia will be obliged to deal with Georgia’s treachery on its own. Regrettably, Russia’s response will entail even more murder of innocents and wholesale destruction, as this is how government historically deals with threats – real, imagined, or provocateured.

Remember 2 weeks ago when i warned the campaign not to give into Hillary and Bills transparent attempts to undermine Obama.. Well the chickens are really now coming home to roost..

Londoner — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:30:34 EDT

Listen I used to have alot of admiration for the Clintons but now, I really despise the both of them, what the heck are they really playing at? Does HC really believe that she will unite the party by having her name put up for roll call.

She and her fool of a husband are trying to really mess this up for Obama. What if the super delegates switch and she gets the nomination, will she really take the nomination. Listen to all you so called Democratic HC supporters.Even if HC was to cause an upset at convention, she would lose by a monumental landslide in the fall. HC can never be president, no matter which year she runs, after the way she ran her campaign during the primaries, she will never get elected. fact.. get over it. Barack Obama's the nominee, get on board or jump ship.

I for the life of me can't understand why the Obama campaign is giving any credance to the clintons or their supporters. Personally i dont think neither BC or HC should speak at convention. She'd do better speaking at the GOP's one. Good bye Hillary and Bill Clinton..Good riddance.. you shady, corrupt, back biting turn coats.. Get over it, cos the partys over you. Ps oh thanks for giving the GOP ammunition to use against Obama in their latest campaign ad.If you really wanna help put a demcrat in the White House, Shut the heck up and put up. Listen the party comes before any candidate. I would have supported you if you ran a respectable and honorable campaign and if you'd won, I'd be one of your biggest supporters. So please fix up.

This mis calculation has really made Obama look weak. Hillary is planning to upstage you.

Has this man the temprament to lead America in times of national crisis

Londoner — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:55:29 EDT

John McCain's suicide attempt and his resulting PTSD By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
December 23, 2007

Presidential candidate John McCain's recently released Christmas ad depicting him as a tortured POW survivor underscores a reoccurring theme McCain's handlers have, for decades, carefully intertwined deep into his public persona and political campaigns.

McCain says because he survived 5½ years of brutal torture, while a prisoner of the communist Vietnamese, he is better qualified to be president of the United States than any other candidate. McCain claims his POW sufferings included three years in solitary confinement where he was tortured so badly that he "broke," causing him to attempt suicide.

What McCain's promoters have carefully edited out of their McCain-for-president equation is his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Department of Defense psychiatrists have evaluated McCain for PTSD several times, the results of which remain locked by privacy laws.

PTSD can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which physical harm occurred or was threatened. U.S. government studies have concluded that former POWs "may remain embroiled in a harsh psychological battle with themselves for decades after returning home."

An outcome of PTSD is a subtle web of personal problems including difficulty in controlling intense emotions such as anger and an inability to function well under stress.

Psychologist Patricia B. Sutker of the New Orleans Veterans Administration Medical Center and her colleagues reported in a 1991 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry that as many as nine of 10 surviving U.S. servicemen taken captive during the Korean War may suffer from PTSD and other mental disorders more than 35 years after their release.

In a follow-up study, VA experts concluded that POWs suffer "a much greater risk of developing PTSD than combat veterans."

Robert Timberg, in his book, The Nightingale's Song, wrote that POW McCain "suffered terribly in North Vietnamese camps."

Timberg wrote that in July 1968, McCain was taken to a room in which the North Vietnamese POW camp commander, whom the prisoners had nicknamed "Slopehead," was waiting with 10 guards and an interrogator nicked named "The Prick."

The guards, according to Timberg, charged into McCain, beating and kicking him until he "lay on the floor, bloody, arms and legs throbbing, ribs cracked, several teeth broken off at the gumline." The Vietnamese wanted McCain to confess to being a war criminal.

It was then and there that McCain, Timberg noted, was introduced for the first time to the "torture ropes." He wrote that McCain was tortured for several days before he broke and signed a confession that he was a war criminal. After signing the confession, McCain was so distraught that he attempted suicide but was stopped when a guard burst into the room.

Over the years, countless numbers of columnist/pundits have nearly drowned in their own drool suggesting McCain's POW experience greatly qualifies him to be president.

Washington Post columnist George Will once wrote that because McCain was such an "obstinate" POW hero resister, he was kept "in solitary confinement most of that time ... Every day for two years, one of his guards ordered him to bow, and then knocked him down."

Another columnist/pundit wrote, "McCain is a war hero ... He was tossed into the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison camp, where he was hung by his fractured arms for hours at a time."

In the last two weeks before Christmas 2007, McCain is riding high on a new round of high-profile endorsements.

The New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed McCain on Dec. 16. Then former Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), gave his blessings followed by "back-to-back-to-back endorsements from three other major newspapers, The Des Moines Register, The Boston Globe and The Portsmouth Herald."

The New Hampshire Union Leader wrote, "Sen. McCain is much more than just a war hero who chose to endure years of abuse at the hands of a sadistic enemy rather than abandon his comrades."

The Des Moines Register wrote. "In an era of instant celebrity, we sometimes forget the real heroes in our midst. The defining chapter of McCain's life came 40 years ago as a naval aviator, when he was shot down over Vietnam. The crash broke both arms and a leg. When first seeing him, a fellow prisoner recalls thinking he wouldn't live the night. He was beaten and kept in solitary confinement, held five years. Sen. McCain is much more than just a war hero who chose to endure years of abuse at the hands of a sadistic enemy rather than abandon his comrades."

The Portsmouth Herald wrote, "As a former prisoner of war who was denied medical care and beaten by the North Vietnamese, McCain understands at the deepest level that torturing helpless prisoners who may or may not have some information ..."

Unfortunately for McCain, the baggage that accompanies understanding "the deepest level" of torture and especially "attempted suicide" is the psychological trauma known as PTSD.

During McCain's 1999 presidential campaign, he carefully controlled the release of some "redacted medical records" in what appeared to be an effort to counter discussions of whether McCain's legendary "short fuse" temperament makes him unfit to serve as president and commander in chief of the military. His campaign did not allow any pages to be photocopied and selectively picked news organizations to examine the records.

The 1999 campaign released a statement by Dr. Michael M. Ambrose, director of the Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoner of War Studies, that said: ''Senator McCain has never been diagnosed with or treated at the center for a psychological or psychiatric disorder. He has been subject to an extensive battery of psychological tests and following his last examination in 1993, we judged him to be in good physical and mental health.''

The doctors said McCain explained that while in solitary confinement he created for himself a fantasy world in which he lived. The doctors said McCain always heard the guards coming with his food, but "was often so much in his private world, that he strongly resented their coming around and bringing him back to reality by intruding. He was enjoying his fantasies so much."

Members of the two major POW/MIA family organizations know the "real" John McCain and they despise him. They have experienced firsthand his cruel, angry temperament.

In 1996, McCain encountered a group of POW/MIA family members outside a Senate hearing room. The family members were some of the same who worked tirelessly during the Vietnam War to make sure Hanoi released all U.S. POWs - including POW McCain.

McCain immediately began quarreling with the POW/MIA family members, who were eager to question him on the issue of what happened to their loved ones.

Instead showing courtesy and appropriate compassion by answering their questions, the Arizona senator pushed through the group, shoving them out of his way, nearly toppling the wheelchair of POW/MIA mother Jane Duke Gaylor. Her son, Charles Duke, a civilian worker in Vietnam, is among 2,300 American POWs and MIAs still unaccounted for by the communists.

The POW/MIA families, shocked at McCain's overly aggressive behavior toward Mrs. Gaylor, registered complaints with senate officials.

In an earlier incident involving families of servicemen still MIA, McCain got so angry that he went ballistic.

McCain was advised (Nov. 11, 1992) that Dolores Apodaca Alfond, chairwoman of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families (her pilot brother Capt. Victor J. Apodaca is missing in action in North Vietnam), was offering testimony critical of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. He rushed into the hearing room to confront her.

Award winning journalist Sydney Schanberg described the scene. "His face [McCain] angry and his voice very loud, he accused her of making 'allegations ... that are patently and totally false and deceptive.'

"Making a fist, he shook his index finger at her and said she had insulted an emissary to Vietnam sent by President Bush. He said she had insulted other MIA families with her remarks. And then he said, through clenched teeth: 'And I am sick and tired of you insulting mine and other people's [patriotism] who happen to have different views than yours.'

"By this time, tears were running down Alfond's cheeks. She reached into her handbag for a handkerchief. She tried to speak: 'The family members have been waiting for years -- years! And now you're shutting down.' He kept interrupting her. She tried to say, through tears, that she had issued no insults. He kept talking over her words. He said she was accusing him and others of 'some conspiracy without proof, and some cover-up.' She said she was merely seeking 'some answers. That is what I am asking.' He ripped into her for using the word 'fiasco.' She replied: 'The fiasco was the people that stepped out and said we have written the end, the final chapter to Vietnam.' 'No one said that,' he shouted. 'No one said what you are saying they said, Ms. Alfond.' And then, his face flaming pink, he stalked out of the room, to shouts of disfavor from members of the audience."

POW families were even more angered when they saw McCain actually bonding with his former torturers during and after the 1992 Senate Select Committee hearings on POW/MIA Affairs. Psychologist have identified behavior in which a prisoner emotionally bonds with an abuser as the Stockholm Syndrome.

The first display of bonding occurred when Col. Bui Tin, a former senior colonel in the North Vietnamese Army who had actually interrogated McCain and other U.S. prisoners, testified before the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

During a break in the hearing, McCain moved to where Col. Bui Tin was seated. Instead of grabbing Bui Tin by the neck and demanding his arrest for war crimes against U.S. POWs, McCain reached out and warmly hugged his former interrogator as if he were a long lost brother. Never mind that at least 55 American POW were murdered by interrogators and guards while in North Vietnamese prisoner of war camps.

In a 1992 visit to Hanoi, McCain warmly greeted Vietnam Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet, who had been a ranking Communist Party member of the secret Viet Cong National Liberation Front Central Committee during the Vietnam War.

As a senior Central Committee member, Kiet was responsible for helping formulate Viet Cong policy, which included ordering American POWs to be punished by execution.

On orders issued by Kiet's Viet Cong Central Committee, three U.S POWs, Special Forces Capt. "Rocky" Versace, Special Forces Sgt. Kenneth Mills Roraback and Army Sgt. Harold Bennett were publicly executed by the Viet Cong on Sunday, Sept. 26, 1965

On a Nov. 13, 1996 trip to Hanoi, McCain posed for a picture embracing Mai Van On, one of the Vietnamese who pulled McCain from Hanoi's Truc Bach Lake, where McCain parachuted in 1967 after his bomber was shot down. McCain has said many times that after being pulled from the lake, his Vietnamese rescuers brutally beat him and stabbed him with a bayonet.

Early in 2007, columnist Sidney Blumenthal, who once served as a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, questioned if McCain's "volatile temper" might derail his bid to be President.

Blumenthal wrote that the senator's temper sometimes surfaces in the form of obscenities: "McCain's political colleagues, however, know another side of the action hero -- a volatile man with a hair-trigger temper, who shouted at Sen. Ted Kennedy on the Senate floor to 'shut up,' called his fellow Republican senators 'shithead,' 'f******* jerk,' 'a**hole,' and joked in 1998 at a Republican fundraiser about the teenage daughter of President Clinton, 'Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.'"

Regardless of all the obvious signs pointing to McCain's PTSD, the one outstanding fact is that McCain, by his own admission, broke under the stress of captivity and tried to kill himself.

National columnists and pundits have, so far, given McCain a "free pass" on the attempted suicide. Would the other presidential candidates be treated with the same indifference if they had an attempted suicide in their biographies?

Is this man really ready to lead? Judge for yourself

Flashes: John McCains Murdoch connections (Part 1 Continued)

Londoner — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:43:30 EDT

Flashes Continued from page 1 Published on September 17, 1998

No reports on how much was raised.
Murdoch seems to be following in the footsteps of another high-roller conservative with hundreds of millions who embraced Humble John. The Flash, of course, is speaking of onetime savings and loan swindler Charles Keating, who, when asked if major donations he made to McCain were designed to influence McCain on S&L matters, replied, "I hope so."

As one of the Keating Five, McCain later was chastised by the Senate for his association with Keating.

Last Friday's fund raiser for McCain wasn't Murdoch's first encounter with McCain. The two had a cozy session in March last year when Murdoch met with McCain to promote EchoStar, an on-again-off-again Murdoch mega-satellite project.

The Murdoch fund raiser is typical of the McCain strategy: the Center for Responsive Politics reports that more than 50 percent of the $3,293,249 raised by McCain in campaign funds as of mid-August comes from sources outside Arizona.

Another billionaire that McCain has been courting is Microsoft's Bill Gates, who, not surprisingly, is lobbying to have his company's antitrust problems transferred to McCain's Commerce Committee and away from the cantankerous Senate Judiciary Committee.

Roger & She
Roger Clyne, the rakish lead singer for the Refreshments, tied the knot over Labor Day weekend with longtime girlfriend Alisa Jellum.

The vows were exchanged before 200 friends under a full moon and around a full bar on the Clyne family ranch near Sonoita, southeast of Tucson.

Among those in attendance were Refreshments drummer P.H. Naffah, who joined Rog on stage to entertain the celebrants. Also sitting in were Brent Babb of Dead Hot Workshop and Long Wong's manager Jim Swafford.

There were some minor glitches. The bride's hairdresser got nailed for driving on a suspended license, and barely made bail in time to do the bride's 'do. The caterers delivered square tablecloths for round tables. The gunshots and pyrotechnics that randomly went off during the evening were just a couple of reasons an event of this scale couldn't be held within any city limits.

Hey. Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people.

Feed the Flash: voice, 229-8486; fax, 340-8806; online, flash@newtimes.com

Flashes: John McCains Murdoch connections

Londoner — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:39:13 EDT

Flashes Part1
By Published on September 17, 1998

Sex, Lies & More Lies
There's a canker on the presidency--and the Flash has been besieged by loyal readers who pine for a cure.

The Flash suggests a Congressional resolution requiring President Clinton to drop his trousers around his ankles and shuffle about the streets of Georgetown, pleading for forgiveness.

If our elected leaders had embraced this remedy, D.C. pols and pundits might have been prevented from fleeing to studios and word processors to engage in a kind of fevered hand-wringing.

In swallowing the Gospel According to Kenneth Starr, they forgot that grand jury testimony is notoriously flaky. Moreover (the Flash has been saving "Moreover" for a grave occasion such as this), they forgot that an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, and that there are degrees of perjury, not to mention such things as materiality to consider.

So the Flash watched, semi-transfixed, as the media/political complex methodically embalmed and eulogized Slick Willie, only to wake up to the reality that we proles are more concerned about Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa than the fact that the Leader of the Free World possesses the spastic humpitude of an uncut hound.

We hoi polloi--many of us read the Starr report until our lips grew weary--are not surprised that Clinton lied, because we know all too well that lies are the currency of Washington. And we know that everyone lies about extramarital affairs.

In closing, the Flash offers this quick-hitting primer/analysis of Fellate-gate:

* Clinton has confused the celebrity of the presidency with the celebrity of rock/athletic/film superstardom. He's thinking: Hey, if Magic Johnson and Wilt Chamberlain and Rod Stewart and Ol' Dirty Bastard and Hugh Grant and, for heaven's sake, Charlie Sheen can partake in a saturnalia of the flesh, and the president can't, well, why bother?

Bill, baby, stop thinking with your other head!
* Kenneth Starr is wack.
* Monica Lewinsky has the dubious distinction of being one of the first females in a sex scandal that Playboy doesn't want to photograph. "Nobody wants to see her," a high-level Playboy editor told the Flash. "He didn't even want to see her."

* Moreover, Monica has a death wish. How else can you explain her willingness to absorb the bodily fluids of such a high-risk individual as the Prez?

The Starr Report offers the worst kind of sex education. Monica, baby, doesn't the White House commissary stock dental dams?

* This is all Hillary's fault. During Watergate, one Hillary Rodham, fresh out of Yale law, was employed by the House Judiciary Committee to help research the mores of impeachment. Is that eerie, or what? Then, as First Lady, she so impressively botched health-care reform that Newt Gingrich was inspired to secrete the Contract on America. If Hillary hadn't dropped the ball, the Republicans wouldn't control both houses of Congress and Bill wouldn't need to drop trou and shuffle around whining, "There's no easy way to say I have sinned. . . ."

* David Kendall, the president's lead defense attorney, got his butt kicked a lot when he was a kid.

* Trent Lott should get a chin strap for that petroleum-based product he wears as a toupee.

* Wolf Blitzer is a plonker.
* A source familiar with the case tells the Flash that Starr is now seeking a budget of $40 million to help him prove that the Prez did, in fact, inhale.

Moanin' Lisa
Sheriff Joke Arpaio's deputies were grumbling this week about the latest "death threat" caper in the Joke's office.

On Saturday, September 12, Arpaio spokeswoman Lisa Allen says she was paged, so she checked her voice mail and heard what sounded like two gunshots.

She told the Joke about it, and the Crime Avenger decided to assign two deputies to guard Allen on her date that night.

Monday, the rank-and-file were grousing about the assignment, telling the Flash they considered it a waste of manpower.

Allen, meanwhile, wasn't happy that deputies had said something about it. "Who's telling you these things? Somebody's talking to you who shouldn't be. That's not public information," complained the crack public information officer.

What's Up, Murdoch?
So, what's so attractive about Arizona's Senator John McCain that would make globetrotting sophisticate and media billionaire Rupert Murdoch stop in his tracks to raise money for McCain?

Is it because he and Humble John march under banners of a conservative ideology? Or, could it be because of McCain's chairmanship of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and his oversight of Federal Communications Commission policies that have life-and-death power over Murdoch's vast empire of broadcasting satellite and cable interests?

Silly questions.
Remember McCain's threat to NBC president Bob Wright? McCain vowed to go after licenses of NBC's local TV stations through the FCC after NBC refused to endorse McCain's TV rating system.

Such brinkmanship might explain why Murdoch staged a fund raiser last week. The New York Times reports that Murdoch sent out invitations sucking up to McCain as "an outspoken leader for the telecommunications industry," and instructing key executives of his News Corp. to pony up $1,000 each to McCain.

Finally someone in the Mainstream media, has their eyes open

Londoner — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:14:16 EDT

REX NUTTING Why McCain would be a mediocre president Commentary: It's not a given that Republican candidate has the right stuff By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch Last update: 3:53 p.m. EDT Aug. 7, 2008 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In his frivolous Paris and Britney ad, Sen. John McCain has asked the right question: Is Barack Obama ready to lead this country? Since last January, Sen. Obama's fitness for the presidency has been the only question that matters in American politics. The pollsters and pundits agree that if Obama can show the voters that he's up to the job, he'll win. If not, he won't. But that begs another question: Is McCain fit to lead America? That question hasn't been asked, nor has it been answered. The assumption seems to be that McCain's years of experience in the military and in Congress of course give him the background and tools he'd need in the White House. As Britney might say, "Duh! For sure he's qualified!!! He's Mac!!!" But is that true? Does McCain have the right stuff? A careful look at McCain's biography shows that he isn't prepared for the job. His resume is much thinner than most people think. Here are some reasons why McCain would be a mediocre president. Lack of accomplishments Like the current occupant of the White House, McCain got his first career breaks from the connections and money of his family, not from hard work. The son and grandson of Navy admirals, he attended Annapolis where he did poorly. Nevertheless, he was commissioned as a pilot, where he performed poorly, crashing three planes before he failed to evade a North Vietnamese missile that destroyed his plane. McCain spent more than five years in a prison camp. After his release, McCain knew his weak military record meant he'd never make admiral, so he turned his sights to a career in politics. With the help of his new wife's wealth, his new father-in-law's business connections and some powerful friends had made as a lobbyist for the Navy, he was elected in 1982 to a Congress in a district that he didn't reside in until the day the seat opened up. A few years later, he succeeded Barry Goldwater as a senator. McCain hasn't accomplished much in the Senate. Even his own campaign doesn't trumpet his successes, probably because the few victories he's had still rankle Republicans. His campaign finance law failed to significantly reduce the role of money in politics. He failed to get a big tobacco bill through the Senate. He's failed to change the way Congress spends money; his bill to give the president a line-item veto was declared unconstitutional, and the system of pork and earmarks continues unabated. He failed to reform the immigration system. Every senator who runs for president misses votes back in Washington, so it's no surprise that McCain and all the others who ran in the primaries have missed a lot of votes in the past year. But between the beginning of 2005 and mid-2007, no senator missed more roll-call votes than McCain did, except Tim Johnson, who was recovering from a near-fatal brain aneurysm. Shallow McCain says he doesn't understand the economy. He's demonstrated that he doesn't understand the workings of Social Security, or the political history of the Middle East. He doesn't know who our enemies are. He says he wants to reduce global warming, but then proposes ideas that would stimulate -- not reduce -- demand for fossil fuels. McCain has done one thing well -- self promotion. Instead of working on legislation or boning up on the issues, he's been on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" more than any other guest. He's been on the Sunday talk shows more than any other guest in the past 10 years. He's hosted "Saturday Night Live" and even announced his candidacy in 2007 on "The Late Show with David Letterman." McCain has not articulated any lofty goals. So far, his campaign theme has mostly been "McCain: He's None of the Above." In the primaries, he campaigned on "I'm not that robotic businessman, I'm not that sanctimonious hick, I'm not that crazy libertarian, I'm not that washed-up actor, I'm not that delusional 9/11 guy." In the general election, he's emphasized that he's not that treasonous dreamer. No leadership McCain has frequently taken on near-impossible missions that go against the grain of his party. It's the basis of his reputation as a maverick. But McCain has never been able to bring more than a handful of Republicans along with him on issues such as campaign finance reform or immigration. Democrats on the Hill have accepted McCain's help on some issues, but except for a few exceptions (John Kerry and Joe Lieberman), they've never warmed to him. To achieve anything as president, McCain would have to win over two hostile parties: The Democrats and the Republicans. Living in the Sixties McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War. But he's not fighting the real historic war, which taught us the folly of injecting ourselves into a civil war that was none of our business. We learned that, in a world where even peasants have guns, explosives and radios, a determined and popular guerrilla force can defeat a modern army equipped with the mightiest technology if that army has no vital national interest to protect. Instead, McCain is fighting an imaginary Vietnam War, where a sure victory could have been achieved with just a little more bombing, just a little more "pacification," just a little more will to win at home. This fantasy clouds McCain's judgment on foreign policy. Most of the other high-profile politicians who fought in Vietnam -- Colin Powell, Chuck Hegel, John Kerry, and Jim Webb -- aren't stuck in the past, and they don't view the Iraq War as a chance to get Vietnam right. No principles After years of honing a reputation as a guy who'll say the truth regardless of the political consequences, McCain has crashed the Straight Talk Express. On almost every issue where he took a principled stand against the Republican line -- taxes, immigration, oil drilling, the Religious Right -- he's changed his views. We ought to like politicians who change their mind when the facts change; it shows maturity, judgment and flexibility. But politicians who change their mind to suit the prevailing winds show the opposite. The bottom line Successful presidents come from two molds: visionaries, or mechanics. The visionaries -- think Reagan or FDR -- see what others can't and say 'Why not?" to inspire the country. The mechanics -- think LBJ or Eisenhower -- know the ins and outs of government and are able to harness the power of millions of humans to accomplish great things, or at least keep the wheels from coming off. McCain fits neither style. He's neither a dreamer, nor a detail guy. His major accomplishment, in Vietnam and in the Senate, has been merely to survive. Just surviving doesn't make you're a hero, or a decent president. America needs to do more than survive the next four years. Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.

Powerful Ad Exposing John (Elmer Fud) McCain (video of ohio DHL scandal)

Londoner — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:09:32 EDT

This Ad should not only be shown in ohio, but around the whole whole. If his base (media) won't show it, copy the link and pass it on. Blessings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_I6GXfDUSM

What the heck are the clintons playing at?

Londoner — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:18:46 EDT

Dont panic.. were still ahead

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:09:31 EDT

Listen, dont buy into the media hype that Obama needs to go negative. The ploy by the mainstream media is for Obama to go negative, so as to then make it easier for McCain to get back on the high ground. There has been recent polls carried out over the last couple weeks that show that most independants consider JM to be to negative and a turn off. Listen the golden rule here is, whatever Foxnews or karl rove advise, Obama should do the opposite. I will go even further, i believe Obama should get rid off all HC's advisors that supposedly jumped ship and return to the winning strategy and policy's that won him the nomination, Also he should scrap the townhall meetings and return to the large stadium meetings, drawing huge crowds. The media are trying they're best to suppress his message and squash his momentum. If Obama does lose this election, at least he'd be able to say he did it his way.

What does John McCain aka Elmer Fud stand for?

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:04:46 EDT

This has been a seriously corrupt and bias election. I keep hearing on all the news networks that Sen Elmer is a known commodity. By whom? The media seems to be spending countless broadcasting hours spreading the myth that Sen Obama is not known. Now this has to be consisered false. Sen Obama has been put through the mill (media scrutiny) they have covered his parentage, religion, medical history, marriage, dubious associations (all lies) food he eats, voting history and they still have the audacity to say that he is un defined, that actually means that there propaganda has not really worked. For the next couple of months the mainstream media are gonna try help John Elmer McCain define Obama with lies. America your country needs you! Lets all start doing more to combat this intended travesty, by hitting every neighbourhood of every state and spreading the truth of Obama and also when we hear falsehoods from the media, we challenge them straightaway so as to get them to correct their lies.

In England all major political party's produce a manifesto, to which all their policys are based. this also acts to keep all party members towing and spouting the same political line(crap) America likes to claim that it is the beacon of democracy and free speech, which we all know is BS. America is owned and controlled by corporations and the mass of its people seem to be easily led and brainwashable robots. This is a known truth, but it is a shame, as America was founded to be so much more. John McFud is part of whats wrong with America and needs to be put to pasture as soon as possible. I have not heard any substantive policy from John McFud at all in this whole farce called an election. America do what we do in England, make all candidates produce a political manifesto, so as when the bias media tries to tell you what and who to vote for, at least you know what they stand for.

Defining Obama 24/7

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:32:54 EDT

Bill Berkowitz
August 6, 2008

Defining Obama 24/7 Conservatives try to make presidential race about Democratic nominee, painting him as unreliable

As Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama trekked toward the final Democratic primaries, and it looked inevitable that Obama would be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, conservative pundits and cable television talk-show hosts, a host of blogs, and a number of newly formed organizations began intensifying their attacks on Obama, embarking on the early stages of one of Karl Rove's most effective political strategies: Directly attack the opponent's strengths. In the case of Obama, this means turning his very popularity into a negative, defining him as effete and more interested in celebrity before the Democrat can introduce and define himself to the larger nation.

Two new anti-Obama books, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" (Threshold Editions, August 2008) by Jerome Corsi -- the co-author of "Unfit for Command," the 2004 book that contained false attacks on Senator John Kerry's military service -- and "The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate," by David Freddoso -- a former writer for the conservative weekly, Human Events and National Review Online staff reporter -- are aimed at taking the attacks to a mainstream audience.

In the preface of his book, Corsi, proving that there is life beyond Swiftboating, writes: "My intent in writing this book, as was the case in co-authoring 'Unfit for Command,' is to fully document all arguments and contentions I make, extensively footnoting all references, so readers can determine for themselves the truth and validity of the factual claims." According to Media Matters for America, just as Corsi's 2004 hit piece on Kerry "contain[ed] false and baseless attacks on ... Kerry's military service, [its review] "finds that 'Obama Nation' similarly contains numerous falsehoods" about Obama.

Released August 1 by Threshold Editions -- a division of Simon & Schuster -- Corsi's book was ranked #6 on Amazon.com's "Bestsellers" list by August 5. Interestingly, there seems to be a mini-review war at Amazon; as of noon on August 5, of the 97 reviews, 47 were five star ("Corsi has Written Another Winner") and 40 were one star ("Should be listed under Fiction") reviews.

At SimonSays.com, the website of Simon & Schuster -- the book is described as "thoroughly researched and documented" and "scrupulously sourced." "In this stunning and comprehensive new book, the reader will learn about:"

"Obama's extensive connections with Islam and radical politics, from his father and step-father's Islamic backgrounds, to his Communist and socialist mentors in Hawaii and Chicago, to his long-term and close associations with former Weather Underground heroes William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn -- associations much closer than heretofore revealed by the press."
"Barack and Michelle's 20-year-long religious affiliation with the black-liberation theology of former Trinity United Church of Christ Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons have always been steeped in a rage first expressed by Franz Fanon , Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X, a rage that Corsi shows has deep meaning for Obama."
"Obama's continuing connections with Kenya, the homeland of his father, through his support for the candidacy of Raila Odinga, the radical socialist presidential contender who came to power amid Islamist violence and church burnings."
"Obama's involvement in the slum-landlord empire of the Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko, who helped to bankroll Obama's initial campaigns and to purchase of Barack and Michelle's dream-home property."
"The background and techniques of the Obama campaign's cult of personality, including the derivation of the words 'hope' and change."
"Obama's far-left domestic policy, his controversial votes on abortion, his history of opposition to the Second Amendment, his determination to raise capital-gains taxes, his impractical plan to achieve universal health care, and his radical plan to tax Americans to fund a global-poverty-reduction program."
"Obama's naïve, anti-war, anti-nuclear foreign-policy, predicated on the reduction of the military, the eradication of nuclear weapons and an overconfidence in the power of his personality, as if belief in change alone could somehow transform international politics, achieve nuclear-weapons disarmament and withdrawal from Iraq without adverse consequences, for us, for the Iraqis or for Israel."

Meanwhile, Regnery Publishing (website), one of the nation's largest conservative publishing houses and the publisher of "Unfit for Command," is touting Freddoso's "The Case Againsr Barack Obama" as "a comprehensive, factual look at Obama." An early Conservative Book Club review maintained: "In this shocking exposé, Freddoso demonstrates that despite the hype, Barack Obama doesn't represent 'change' or new thinking in American politics at all. In reality, he is a far-left liberal politician in the mold of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, and Walter Mondale -- but with charm and political savvy that rivals that of Bill Clinton."

Freddoso sticks to the facts. He reveals an Obama who is no angel "delivered to us," but who is no devil either. He is no Manchurian candidate for Islam, but neither does he represent any new politics. Freddoso digs through the archives of Obama's time in the Illinois state senate, and reveals new and unexplored aspects of Obama's career --proving that there is less than meets the eye to Obama's airy rhetoric about "Change" and "Hope." The real Barack Obama certainly is a man of hope: hope to govern America from the far Left. Freddoso introduces you to the Obama who will further divide America along the same lines as it has been divided for decades.

Released August 4 -- Freddoso appeared on Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" program that evening for his first interview -- the book was ranked #11 in sales on Amazon by noon the following day.

In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has shifted from whining about Obama to directly attacking him.

Just a few weeks short of the party conventions, the cumulative effect of the attacks on Obama appear to be taking its toll. Inhabiting the so-called high ground while the McCain campaign runs ads attacking Obama's patriotism, experience and character has eaten into Obama's early lead in the polls. As of early August, a national Associated TV/Zogby International telephone poll of 1,011 likely voters conducted July 31-Aug. 1 found that McCain has taken a 42%-41% lead over Obama. While the margin is statistically insignificant, it is clear that the McCain negative campaign ads have at the very least piqued the public's interest.

A broad-based attack

While it may have seemed patently ridiculous that the anti-Obama crowd would use the wearing-of-the-turban-photo (taken during an Obama trip to Africa) to link the Senator to Islamic terrorism, it was a convenient jumping off point for the anti-Obama forces to launch their campaigns.

Widely distributed, the photo trumped the despicable anti-Obama e-mail that had been floating about the Internet for months, accusing him of everything from having been schooled in a Madrassa, to being a Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with it), and to taking his Senatorial oath of office with one hand on the Koran. For the most part, few conservatives -- with the possible exception of the Fox News Channel and Ann Coulter, who delights in calling the Senator "B. Hussein Obama" at every opportunity -- cared to carry the e-mail's message further.

Given that Obama has written two best-selling books, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," which provided significant, and relatively unfiltered, details of his early life, including his admission of drug use, and "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream," his what-I-would-do-to-bring-the-country-together-if-I-was-president handbook, the public has become relatively familiar with his story.

Public familiarity, however, did not protect John Kerry -- a Senator with a long public record -- from being defined/vilified by the Republican Party's go-to-guys, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, when he ran for president in 2004.

By now, the wearing-of-the-Muslim-garb seems almost humorous compared to the current attacks underway, many of which have been launched by the McCain campaign itself.

Recently Human Events, a longtime conservative publication, announced that it was offering "Barack Obama Exposed" -- a report that purported to detail the many reasons Obama is not fit to be a Senator, let alone president -- by signing up for one of its "free email newsletters."

"Barack Obama Exposed" is a collection of articles written by an assortment of conservative voices including; Ann Coulter ("Jonathan Livingston Obama"), L. Brent Bozell III ("Youth Double Standard: Obama vs. Dubya"), Bill O'Reilly ("The Perils of Obama"), Ben Shapiro ("Iran: Praying for Obama"), Michelle Malkin ("Obama: Wasting His Own Breath").

Shortly after Obama's victory in Wisconsin, Cliff Kincaid accused the Illinois Senator of having "controversial socialist connections." Kincaid, the editor of Accuracy in Media, a right wing media watchdog group funded by conservative philanthropy, and a contributing editor to FamilySecurityMatters.org, recently charged that Obama was "an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler."

In a late-February column titled "Barack Obama is a Fake," Townhall.com columnist Ben Shapiro wrote that Obama is as fake as Pamela Anderson's assets -- the only difference between them is that Anderson's boobs have some weight. Shapiro maintained that Obama is "slicker than a Slip 'N Slide. He's more like a pedophilia-free Michael Jackson than a JFK -- he's a sort-of-black, sort-of-white guy made of plastic who lip-synchs empty lyrics to the screaming adoration of juveniles."

Shapiro was particularly incensed by Obama's "fainting" fans and his response to it: "At no less than six of Obama's recent rallies, fans have reportedly fainted. Those incidents were caught on video or audio. In each, Obama -- who never even thinks to put down the microphone or ask a campaign aide to take care of the matter -- narrates to the crowd as medical volunteers show up to minister to the stricken. In two of the videos, he picks up a bottle of water and offers it to the poor, overcome admirers."

Longtime conservative columnist Cal Thomas was kinder and gentler. He opined that Obama may be the right man for the country during peacetime, "but with crafty enemies seeking to destroy us, can we afford to make what might be a fatal mistake by electing someone upon whom too many of us gave projected, ungrounded hope?"

Now, the attacks are coming 24/7; many directly from the McCain campaign and others from conservative columnists, small conservative organizations, and a host of right wing websites and bloggers. Although Obama has talked about being "swiftboated" he has nonetheless tried to stay above the fray.

During a press conference the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama was asked about a Hillary Clinton's comment stating that she would not allow herself to be victimized by the type of Swift Boat-style attacks that were leveled against Kerry in 2004. Obama responded by saying that he had been vetted by his opponent (Hillary Clinton) during the primaries.

"I have to just respond by saying that the Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," he said. "I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year that they've pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

These days, the McCain campaign is backing up the dump truck at Obama's doorstep. It remains to be seen how he will handle the load.

The world awaits..

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:54:25 EDT

World writes open letter to McCain
By Michael Bérubé - July 25, 2008, 8:28AM

EARTH, July 25, 2008 -- The entire world drafted an open letter to Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) today, asking him to drop out of the U.S. presidential race and concede the presidency to Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois).

"Ordinarily we do not interfere in America's internal affairs," said a spokesman for the rest of the planet, "even when it has become clear, as in recent years, that American voters are about to elect ignorant, incoherent buffoons who will add immeasurably to our immiseration. But this time is different. We didn't think it was worth our while to step up for your Carter or Mondale or Dukakis or Gore or Kerry -- besides, we'd only be bombed or invaded for our trouble. But this time, I mean, come on -- you've got to be kidding me, right? Please tell me you're kidding."

Pointing to polls that show Obama leading McCain 94 percent to 6 percent everywhere on the inhabited globe except the United States, where most polls give Obama a narrow one- to three-point lead, the entire world suggested that Americans might not be sufficiently informed about the U.S. election. "Look, this isn't funny," said a world representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "You've got one candidate who has a reasonably sane and comprehensive foreign policy combined with detailed knowledge of American domestic affairs, and another candidate who isn't always sure which country he's talking about and whose domestic policy consists of telling people to stop whining. Why are you even throwing this open to a vote? Are you people out of your minds?"

The world seemed to be especially impressed by Senator Obama's recent travels, during which the presumptive Democratic nominee demonstrated a thorough grasp of world affairs while draining a three-pointer "from downtown," as one Kuwaiti commentator noted.

The newly-formed Sunni-Shi'ite Reconciliation Committee, meeting in Damascus, issued a press release timed to coincide with the world's open letter. "We are deeply disturbed," the committee wrote, "that the United States might elect a president who does not know the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims and who has to have a special friend whisper in his ear every time he makes a mistake. We wonder whether Americans would elect a president who did not understand the difference between your Catholics and your Protestants. And so it is that we stand united, as we have not stood in centuries, in our conviction that such a man is not fit to serve as President of the United States."

On a related note, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked the entire world why the U.S. media have failed to acknowledge his government's endorsement of Obama's plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. "I do not understand what is wrong with their Washington Post," Maliki said in a prepared statement. "I recall that it used to be a pretty good newspaper. But now I fear that its editorial pages have been taken over by what the Qu'ran calls 'a bunch of wankers.'"

Unfortunately, representatives of the McCain campaign reported that the candidate did not receive the world's missive, most likely because it was sent to the Senator via e-mail. "I assure you that the Senator is completely up to speed on new technologies and is aware of e-mail," said one staffer. "But he was shaking the laptop in order to get the mail to come out, and he wound up throwing it against a wall. We want to point out, however, that the Senator does not have a problem with his temper, that he is aware of the existence of the Goggle, and that the Internets suffered no permanent damage as a result of this event."

John McCain a racist?

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:44:58 EDT

The Racist Wit & Wisdom Of John McCain Posted by Paul Hooson
Published: Aug 4, 08 02:56 PM

John McCain continues to argue that he has some longer record on Capital Hill that better qualifies him for public office. Yet few know that an ugly part of this record is John McCain's long history of telling bigoted, racist and homophobic jokes at Bullfeathers lounge in Washington, D.C. to his friends over drinks. McCain also has a long record of opposition to virtually every piece of legislation dealing with civil rights, the Martin Luther King Holiday or Gay rights as well.

McCain loved to make African Americans, Vietnamese, Gay citizens, Hispanics the blunt of his racist jokes with friends at Bullfeathers, using blunt language like "fag", "queer", "nigger", "spic", "wetback" or "gook" in his jokes at Bullfeathers. Yet McCain lies to the public and now claims that he has no racist instincts. Yesterday, one of his campaign managers, Senator Lindsay Graham(R-SC) also lied to the nation about McCain's long history of racism on FOX NEWS SUNDAY claiming that McCain hasn't a "racist bone in his body". Yet the jokes of John McCain and his voting record on civil rights issues certainly prove that Senator Graham is clearly not telling the truth.

Here are some quoted jokes from John McCain overheard in public at Bullfeather's. You can be your own judge of whether John McCain is a bigot and racist:

"Two dykes are talking at a bar and one leaves. As she walks towards the door, the other watches her leave and says out loud: "God, I'd love to eat her out".

Two men are standing nearby and one turns to the other and says: "I'd like to do the same. Guess that makes me a dyke"----John McCain

"Why does Mexican beer have two "x's" on the label? Because wetbacks need two cosigners"----John McCain

"Did you hear the one about the woman who attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die. When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak her doctor leans over to her her sigh contently, "Where is that marvelous ape?"----John McCain

In fact, jokes about rape are another common theme in the jokes by John McCain overheard by patrons at Bullfeathers lounge. McCain is strangely attracted to finding humor in violent sexual assaults against women.

At times, McCain is far less than trying to be funny. Such as this quote that sums up the real John McCain political philosophy:

"I play to win. I do whatever it takes to win. If I have to fuck my opponent to win I'll do it. I won't give it a second thought".----John McCain

In addition to being a ruthless and caustic politician, McCain has long held bizarre views, calling respected South African leader Nelson Mandela, "A terrorist", offered some support for White Supremacists George Wallace, Jr. and former KKK leader David Duke, and calling the children of divorced fathers, "tar babies". For 27 years, McCain continued to use the ugly term, "gook" to refer to all Asians, and not just those Vietnamese who mistreated him as a POW.

After a week of running some outrageous personal attack ads against Obama that avoided issues and were simply personal attacks in nature, racist candidate McCain has now pulled even or slightly ahead in the presidential race according to new polls by Gallup and Rasmussen. Racist candidate McCain, needs to be taken at his word when he claims that he plays "to win" and will "do whatever it takes to win". With his personal racist sentiments it must be highly personal for McCain when his opponent is a well educated, handsome, young African American, which reflects the type of highly personal nature of the attacks ads that racist candidate McCain is using to destroy his opponent. McCain has always made race an issue during his entire career as a politician. And 2008 is unfortunately no exception for McCain. Same old McCain. Same old racism.

(A very important personal note here. I'm very unhappy at some of the language of John McCain here. And I'm deeply sorry that I have to reprint such language here on this blog that strives for top quality and makes every attempt to avoid anything of any offensive nature. But for important journalistic accuracy sake, the quotes of John McCain are used here in their complete entirety because of their serious newsworthy value. I am deeply sorry if anyone is offended by the use of such language as a part of legitimate news coverage. However, the actual full quotes of John McCain are important information for voters to consider before they cast a vote this November.----Paul Hooson)

McCain, Is he really ready to lead?

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:34:28 EDT

McCain Attempted Suicide Twice, But Won't Release His Mental Health Records During This Campaign Posted by Paul Hooson
Published: Aug 5, 08 04:46 PM

The John McCain Campaign is hoping to ride the shallow message of don't vote for Barack Obama because he's young and popular all the way to the White House.

But this inch deep and very shallow campaign is also concealing some huge vulnerabilities of John McCain. Buried in the 1500 pages of medical records released by the McCain Campaign is information that McCain attempted suicide twice, yet his campaign won't release his full mental health records to the public. This is a serious issue that the McCain Campaign hopes to skirt; his full mental health records after years of physical and psychological abuse by his North Vietnamese captors and whether McCain is currently receiving any psychiatric care or medications.

If you want to make John McCain go ballistic, just suggest to him that his campaign should release his full mental health as well as medical records. McCain has no problem releasing his medical records, which did show that he is cancer survivor with a current clean bill of health and very healthy for his age. But when it comes to McCain's mental health records, this becomes a closely guarded secret of the McCain Campaign, and likely for very good reason. There is likely some significant issues to hide from the public here.

The fact of the matter is that one out of every eight servicemen returning from Iraq are experiencing serious mental health problems such Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and examples of depression, alcohol, drug abuse or suicide are high among returning vets suffering from this other serious mental health disorders.

However, virtually none of these servicemen were captured by the enemy or tortured like John McCain was for five years at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors. The North Vietnamese often received instruction from Soviet KGB or military intelligence officers in techniques of brainwashing, psychological abuse and other methods to break down a soldier and gain false confessions out of them.

It is highly likely that anyone who has suffered such serious abuse has lifelong mental health problems and likely has received treatment for depression or other serious mental health disorders which could include medication, hospitalization or even electro-shock therapy. It is no wonder that the McCain Campaign wishes to conceal the extent to which John McCain received mental health services, or whether he is still undergoing mental health services or is on any mental health medications.

Even anti-depressants can have significant side effects and are controversial because some people have done very disturbed acts under the influence of them. In Oregon, a 12 year old boy who was put on antidepressants killed his parents and shot up his school, killing two students and wounding many more. The fact of the matter is that mental health medications can have significant side effects that cloud judgment or can lead to erratic and bizarre behavior.

John McCain's long history of sudden anger and outrageous outbursts both in the Senate as well as with reporters calls into question whether McCain is still suffering from significant mental health problems as a result of his captivity or whether he is currently under psychiatric care or medications.

The fact of the matter is that good judgment is the most important trait needed in a president, and if John McCain has a history of mental health disorders as a result of his abusive treatment as a POW or is currently under mental health treatment, then his ability to command the largest military in the world, command the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, or make other vital life or death decisions could be greatly clouded. The voting public has a right to know this information.

You know that the McCain Campaign will attempt to run out the clock on the 2008 campaign and ignore any request for his mental health records from reporters or the public. But this information is vitally important.

If John McCain has any mental disorders or is under current psychiatric care or medications should be an important and valid issue in this important election. McCain claims that all of his trauma as a POW had left by 1977, yet the fact that he twice attempted suicide according to the 1500 pages of medical reports from his doctors released to the public so far indicates some history of mental health problems that the McCain Campaign should be upfront about.

Joke! Media are now saying the to much press may be hurting Obama... LOL

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:10:07 EDT

Have you heard the latest ploy by the bias mainstream media? Too much press is bad for a political campaign. This pile of crock was first put out there by Faux news the picked up by CNN. In all my life i have never heard anything so stupid and me being a political junkie, i have followed elections worldwide. The American media is becoming the laughing stock of europe. How can anyone in there right mind say too much coverage is bad for any candidate. This foolishness is being spread to try and kill the message of Barack Obama. Listen you americans need to re-instate the fairness doctrine ASAP. Or this media madness will continue. peace

Dont trust opinion polls

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:53:55 EDT

Can We Trust the Polls?: It all depends

Michael W. Traugott

The Brookings Institution

Summer 2003 —

Can we trust the polls? Under the best of circumstances, the answer is "Not necessarily without a fair amount of detailed information about how they were conducted." This general note of caution applies at any time to any poll consumer. But today, with polls proliferating in the media and with methodological concerns increasing within the polling industry, caution is even more warranted. This is not to suggest that the general quality of polling data is declining or that the problems facing pollsters have no answers. Still, consumers of polling data need to be more careful than ever.

Related Content Research and Commentary Is ""Popular Rule"" Possible?: Polls, political psychology, and democracy

Larry M. Bartels, The Brookings Institution, Summer 2003

Research and Commentary Vox Populi: Public opinion and the democratic dilemma

Kay Lehman Schlozman, The Brookings Institution, Summer 2003

Research and Commentary From Hootie to Harry (and Louise): Polling and Interest Groups

Burdett Loomis, The Brookings Institution, Summer 2003

When will Mc Cains scrutiny begin?

Londoner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:21:39 EDT

Journalists Predict Scrutiny of McCain . . . Some Day

By Peter Hart

It’s hardly controversial to point out that many in the corporate media have a fondness for presumptive GOP White House nominee John McCain. The prevailing journalistic attitude was expressed by Washington Post columnist David Broder (4/24/08): “In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.”

Over the past few months, however, many pundits and reporters have declared that despite the press corps’ feelings for McCain, he will nevertheless face tough scrutiny . . . some day.

After declaring on PBS’s Charlie Rose show (2/8/08) that some of McCain’s rhetoric is beyond criticism (“McCain has a license to use words that the rest of us could not. . . . I mean, he can be pretty out there, using words like ‘surrender,’ because who is really going to question John McCain?”), Newsweek’s Evan Thomas (2/16/08) responded to the idea that the press was fond of McCain and Barack Obama as well:

Maybe so, but it doesn’t really matter, because the press is almost certain to turn on both men. Digging through the personal record, searching for human flaws, is what reporters do when they cover presidential campaigns, and the critical skepticism only deepens when the winner occupies the Oval Office.

On NBC’s Meet the Press (4/27/08), PBS host Gwen Ifill explained: “There’s a lot of time between now and the fall. . . . John McCain is doing a lot of interesting things which will bear closer scrutiny when the time comes."

In an April 25 online chat (cited by ThinkProgress, 4/29/08), Washington Post reporter Shailagh Murray was asked, “Will we see more scrutiny of [McCain’s] campaign finances and practices, or will Obama/Wright continue to suck up all the oxygen?”

Murray’s reply: “This is driving Democrats crazy right now, but just wait. Once the primary battle is over, Senator McCain will get his fair share of scrutiny.”

When Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe was asked on MSNBC (4/30/08; cited by Media Matters, 5/1/08) whether McCain received a free pass from the media with regard to his ties to right-wing evangelist John Hagee, he declared:

Absolutely. And look, we’ve all heard evangelical ministers, white ministers, condemn America and damn America for abortions. And so, yeah, I don’t think there’s an equal balance of criticism and focus here. In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride. But of course, that doesn’t take away from the offensive nature and the outrageousness of what Reverend Wright has said. But at some point, that scrutiny will come.

NBC’s Tim Russert spoke on the Don Imus show (5/5/08; cited in CJR Daily, 5/6/08) on the same subject: “I don’t think the Hagee thing, McCain hasn’t been questioned, has not been scrutinized about that. . . . He’s really been given this grace period to go around the country.” Russert said the same thing that evening on MSNBC (5/5/08; cited in CJR Daily, 5/7/08): “When Senator McCain is back in the media’s light, he’ll receive the same kind of scrutiny.”

When blogger Arianna Huffington argued (Good Morning America, 5/1/08) that McCain “is not getting the scrutiny he deserves,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson replied: “But Arianna . . . we got a big Democratic race going on now. The McCain/X race, whoever he runs against, will get very major attention soon.”

A May 7 USA Today editorial declared that “Republican John McCain might be enjoying the Democratic brawl from the sidelines, but sooner or later, he’ll be back in the harsh spotlight himself.”

It’s unusual to hear reporters admitting that even though a prominent politician and presidential candidate is saying and doing things that deserve scrutiny, they haven’t gotten around to giving his words or deeds much attention.

McCain’s recent activities do cry out for media coverage. On April 18, McCain released his own tax returns, showing that he has next to no assets in his own name, while keeping his wife’s sizable fortune private—a tactic that attracted intensely skeptical coverage when Sen. John Kerry tried it in 2004 (New York Times, 5/9/04).

Or consider McCain’s blaming a bridge collapse last year in Minneapolis on earmark spending—a claim the alleged Straight Talker promptly withdrew (L.A. Times, 5/2/08).

Or McCain’s assurance that his energy policy “will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East”—a phrasing that implied that all Mideast wars the U.S. has been involved in are essentially about oil, although McCain later claimed that he was only referring to the 1991 Gulf War (AP, 5/2/08).

Journalism, of course, is supposed to hold politicians to account—not some day, but every day. Putting off scrutiny of John McCain until some imagined future moment is really giving him a free pass in the present—and that’s a journalistic problem that deserves some self-scrutiny.

See FAIR's Archives for more on:
Elections/2008

Sean Hannity sinks even lower by Spitting on air.

Londoner — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:45:56 EDT

If by your actions it is considered a template of your intentions, then i can truly say that Sean Hannity of Foxnews is really out to get Barack Obama. On last night show, Dated 5 August Hannity & Colmes, I heard Sean Hannity actually spit on air, i will concede that i never saw it take place, but as a budding music producer, with advance studio gear in my possesion, i was able to accurately determing that foul action had taken place and on air.

The incident happend during the introduction of a new book based on Obama's religion by the the surprisingly un bias conservative author Stephen Mansfield. Alan Colmes was highlighting some points in the book and said that Obama has insisted his a christian and lives by christian values and on screen was a picture of Obama apparently making ready to give a speech, when in Alan Colmes Pause I clearly heard someone make a disgusting noise of spitting on air. I have analized the sound and have played it back to many of my friends via the internet and they all agree with me. This was definately a hot mic moment. When the camera panned back to the studio panel the Author Stephen Mansfield did look slightly unsettled. Sean Hannity tried his best to make the author say bad things about obama, but Stephen Mansfield being the true christian and patriot he never.

This is total disrespect and un patriotic as Obama could be America's next president. If anyone picked up on this please comment.

Dont believe the hype - Media bias

Londoner — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:34:22 EDT

I have not written a blog for quite sometime as i have been conducting my own experiment into the so called media bias in favour of Barack Obama. I have watched most if not every main stream media channel and most cable networks on a daily basis via the internet for the past 3 months. My friends i can catagorically refute this claim as absurd, in fact i would go so far as saying that the media is totally in favour of john mcsame for president. There is not 1 news or political channel in the US that hasn't failed in there duty to deliver fair and balanced coverage of the whole election including the primarys. Is this done because of political bias or worse? or are the media all trying to emulate the corrupt and racist foxnews and cnn in favour of high viewing figures? Guess it speaks for itself (both).

Every network and channel at sometime has repeated falsehoods against barack and michelle or failed to challenge the baseless lies spouted by obvious Mc Cain supporters acting as unbias political pundits. The only person who tries to be fair is keith olbermann and John stewart, i know the daily show is comedy, but it has accurately highlighted the dishonesty in the US coverage of the election. Did you know that you could actually get a better and more interlectual coverage on Al jazerra. yeah i know that sounds funny, but thats true. I am a staunch believer in the united states role and its position in the world, which has been greatly devalued across the globe.

Coming from the UK, I use to complain about a few murdoch owned dailys, who were acting like your foxnews but in print form. (The Sun, Telegraph) But i no longer complain as i now realise that in comparisson to the US, we are better off. I now understand when british journalist and political pundits, mock American Politicians and Politics as being for the brainless and easily led. Dont get me wrong England has its faults, but i must say that it had the foresight to safe guard the population against mainstream media propaganda and has set strict guidelines which also covers the press, whilst protecting the freedom of speech. (which was learnt from its extensive use during WWII and the 2 wars in Iraq) That is why the extreme right wing in our country has not been able to get a foothold on the political ladder.

America needs to adopt similar safeguards ASAP, If you think im wrong just look at countrys like Spain, Germany, France, which has the media in the pockets of certain political partys and visa versa. It is your responsibility as Americans to stand up and fight and question the media, when they try to manipulate the public by using propaganda or programming tactics. then they conduct polls to see if there brainwashing is working. (so obvious)

Most Americans seem unable to see further than there own porch let alone outside the box or globally. This is very troubling to us Europeans and your media's pushing you into a isolationist conservative view when it comes to foriegn policy, which is based on fear and race baiting. Wake up people of America. Your threat is not within but with the rest of the world catching upto and even surpassing you in the developement of there nation.

The east is rising, America's greatest threat is the rapid emergence of china and india, which the worlds best economist are calling the two biggest super powers in the next 5-10 yrs. Japan has already risen, a country you bombed into surrender in the 2nd world war, but now leads the world in the advance technology field. America should watch the arab nations closer, if it did it would see how clever those people are because even the biggest oil producer (Saudi Arabia) is investing heavily in its citys and infrastructure re-making them future proof, but the smartess thing the arabs are doing is that they're investing they're oil dollars in all types of energy developement which is sustainable and are buying up most off the worlds major ports and the devalued real estate in the US, due to the weak dollar.

Barack Obama is the 'One' with the vision who can put America back on track. If America goes against the world and elects a next lame duck elmer fud lookalike for president, America deserves what shall surely befall it. Oh oh.. your thinking he's gone to far, he must be paranoid, well heres an example. America's GOP and GOP bias media considers the biggest oil producing countrys as corrupt and anti american and i even heard them being called tyrants. Now America consumes 25% of the worlds dwindelling oil reserves, but only has in untapped fields 3-4% of its own, even iran has more oil. Now china and india's oil consumption is growing at a fast rate, what happens when these un savoury countries refuse to do business with the US in favour of doing business with there neighbours and allies. Will America invade those countries? It better not. I make a prediction that if Isreal bombs or invades Iran, the world will be dragged into a world wide war. Remember China at the drop of a hat could bankrupt the US, by calling in the debts the US owes, plus stop loaning Monies to the US. Why do you think that Bush had to attend the olympics.. LoL.. or why the whitehouse refuses to fully condemn china on human rights issues. America please be wise in your judgement and support Barack For President. Peace.

Campaign Posters

Londoner — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:08:38 EDT

I know this may be a long shot like HRC being the democratic nominee, but i'll give it a shot anyway.. Fellow ObamaNation.. Is there any way i could get sent a few Obama08 Campaign posters i.e: Basketball poster and a few others to me here in london?.. I am willing to pay postal costs.. PS..and if theres any other memorabilia to be had, i would be greatful.. Pls Help.. oh yeah not Dirk from TX pls..

LONDONER-Baracks London Army..

Can Hillary Clinton win without Black vote..

Londoner — Fri, 02 May 2008 06:05:45 EDT

For the life of me i cannot understand why HC is still in this race or why the Superdelegates have not put her out of her misery. It is a fact that if HC swindles the nomination, she would have no black vote and as any democrat knows no candidate can win the Election without that important group. I keep reading comment from so called democrats or right winged pundits that if she lost 30%+ of her supporters would vote republican, but on 19% of Barack's supporters would switch vote. (Foxnews, CNN, Sky) Listen she has ran the most devisive race baiting campaign ever and has lost the majority of Black voters the Clintons once had, if she thinks that if she is the nominee she would just roll out her husband or Maya Angelou to encourage black voters, she has seriously underestimated the Black mindset. Political pundits need to stop harping on about the drop in White working class voters for obama and concentrate on HC total dissappearence of her Black base. The more i watch this unfold i have to wonder if there is not a conspiracy at play here in favour of JM. As HC seems to be getting support from all the right wing media and even right wing bloggers. Another thing which is really telling about HC mindset is that for the last couple of months nobody except her surrogates of campaign staff have been allowed to blog on her page..(wonders if her staff are deliberately keeping her in the dark as to her popularity, cause she might really believe that she is helping the party and America by prolonging this travesty) This is the message put on her site:
We're sorry. The page was not found.

We've recently updated our site and we welcome you to explore the new content from the navigation above.

And with all the millions she apparently raised in April, but she cannot sort out her site. telling..

Florida 1990 all over again

Londoner — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:12:39 EDT

They've now called it for HC on BBC.. but i heard earlier that they're were voting problems all over the state. (WOMEN FOR VOTES).. Ed Rendall has a lot to answer for, this sounds like Florida 1990. Electronic Diobold machines.. can easily been hacked. Apparently thousands of voters were turned away, plus they're were hundreds of broken machines. *tuts*

Vote rigging

Londoner — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:24:46 EDT

Im in london, but im hearing that there were voting irregularaties, is this true? were the complainees Obama supporters?..

Get out the nunchuckers barack

Londoner — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:06:07 EDT

forget about hitting back at Hillary Clinton with the kitchen sink.. i think its time to drop the campaign bus on her.

Barack should use B Clintons words against him in an Ad Campaign, i think that would put the last few nails in Hillary Clintons coffin.

“Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this,” Mr. Clinton says. “If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best.” add some slow thought provoking music, pictures of people in distress ie: Atlanta after floods, pictures of a small southern town ravaged economically, with pictures of a few old townsfolk sitting outside a closed saloon with 1 guy on a rocking chair looking miserable and a young mother with baby struggling down the road with pram laden with grocery bags, looking desheveled. now this would be an Ad of all Ads..

Thats it, gloves off

Londoner — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:50:14 EDT

Well folks i have finally reached boiling point at the election coverage of the upcoming primary, that i sent out emails to all the main stations adopting political bias against Barack Obama.

To the powers that be.

For the last 3 months i have been covering the election on foxnews from here in london and i am alarmed at the overwhelming bias of all your programs in favour of John Mc Cain and now Hillary Clinton.
The worst culprits are Hannity & Colmes and O'reilly factor. It is even present on your daily programming.

I am not affiliated to no political party as i'm from the UK but if i was, based on your coverage i'd vote for Obama and i think this goes along way to explain why he's doing far better than your so called pundits expect or can fathom. I think every time your mention his name, he gets 50 new supporters. Your supposed to cover the news in an objective and responsible manner.

This type of Journalism would never be allowed on terrestial channels in the UK and i hear steps are being taken to remove foxnews of British Sky. Please fix up. PS.. who is Hannity and Colmes and Bill O'reillys target audience, it surely can't be more than 20% of the population as the majority of americans are educated. This was sent to foxnews, who almost immediatly offered to show a more fair and balanced coverage, which was announced less than 30mins ago on air. I will be monitoring them closely and i suggest you do the same. from an adopted london democrat.

FOXNEWS PROPAGANDA - IN BED WITH HILLARY

Londoner — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:57:12 EDT

Today i have been following the foxnews coverage of the campaign so far, and was amazed at how little coverage it actually got, when hour long slots allotted for election coverage was continually interupted by the pope at yankee stadium. lol This was because Barack had actually closed and in 1 poll surpassed (R)Hillary in PA. All foxnews pundits were long faced today and were continually trying to massage the poll numbers. 1 pundit called julie kept on saying that Barack has 43% of vote to hillarys 48, whilst the screen actually showed Barack as having 44%. Foxnews spent all of today trying to downplay Baracks obvious momentum, inspite of there continued attacks on Baracks character. I am miffed how this type of media coverage is legal in the states and so few people talk up about this. There is obviously a higher power than the media at work here in favour of Barack (GOD) and this is what scares the bias media and (R)Hillary clinton. If the superdelegates steals this from Barack with the help of the corrupt press, i suggest no one votes for (R)Hillary and all those so called democrats who sat on right wing media channels spouting lies should be voted out of office, starting first with (R)Lanny Davis. Foxnews is a discredited news station with rascists as political pundits all know the truth, which is Barack Obama at best is leading in PA by 2% and at worst behind by 2%.

The most dangerous man in the world

Londoner — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:02:49 EDT

To all my fellow socialist/democrats and anyone else with an ounce of sense, needs to be aware of these facts. Even though hillary is out playing at being a republican than the republicans, she is only a small fish in a sea of sharks. there is a man who with his ownership and influence of the worlds media, is the biggest threat to the world, more than iran, china or al north korea.. he's name is rupert murdoch... see link below.

Why are the conservatives and the mainstream media so afraid of Barack Obama. It is that he is able to control and influence a movement of people beyond the control of the right wing government/media daily brainwashing tactics and propaganda.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/07/b122948.html

I will be now crusading in my country (UK) to have foxnews banned from british airways as they continually breach 2005 anti bias laws. I recently read that Murdochs daughter is holding a party for Barack in london soon. I hope its not true. Murdoch may be trying to butter both sides of his bread, just in case Barack wins nomination.

'if you dance with the devil, you'll still get burned'

The hypocracy of your democracy

Londoner — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:02:54 EDT

I have never in my life been so glad to have been born and raised in the UK. I have for the last 3months been following the democractic race for President closely. It is not covered much on terrestial tv in the UK and i now understand why. (political bias) Which by the way is illegal on television in the UK, it is however present in most daily newspapers, which i suppose is not a bad thing as there are numerous broadsheets pandering to most pollitcal views. It was not always the case, i remember the same press in the eighties being overwhelmingly conservative/right wing and on many occassions openly rascist. The worst of these broadsheets was the SUN NEWSPAPER (still owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch) yes! the same person who owns fox news, or should i say faux news.. Britain was every few years in and out of recession, unemployment went through the roof, crime was at its highest and the gulf between the haves an have nots were gulfs apart. The government of the day had no solution to the problems caused by its failed policys (Conservative) that it started to find scapegoats. The mainstream media whipped up ferver on immigration and encouraged the government to impose unjust laws to target specific ethnic groups. SuS Laws (Laws given to police to stop and search anybody for no reason, which was overwhelmingly aimed at the black community). The conservatives then went and sold the vast majority of its council owned housing stock and was not building new ones to replace them, so people of little means were forced to buy the roofs over there heads.. This led to mass repocessions and famalies being made homeless. To cover the failings of conservative policys a new scapegoat was needed. England went to war with Argentina over a cold plot of land called the Falkland islands, which by the way was right off the coast of Argentina. Then a fews years later Margret Thatcher and George Bush Snr went to war with iraq. notice the pattern. A new government was needed.. Labour swept to power on the message of Hope and Change. England has endured eight yrs off strong economic growth, whilst the rest of the world shuffled in an out of recession. Tony Blair biggest mistake was to tie himself into a false war, which ultimatly cost him his job, even though at that time the country was doing well economically.. America needs to put laws in place to stop media moguls with bent views from owning more than 1 media type and to also make sure that no television station has any political leanings. whose the most powerful man in america? the president or the person who owns the most read or watched media type. Does this sound familiar? Good luck Barack