From the Washington Post:

In a conference call with reporters, attorney John Dowd was asked about a specific part of the Keating Five inquiry, the fact that Cindy McCain and her father had invested in a Keating strip mall.

"It was part of the inquiry, but it did not -- John was unconnected to that and unaware of it at the time, and did not participate in it," Dowd said.

The attorney asking the question during the hearing? John Dowd.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again:

Really, McCain has NO honor left, none, zip, nada.

If you had any doubt (which you might after McCain flip flopping all over the place last week) about where McCain stands on how we got in this financial crisis, and what he would do in the future, then this should clear everything up for you:

This is one of the best, hard hitting ads against McCain this cycle:

McCain and Palin think that the "fundamentals" mean workers. Really? It doesn't and it is lipstick on a pig, the pig is still a pig no matter what you try to do to change its appearance.

Economic fundamentals, are:

A very broad term which includes such economic measures as interest rates, the government’s budget deficit, the country’s balance of trade account (relating to exports and imports), the level of domestic business confidence, the inflation rate, the state of (and confidence in) the banking and wider financial sector and consumer confidence.

Still confused? Then how about this:

Economists, politicians and journalists have long referred to economic "fundamentals" as quantifiable concepts, such as unemployment rates, gross domestic product, inflation, productivity and so forth.

Moreover, in their widely used textbook, "Economics," Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus titled their first chapter "The Fundamentals of Economics," and noted that "Every society must answer three fundamental questions: what, how, and for whom? What kinds and quantities are produced among the wide range of all possible goods and services? How are resources used in producing these goods? And for whom are the goods produced (that is, what is the distribution of income and consumption among different individuals and classes)?"

No where is there a definition of "economic fundamentals" that includes the ability of workers to do a job.

McCain has claimed for over a year that our economy is strong, that the "fundamentals" of the economy are good, and we all know better. Here is what McCain has stated for over a year, and as late as Monday:

Spread this video around, especially to those who haven't been following the lane of lies that McCain has been traveling.

What we must remember this election is about:

McCain put up an ad today stating that Palin rejected the bridge to nowhere....only problem? That is a lie (look at previous posts for the story). What is really sad, and telling, is that the ONLY thing McCain can offer America is just that lies, corruption and more of the same.

Here is the ad that Obama has out today:

From a man who was in the Naval Academy with McCain, as well as a POW with McCain:



If he thinks John McCain isn't cut out to be President, why should any American.

Man oh man is the GOP in a bad position, basically a lose, lose no matter how you look at it. First of all it is painfully clear that McCain made his decision on Palin with little to no background vetting.



And then the LA Times gives us:

One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said.

This really isn't about Palin at all, it is about McCain's ability, or lack thereof, to make an informed decision. Whether it is McCain's attempt to get into the middle of an international crisis (Georgia), or his VP pick, it is becoming increasingly clear that McCain's temperament is ill suited to commander in chief.

My god, who in the hell VETS a person for the second most important job in our nation based almost entirely on a Google search??????????????????????????

The lose lose? Getting rid of Palin shows that they made a huge mistake, keeping Palin on the ticket, shows they made a huge mistake.

Today we learn more about John McCain's VP pick Palin, and I am wondering why John McCain didn't care enough about our country to vet Palin properly.

First of all MSNBC has an article by Paul Kane of the Washington Post that derails McCain's assertions that Palin is someone who is against earmarks:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money."

And then we have Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, who tells us:

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Has anyone noticed that Sarah Palin's central claim to political fame is a fraud? She represents herself as a fiscal conservative who abhors pork-barrel projects and said no thanks to the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport across the Tongass Narrows. But as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,780), she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon. And as a candidate for governor just two years ago, she supported both the Ketchikan bridge and the congressional earmark that would have paid most of its cost.

I know, we're not supposed to pay attention to such inconvenient details. We're supposed to be dazzled by how unaffected she is, how plain-spoken, how "genuine."

And this is the best quote from Robinson's article:

The other thing we learned about McCain is that he is willing to take an enormous gamble based on limited information. He only met Palin once before summoning her for a final interview. He realized he needed to shake up the presidential race, and that's what he did. But we are reminded, if we did not realize it before, that the three things not to expect from a McCain presidency are caution, prudence and a willingness to always put the nation's interests above his own.

The bottom line is simple: McCain had an opportunity to show our nation what type of a decision maker he is, and he showed us alright, he showed us that he shoots from the hip and asks questions later. Can we really afford McCain's "maverick" leadership? I think not.

The NYT has a breaking story on the vetting of Sarah Palin, and quite frankly there are more questions then answers at this point.

From the NYT:

With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain's list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.

“They didn't seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. "This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge."

And this:

People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a standard form with more than 70 questions. Although The Washington Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying Ms. Palin had been subjected to an F.B.I. background check, an F.B.I. official said Monday the bureau did not vet potential candidates and had not known of her selection until it was made public.

The President of the United States appoints hundreds of people who end up running our country, who represent our nation to the world, who run our military, and it is alarming to see McCain demonstrate for us how he would "vet" those he could appoint.

The one way McCain can show his ability to lead this country is by his actions, and his judgment in picking his Vice Presidential running mate shows some of the worst judgment ever seen by a candidate for president. Can we really afford to elect a man who has shown so little regard for the process of picking his running mate?

And, though this is an official Democratic Blog, I have to tell you that as an American I am now convinced that a McCain presidency would make George Bush look like George Washington.

Compare this mess of McCain's to our Vice Presidential pick, Joe Biden. Need I say more?

John McCain has used, yes USED, his POW status as an excuse for every mistake he has ever made. He cheated on his wife because he was a POW, he can't remember how many houses he owns because he was a POW, he injects that he was a POW into EVERY explanation he gives for every misstatement he makes.

I respect the service of John McCain, however John McCain does not respect the service he gave, and that is evident by his wanton use of his time spent as a POW. Enough John, we all have a story to tell in life, yours was told and now it is time for you to be a man and own your mistakes.

John McCain, who is married to a multi-millionaire, has no clue how many homes he owns. Not only that, but he continues to insist that there is nothing wrong with our economy.

Here is Obama's newest campaign ad:



And the response from the McCain camp? " In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time." And as Crooks and Liars reminds us, the McCain camp wants you to believe that Obama is the most liberal Senator in congress while at the same time stating half his votes are "lockstep" with Bush.

McCain has done nothing but lie, yes lie, about Obama's tax plan. Newsweek has stated that McCain's ads are :

" a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals."

And now the Obama campaign has come out with a great video that points out the truth, and McCain's lies, line, by line, word by word.

Spread this video, and when someone sends you an email that says Obama will raise your taxes, send them the video and spread the truth.

Recently Barack Obama included amongst his suggestions for reducing our dependance on foreign oil that people do smart things like, well, conserve and, um, drive more efficiently. Apparently he shared with us all that keeping your tires properly inflated actually saves you gas.

And with gas over $4 /gallon, why wouldn't we all be interested in the small, personal steps we can take to reduce our use and save money...not just the bigger policy changes that will be called for?

The RNC, however, thought it was worth mocking by providing an Obama tire gauge with every donation.

Of course the down side of their knee-jerk mockery is the fact that...no, not just that it portrays the Republican candidate for President of the United States as a juvenile "I am rubber, youa re glue" kind of guy...but that they're mocking the truth.

Check out this Time article that support's Obama's contention that small personal acts can, in fact, save as much oil as new proposed drilling would produce.

EarthFirst has a nice recap, and a video of Obama's response here.

I am just...upset...sorry, I cannot think of a better word, that this is what we've come to at the highest levels of the political process. Stupid, immature, lame mockery...not to mention inaccurate...instead of substantive discussion.

Gah! Bah! Grr.

The campaign trail is getting to John McCain, when asked a simple question he blanks and can't remember what was being asked. Sad, pathetic and scary:

Over and over you will hear how this election is "too close to call," and a "toss-up." You are also hearing and reading the pundits claim that something is wrong because Obama isn't ahead by 20 or more points. Well, the fact of the matter is that Obama is doing very well in the polling, but that should not allow us here in CA to sit back and assume that this election is in the bag.

First of all, here is a great article on the upcoming election, which analyzes the political territory:

While no election outcome is guaranteed and McCain's prospects could improve over the next three and a half months, virtually all of the evidence that we have reviewed--historical patterns, structural features of this election cycle, and national and state polls conducted over the last several months--point to a comfortable Obama/Democratic party victory in November. Trumpeting this race as a toss-up, almost certain to produce another nail-biter finish, distorts the evidence and does a disservice to readers and viewers who rely upon such punditry. Again, maybe conditions will change in McCain's favor, and if they do, they should also be accurately described by the media. But current data do not justify calling this election a toss-up.

On a personal note, as I watched Obama speak overseas yesterday the contrast of an Obama presidency versus Bush/McCain could not be more clear. When Bush goes overseas he is met with protests, he does not speak in front of crowds, rather he is only able to address small gatherings of hand picked individuals (actually that is the same as when he is here).

Contrast that image with the flag waving, American cheering crowd that showed up to greet Obama. The choice is clear for us as Americans, to once again become a beacon of light in the world by electing Obama as our president, or to continue the erosion of our place in the world by electing McCain.

Do all you can to help elect Obama, there are opportunities for you to help register voters, make calls to swing states and if possible send a small donation to our Democratic nominee. Together we can, and we will, remove the tarnish of the last eight years.

Look no further then this week to see what is kindly described as a "bad week" for John McCain. I mean, really, the poor man is not only making huge blunders, he can't even get the media to follow him around. And then the campaign whines about how the media loves Obama, and I kid you not, puts out a youtube video whining about all the coverage Obama is getting.

In order to keep you up to date with all of the McCain gaffs and blunders, we are now using Digg for some of our posts (it is almost a full time job to post the mistakes McCain has been making), which means that we will be able to update you more then once a day on national and local news.

When you go to read the stories which have been posted via Digg you will be taken to the original site of the story, make sure to come back to our site to view more stories. As always, you can leave a comment on any story, whether it is a Digg or original post.

Ok, now I am off to find some more stories to Digg for you : )

What the hell is wrong with these people?

In an interview with the Washington Times, McCain's top economic adviser Phil Gramm tells America to suck it up and stop complaining about the economy:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

Yes, that stress you are feeling is all in your head. The fact that you can't pay your mortgage, can't afford to eat, can't put gas in your car, can't afford medical care, all of that is in your head and will you please stop whining about it.

And while McBush is trying to "distance" himself from his TOP economic adviser, we only have to check the words McSame has uttered himself:



Got it? All in your head, you are to blame, and for the last time, stop WHINING!

John McCain thinks that Social Security is a disgrace, and he is going to fix it, just like Bush has fixed so many of our problems. Did I hear a gasp out there ; )

Here is what McBush stated yesterday:

Under the present setup, because we've mortgaged our children's futures, you will not have Social Security benefits that present-day retirees have unless we fix it. And Americans have got to understand that. Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it's gotta be fixed.

Of course he also favors privatization (guess he doesn't watch the stock market),

Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits. [CSPAN, 11/18/2004]

And then he states, today, that all things are on the table to fix Social Security, except "all things on the table" must mean something I do not understand because in the same interview, a few minutes later he takes things off the table:

During an interview with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) contradicted himself in a matter of minutes regarding Social Security. When asked how he would "fix Social Security," McCain first said, "You've got to say look, everything is on the table." But then, minutes later, when asked if he favored "raising the cap," McCain said, "No." He then criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for previously saying that raising the cap is "one possible option."

Of course McCain most likely hasn't seen this article on Social Security:

The warnings have rumbled for decades: Just wait till the baby boomers retire. If you think there are strains on Social Security and Medicare now, brace yourselves for the implosion as the boomers start heading out to pasture. With the first of that generation now doing just that, we should be seeing the dust cloud soon, right?

Actually, if you've bought into the following myths about the bust the baby boom is supposed to usher in, you may be surprised

The article goes on to state the myths as well as the reality of what the situation really is, maybe McCain can take a few minutes on his weekend (he doesn't "campaign" on the weekend) and read a bit on the real issues with Social Security.

Time to education McBush on the state of the union, and work all the harder to elect Obama.

I have had enough of the disingenuous right wing gong after Michelle Obama for her statement on America. Obama had stated that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America, and the right wing has taken that statement , twisted it, claimed Obama is not a patriot and worse.

I wonder what they will say about McCain who basically has stated the same thing, over and over and over:



Not that we have heard John McCain admit he was not "in love" with our nation before he became a POW, can we just drop this whole issue? What a waste of time when our nation is undergoing some of the worst problems we have ever faced. Of course if you are a Republican calling attention to the mess you created won't help, thus you have to "create" something for your lemmings to grab hold of and play with while their economic situation becomes worse and worse under the Bush administration.

Shame on the GOP for pushing this issue, it came back to bite you.

McCain is now claiming that he is different then Bush, however when asked this question on Meet the Press in June of 2005, he states that he agrees with Bush far more then he disagrees. Is this really what America wants? A third Bush term? Watch McCain for yourself, and help our Democratic candidate, Obama, by sending this link far and wide.



Four more years of war? Four more years of the Bush economic policies? Four more years of all the things that are slowly destroying our nation?

Don't get mad, get active! Do all you can to show America that McCain is not independent, he is tied at the hip to Bush.

Yesterday Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. To no surprise, most of the media ignored this act, and some have been misrepresenting the articles as a "resolution." You can read the story here and see the articles here.

Should Bush and Cheney be impeached? YES, there is little doubt that they have broken laws, lied to our nation, to the world, and, well, the list is endless. Will these articles of impeachment get very far? Don't hold your breath, but at some point, maybe not now, but in the future, Bush will be held accountable for his acts against our nation. Stay tuned.

And of course we have McCain to entertain us as well. Today McCain stated that:

Q: A lot of people now say the surge is working.

McCAIN: Anyone who knows the facts on the ground say that.

Q: If it's working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

McCAIN: No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine.

It doesn't matter if our troops don't come home? Yes, we have troops in Germany, Japan and other nations, however our soldiers are able to move freely about in those nations. In Iraq our troops are targets, they are blown up, they are attacked, and even one death is too many. Are we in Iraq forever? Shouldn't that matter? McCain doesn't think it matters how long our troops are in Iraq. I think it matters, and I would wager that a majority of Americans also think it matters.

And of course we continue to hear how McCain isn't running for a third Bush term, yet there are those pesky little things like "facts" that get in the way of McCain trying to make himself appear as something he is not. Watch this GREAT MoveOn video to see the truth:



Tell me, please, how McCain is different in any way from Bush. He isn't, and we need to make sure America knows it as well.

Here is Hillary's Op-Ed in today's NY Daily News: Why I Continue To Run

And I recommend TalkLeft as a good blog to read covering the Clinton campaign from a rational perspective, particularly this post.

And I linked to a great post by Erica Barnett that cites dozens of examples of media misogyny in this post on my personal blog.

Finally, Morra Aarons-Mele over at BlogHer has written a couple of great posts lately about how everyone seems much freer to talk about sexism now that they've counted Hillary out and about how some Obama supporters are making the strategic error of being so vicious they are turning off not only Hillary supporters, but those that aren't as rabidly pro-Obama as they are. In my digerati-laden world I can tell you this last one is true. In the rarified halls of twitter, for example, Obama supporters who are normally rational geeks are behaving like schoolyard bullies.

If/When Clinton loses it will be by a slim margin and after having accomplished some pretty amazing vote tallies in some pretty important states.

I have to agree with the folks who are very worried about the Obama camp under-valuing that and underestimating the passion of Clinton supporters. Everyone talks about the risk of alienating Obama voters should the nomination somehow manage to land in Clinton's lap.

We should also be talking about the risk of alienating Clinton voters should anyone act too dismissive of what she and her supporters accomplished.

I truly believe that most Democrats who turned out for the primaries will, in the end, turn out in the general election and stay Democratic. Especially once they get to know McCain a little better, and as more than that old guy with a sense of humor who goes on the Daily Show.

But why risk it? Eyes on the prize, people. As Hillary says in her Op-ed:

But no matter what happens in this primary, I am committed to unifying this party. Ultimately, what Sen. Obama and I share is so much greater than our differences. And I know that if we come together, as a party and a people, there is no challenge we cannot meet, no barrier we cannot break and no dream we cannot realize.

Can't believe I forgot to post this here last week.

Starting 9 months ago my company, BlogHer, worked with our community of thousands of (mostly) women bloggers to develop a series of non-partisan, policy questions that wanted every presidential candidate to answer if they wanted to earn our votes. We called it the BlogHer Voter Manifesto.

And for 6 months, none of them bit.

We were offering to give them the questions in advance, hell they're public on our web site. We were offering to send a BlogHer rep from their own side of the aisle to do the interview and ask the questions. We were offering to show up wherever and whenever the candidates preferred.

Not a bite.

Some of them offered spouses. Or asked us to promote their online site sections for women. We got a little discouraged, but we asked our community...well, would that be enough. Should we stop there. The community overwhelmingly said "wouldn't mind hearing from spouses, but we definitely do NOT want you to stop badgering the candidates to answer our questions."

So, we didn't. we kept reminding the ever-dwindling number of candidates that our community now reaches over 9 million unique visitors a month. That's a lot. By anyone's measure.

Finally, and amazingly, the Obama campaign agreed, and one week ago today we posted the video of that one-on-one video of a BlogHer political editor interviewing Obama in Roseburg, Oregon.

You can also check it out directly here:



Power to the people! It was bloggers of every ideological stripe, and most of them NOT political bloggers and political junkies, who helped shape these questions.

Some have said the questions are too simple, not visionary enough. But I think it's a pretty clear indication that regular people just want to know what the candidates are going to DO about what they say they believe in,

We hope McCain and Clinton will soon follow.

In the meantime we also did get an exclusive audio itnerview with McCain campaign chair (and former HP CEO) Carly Fiorina, which you can listen to here.

People are just a bit too squeamish about "negative" campaigning and "attack" ads for my taste Seriously, I think everyone needs to get a grip.

I forget now if it was on Twitter, or on BlogHer, or on someone's own blog, but I recently saw a discussion where someone was incensed over what she perceived to be Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning.

And we all know there are lots of discussions going on about how Hillary should drop out because it will just perpetuate all of this fighting between the Democrats instead of focusing on the real issue of beating John McCain.

I myself have been extremely annoyed by the rather arrogant and, I think, subtly sexist tone Obama is taking every chance he gets.

But when I think more about it I really have to say: we all need to check our overreactions at the door and ask ourselves: Exactly what horrible, terrible, vicious attacking are we talking about?

That "phone call at 3AM" Hillary ad that has some people so steamed? Harmless. Doesn't say a word about her opponent. Harps on her experience as she's been doing for months and months.

Obama's comments about Hillary getting "desperate" and lashing out when she's "feeling down". Ok, I agree with Jon Stewart, seems like he'd be a dickish boyfriend, but this is an old political put-down...think Ronald Reagan and "There You Go Again."

Both of them having their staffs get worked up in a lather over comments from various opposing campaign workers and supporters? Getting campaign workers and supporters to step down, resign, back off, apologize?

I don't know. They're both doing it. And none of it, frankly, seems incredibly awful.

It's OK for Hillary to question Obama's experience, and for her to imply that he's all hat, no cattle. All inspiration, no perspiration. Even if you think it sounds a bit patronizing. Yes, I do think she'd be taking the same tack with anyone else who was 15 years her junior and had a similar resume.

It's OK for Obama to question Hillary's electability, "establishment" position and reputation as a polarizing figure. Even if you think he's basically spouting Republican talking points. He'd be talking about change no matter who he was running against.

I actually do not buy the media talking point that this race has been or is getting ever-more nasty. It actually hasn't...at least as far as I've paid attention. And for all you political junkies out there who are obsessed with every single detail of this race: I may pay less attention than you do, but I pay closer attention than about 99% of the electorate. So I'm betting that if I haven't noticed any actual egregious nastiness, then most other voters haven't either.

We don't need to perpetuate this Republican and Mainstream Media talking point that having Obama and Hillary continue to run is bad for the Democrats. I don't buy it.

We do need to stop expecting this to be a tea party and let the candidates make their damn case.

So, let me have it. What are the examples of campaigning that you think are incredibly nasty? Educate me.

Cross-posted at my personal blog