The right wing has been going full speed ahead in eviscerating Michelle Obama for saying that “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country.” She’s explained it many times, about how it was in the context of the country’s political process, and despite that and the qualifier “really” (which means she was proud, but not really proud), right-wingers have not let up, knowing a good smear when they see one–and the Liberal Media™ is all too happy to go along with it, replaying the video clip like she was Reverend Wright and going along with the whole attack as if it had substance.

But recently, it has been revealed that John McCain himself said essentially the same thing:

Not only has he said that he didn’t love his country (not a lack of pride, but worse, a lack of love, and not qualified by the word “really” but instead intensified by it–so it’s much worse than Obama’s statement), but he has repeated it, including recently during this campaign, for about the past decade at least. And there’s video of it on more than one occasion.

So, now that this cat is out of the bag, McCain (who is the candidate, after all, and not the candidate’s wife) will get the same notice in the media for this, right? No? Well, surely they can’t keep attacking Michelle Obama in light of this, right? They will? Hmm. Then, at least they’re going to usually show this when they continue to show the video of Michelle Obama, right?

Okay, that whole line of questioning is fake. Of course they’re not going to make a big deal of McCain’s repeated statement, of course they’re going to continue attacking Obama over her statement, and of course McCain’s clip won’t get shown everywhere when they mention Obama’s statement. I made it clear above, didn’t I? This is, after all, the Liberal Media™! I mean, get real!

To ask for them to be balanced about this would be like asking them to make even the smallest note that McCain has been in direct violation of campaign finance laws for months now, in light of the fact that they are going incredibly negative over Obama’s legal declining of public financing. And why on Earth would the Liberal Media™ expose the clear criminal wrongdoing of a Republican candidate when there’s so much brouhaha to be made over a perfectly legal and reasonable move by the Democratic candidate?

They’re not called the “Liberal” Media™ for nothing, after all!

He beat McCain to getting out ads for the general election. This is a good one, too–a 60-second ad which is positive and highly appealing to a very broad base.

My only nitpick would be with the hard transitions in the photo montages–it would have been much nicer if all of them were cross-fades. Still, the ad rocks. It starts airing tomorrow in Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

The Obama campaign came out publicly and announced what we all knew was inevitable–that the campaign would forego public financing, the first major-party campaign in more than a generation to do so.

This only makes good, hard sense for the Obama campaign; they would have been stupid not to. Opting for public financing would not have made his campaign cleaner–it only would have hobbled his ability to raise money which is more honest than most of the lobbyist cash McCain self-righteously spends. Naturally, the McCain campaign and the GOP wasted zero time in falling all over this, blasting Obama for reneging on his promise to “aggressively pursue negotiations” with McCain on public financing. But as flip-flops go, this is an above-board one: in principle, Obama was pledging to take a clean route to campaign finance–and if anything, the route he has now chosen is even cleaner than the one he had pledged to take before. One has no doubts whatsoever that if it were McCain, he would have jumped at this too–except that McCain can’t raise the small, personal donations like Obama can.

Obama did a good job of neutralizing the worst that McCain and the GOP will try to smear him with: the idea that not opting for public financing is somehow corrupting. Obama pointed out that the public financing system is corrupt in itself: “the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system,” he announced in a statement today. Obama complained that McCain had already started to spend private funds, that his campaign is fueled by PACs funded by lobbyists, and that Republican 527 groups have already started to spend the huge sums of private cash that will support McCain from outside the public financing system.

Obama didn’t even mention specifically (and don’t count on the press doing it themselves) that McCain had already violated FEC regulations by withdrawing from public financing himself after having used public funds as collateral for a loan, not to mention that he needed FEC approval to pull out in the first place; McCain is already gaming the system with every dollar he spends from now up to the GOP convention.

Nor did Obama point out that McCain’s campaign is swarming with lobbyists, that despite the senator’s claim to being a finance-reform champion, he has been in bed with the corrupt money system in D.C. since he first entered Congress, and has only gotten better at maintaining appearances and polishing his reputation while still wallowing in dirty money.

But one can safely assume that all of this is what Obama meant when he said McCain was a master at gaming the system.

The Obama campaign has independently rejected money from federally registered lobbies and from PACs, and the DNC has now followed suit. Despite what the McCain campaign and the GOP might claim, Obama’s money–the vast majority from small donations from ordinary people–is far, far cleaner than the cash McCain is spending.

That’s the problem for McCain in doing all those town halls: people remember what he said.

Polling trends; Obama is blue:

Pennsylvania:

Ohio:

Florida:

And hey, look at Virginia:

While McCain has Texas strongly, Obama has California, New York, and Illinois just as strongly. Meanwhile, the two are neck-and-neck in Michigan, Missouri–and even Alaska, which is a fairly conservative state. Heck, Obama is even creeping up on McCain in Arizona.

And we’re off and running….

Top headline today:

Bush Says Dems to Blame for High Gas Prices

Do I even need to explain how utterly stupid this claim is? I could spend an hour explaining in gory detail how the basic points in Bush’s argument are so asinine as to be mind-boggling. Instead I shall simply snort in derision and move on.

Biting political ad:

I am watching him live endorsing Obama. Why couldn’t he have spoken like this and had this bearing in 2000? He would have wiped the floor with Bush. So much lost….

Addendum: look at that huge crowd; it looks like the convention already. McCain will have to respond to this, and I do not envy him–any response he makes will look pathetic in comparison. Who will he get to introduce him who will compare? (George “Macaca” Allen maybe?) How could he possibly scare up so big and so enthusiastic a crowd? Will he even be smart enough not to use a pale green backdrop this time, or not to smile and giggle like an idiot? Maybe McCain should just lay low after this.

Second Addenda: Ah. McCain had to cancel a fundraiser at the home of a Texas misogynist who told women to “lie back and enjoy” rape, and so instead had a dry, cold press conference where he announced that he would open the floodgates on offshore oil drilling. And I was wondering how he’d out-do his green-screen follow up to the last Obama Big Speech. Ouch.

Dan Piraro’s blog has become one of my daily visits on the web, and today’s entry identifies a vital issue: the ability of Americans to vote against their own interests, and make insane choices with open eyes:

One thing I’m realistic about is the upcoming election. In a reasonable world, Obama would win in a record-breaking landslide: Bush is the least popular president in nearly 100 years, the economy is in the toilet and a finger is pressing on the flush handle, our reputation worldwide is in the gutter, gas will be $5/gallon by November, according to legal experts, our constitution is in crisis, McCain’s policies are the same as Bush’s or MORE in the direction that nailed us into our current coffin. It’s a no-brainer.

A part of me thinks Obama will win in spite of the combination of stupid, blind patriotism and racism that will account for 90% of the votes against him. But the realist in me is bracing for another close election that the Republicans can steal at the local level. I’m not an alarmist, but that would be national suicide.

If McCain wins, it will change this country for a very long time. Forget what disasters will befall our economy, our troops, our international reputation – the Supreme Court will become a fascist juggernaut for decades to come, and nothing short of an armed uprising will be able to stop them.

In my opinion (and probably Piraro’s as well), that trend began in 2000, and intensified in 2004 when the nation inexplicably said, “give me some more of that!” A lot of this goes deep back in time, and is part of human psyche; but you can’t help feeling that this alternate-reality feel-good-denial self-destructive inclination became a visible tumor writhing under the skin of society, growing to monstrous proportions, probably spurred on by the carcinogen of fear injected on 9/11, and that it is stretching the dermis of our nation so taut that it threatens to burst and… well, I could get into some pretty icky imagery here, but I haven’t even had breakfast yet.

Back to the more analytical side: Look at the economic charts before 2000, and then see where Bush took us after then. Reagan-Bush in the 80’s and early 90’s were a conservative trend that by all rights–and the true and actual votes of the 2000 election–should have continued to swing back after Clinton’s term. I know people love to ridicule Al Gore, and some roll their eyes whenever a compliment is paid to him, but despite all the no-difference talk in 2000, a look back makes it crystal clear that Gore was hands-down the far superior choice. He would have continued the trend Clinton started, handling the economic downturn of 2000 far more reasonably. He either would have prevented 9/11 with the Clinton counter-terrorism policies that the Bush administration abandoned, or he would have acted a thousand times more reasonably, focusing on bin Laden and building a new international alliance. He would have made real progress on environmental issues and perhaps we’d be well on our way to using alternative fuels and escaping our fossil-fuels dependency, and so forth. But most importantly to us back here in grim reality, he would not have gutted the Constitution, he would not have gutted the economy, he would not have made us an international pariah, he would not have started the quagmire in Iraq–in short, he would not have been the single most reprehensible “leader” in our history, and our nation would not be hurtling towards the precipice at quite so alarming a rate of speed. And yet here we are, with millions of Americans again saying, “give me four more years of that!”

I can only wonder at the proclivity of Americans to be so utterly foolish as to even consider any of this, but to me, the choice was just as crystal clear back in 2000. You had a man who was intelligent, who saw the value of the Internet back before anyone else and acted upon it, without whose support the Internet would have died stillborn, who was boldly making his cause an unpopular message of environmental prudence, who looked and talked a bit funny but was still so clearly the better candidate. And he was running against a cocky, juvenile, frat-boy-demeanor failed oilman not too long weaned from drug addiction, the first presidential candidate with a criminal record, for Christ’s sake, a smarmy, stupid, silver-spoon dunce who couldn’t speak straight, who lied so smugly he actually smirked, who attached himself to shadowy people, who used sickeningly slimy tactics against opponents in his own party, and who basely pandered to the fear and greed of people rather than to their better natures. It’s not like we couldn’t see this back in 2000, or in 2004.

McCain is not nearly as bad personally as Bush, giving him some social camouflage, but there is so much there that echoes Bush. McCain was not a draft-dodger or a drug addict, nor does he have a criminal record, nor is he as stupid or altogether pathetic as Bush is or was. But the same lack of character is there, and the same set of policies and abuses is rather brashly being presented to the American people as if they were real, viable, or even constructive courses of action for our nation to take.

There are several reasons to vote for McCain, but as Piraro pointed out, almost all of them are base: fear, greed, hatred, distrust, blind patriotism and blind partisanship.

I truly believe that this is a test for the United States of America. We are being given one last chance to make the right choice. If we fail the test, the United States of America that has existed up until this time will only accelerate in its disintegration, its transformation into something different and far less and without the heart or soul that made the country great. What would remain would be a pale, pretending shadow. If you’re thinking, “oh, they were saying stuff like that back in 2000 and 2004,” then take a look around you–we were right.

There’s no guarantee that Obama can stem the profuse bleeding and bring the nation back to health, nor that the nation won’t turn back toward self-destruction soon after he leaves office. But the choice right now is so clear it is blinding: vote for McCain and you vote for the ruin of America. Vote for Obama, and we have a good chance of making it. If that makes me sound partisan, then too bad; partisanship is not a sin if it is open-eyed and a result of attention to the truth. Nobody criticizes a policeman for being a partisan for public safety; no one questions a doctor for being a partisan of health. The question here is not why I support Obama, the question is, why doesn’t everyone.

Here is a video of a debate between surrogates for the Obama and McCain campaigns on Communications and Technology Policy. Former FCC chairs Reed Hundt (speaking for the Obama campaign) and Michael Powell (McCain campaign) face off on issues of Network Neutrality, Media Ownership, and other pressing issues of the information age.

What struck me most about this debate was the stark difference between the two. One of them showed himself to be sharp, clear, well-spoken and thoughtful of evidence, support, and meaning; the other dealt in platitudes about witnessing marvels, vague and theoretical to the point of obfuscation, long on stories and short on substance, dismissive of specifics, condescending, and a sop to big business. It is not even a little challenge to see these differences or figure out who is dealing what. Hundt, quite frankly, swept the floor with Powell. Which was not quite fair, considering what each was given by his candidate to deal with. But you get that feeling the Hundt probably would have done it anyway, evidence notwithstanding.

Here’s something to do: while watching this video, ask yourself–which of these would you rather have as a boss?

Update: The thought just occurred to me: it seems that Hundt came armed with specific policy points, factual evidence, examples, concrete arguments–while Powell came prepared with little more than flowery language, anecdotes, and general college-level Econ theories dressed up with technobabble buzzwords, expecting that to be the level of the debate. In short, It was Hundt bringing a gun to Powell’s knife fight.

This is not just charisma. This is anything, anything but an empty suit. This is one small corner of what the man is like. This is character, real character–not a PR job, not a political hack claiming to have character, this is not crafted, not speechwritten, not false or phony in any way. If you have not heard this person make a speech, then listen to this speech; if you think “oh, he’s only about words,” then listen to these words. Listen:

I defy you to find one person who is so utterly cynical that they cannot listen to that full twenty-four minutes, and see the promise of this speaker, dismiss what he says as “only words,” or claim that the only thing here is charisma and nothing else. If you can find that person, then have sympathy for them because there may be little or nothing at all that can bring them back to hope.

This was a speech. This is what sets the man apart from that pale imitation of a president who is running on the other side. This is not golf gear, this is not four more years, this is not a painfully sallow false smile against a sickly green background.

This is the real deal here.

In the age of persistent video and YouTube, one can have so much fun with someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth! Here seen happening both figuratively and literally:

Publish this wherever you can… there should be lots more like this to come.

You just can’t get more ironic–nor more bitingly convincing of the moral bankruptcy of Republican practice–than this:

Ouch.

McCain is at it again. His propensity for lying in only thinly veiled disguise is pretty stunning. A week or so ago, he said that our troop levels are at pre-surge levels, then he denied he was wrong, trying to pretend he never said “pre-surge” in a way that was pretty blatant. Today, he’s lying even more outright–listen:

So, essentially, he’s saying that he’s not for privatization, those damned nasty liberul Democrat Party meanies will twist his words and claim he’s for privatization, but he’s not. Instead, all he wants to do is allow for people to put money that would otherwise go to Social Security payments and instead place them in personal accounts. In other words, privatization. (Oh, no! I just twisted John McCain’s words! I’m going to hell for sure now!)

Josh Marshall points out how Republicans, similar to the way they blamed their own “nuclear option” terminology on Democrats, backed off from “privatization, saying the that Democrat Party™ was responsible for it all along. They switched to ”private accounts,“ and when that didn’t work, ”personal accounts,“ the language McCain just used in aggressively denying he was for privatization. It’s kind of like watching an intelligent-design proponent vigorously deny he’s a creationist when all the time he’s thumping on a bible.

Undoubtedly, we are taking him out of context yet again, which is now McCain’s knee-jerk response to any public mention of his numerous lies. So, for context, here is the word from John McCain himself:

So, what do we have just recently? McCain claiming that Obama lacks knowledge and experience about Iraq, while claiming that our troops are at pre-surge levels, and that all violence in Iraq will magically disappear soon after he takes office. (This built upon repeated McCain gaffes and blunders about Iraq, from his famous ”marketplace stroll“ fantasy to his inability to discern Shiite from Sunni.)

McCain claiming that Obama will raise Americans’ taxes by ”thousands of dollars,“ that ”Americans of every background would see their taxes rise,“ claiming that McCain is the middle-class tax-cutter when in fact, Obama would cut middle-class taxes much more than McCain, and would only raise taxes on people in the upper class while giving small businesses and middle-class workers big cuts; McCain, meanwhile, gives the lion’s share of his tax cuts to the rich.

According to McCain, Obama is dirty because one of his Veep Vetters simply worked for Fannie Mae, while McCain’s own Veep Vetter was a paid lobbyist for Fannie Mae.

And that’s just in the past week or so. Keep going back and it’s practically anunending string of stuff like this–reversals, lies, and double-standards.

My question is, how long will it take for the media to recover from the softening effects of the Kool-aid-drinking McCain barbecues and start reporting even half the obvious truth about McCain, showing him up to be a liar, a flip-flopper, and a hypocrite on levels that makes even George W. Bush pale?

Five minutes after that happens–if it ever does–expect the right-wing PR machine to go into high gear, claiming that the (a) Liberal Media™ has (b) gone back on the May-I-Get-You-A-Pillow-Senator-Obama Bandwagon and (c) is unfairly demonizing John McCain for no good reason.

An analysis of both candidates’ tax plans has been released (PDF) from the Tax Policy Center, a respected source of analysis on such matters. And guess what: Obama’s plan is far, far better, unless your surname is Hilton or Gates. But if you’re an average working schmoe, then you’re definitely going to want to vote for Obama.

On the plus side for McCain, he cuts taxes for everybody. On McCain’s bad side, he gives the biggest cuts the super-rich, with only a paltry handout to anyone making less that $38,000 a year. Even up to incomes of $66,000, you’re looking at a $320 cut–not very good, considering that recent hikes in gas prices probably have already eaten up much more than just that. But millionaires can look forward to saving more than a quarter million per year–sweet, if you’re rich.

Obama, on the other hand, gives everyone with incomes up to about a quarter million dollars a year a cut of up to almost $3000, with the cuts spread much more liberally at the lower end than McCain’s. While McCain would give low-income earners an insulting $19, Obama makes a huge difference in their lives with a $567 tax cut. All the way up to earners of $112K per year, Obama gives more back to the earner than McCain. And even for the upper middle class, Obama’s plan is not bad–with a tax hike of a mere $12 for those making up to $600,000 a year, I think it’s reasonable to say that you’ll have to really have tons of money before Obama starts taking anything away from you. And while Obama really socks it to Bill Gates, I think that people making eight figures or more can well afford to pay their way after the cash cow days under Bush.

Neither Obama’s nor McCain’s tax plans look hopeful in terms of balancing the budget anytime soon, but the report makes one thing clear: while neither will balance the budget, McCain’s tax cuts will cost about a trillion dollars more over the next ten years. McCain claims that he’ll offset this by spending cuts, but what he means is that he’ll increase spending for the military while slashing stuff like Medicare. McCain may claim that he’ll get it by cutting pork, but there simply isn’t even close to that much pork to be found.

Here’s the total breakdown of the tax plans by income level: