In other words, the feeding frenzy still rules. In the age of Drudge and cable talkathons, the phenomenon has grown and become ever more trivial since the days of Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. And it is still at its core primarily an old-media phenomenon. It is the dream of every member of the "Gang of 500" to set off some trivial controversy that dominates the news cycle for days. This year's serial outrages - campaigns taking offense at anything and everything - are part of this too.

Even the new media, which is supposed to be smarter than that, tries exploit this dynamic. TPM has a story up on how John McCain was asked if he thought Obama was an extremist or a socialist (he was not asked if he thought Obama was a Muslim or when he had stopped beating his wife). McCain clearly didn't know how to answer this, so fumbled through, tacitly buying into both the extremist and socialist ideas. I find it hard to get angry about stuff like this, not least of all because the purpose of playing this up isn't genuine outrage, but to create tinder for a feeding frenzy that hurts McCain.

This is a perfectly understandable reaction to the conservative media's success at hyping ridiculous, minor incidents into feeding frenzies. But ginning up more feeding frenzies in response is no solution.

The way I see it now? Who NEEDS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? They have proven themselves to be arrogant and useless for years and years. Maybe, instead of trying to have a coronation in Denver, they ought to look at the facts, like in this video below:

Maybe they ought to try and roll up their sleeves and get to work serving some of that color-coordinated food to the people who have nothing. But, given the state of Chicago's South Side slums, and the disrepair there, (check the Obama/Rezko connection) do you expect anything? I don't.

We wanted Hillary Clinton, and we still do. The Clintons were the best thing about being a Democrat, to me. These new Democrats? They can screw off.

Especially the biggest lard ass in Washington. It would do her some good to lose a little weight, no?

She does resemble a GIANT GREASY PIG! And, did I mention she can barely speak English? It's an embarrassment when you think about it. I mean, who wants such classlessness and tastelessness anyway?

Maybe John McCain could figure out a way to liposuction all the mess right out of Government. We need that kind of change in this country in order to get something done, for the poor here.

He's going to be a very great reformer, John McCain is. I can't wait.

This sums up how I feel, too. Especially the Communist part. Out of sight, out of mind.

More from the Colorado locals can be had here, at The Rocky Mountain News...

And, here we see how the Democratic Party just blew it because of the sexism, you little piggies...

You see, your little Versailles "Sun King" fauxgressive stupidity just doesn't work for America, overall. Even Germany sees through it. I pity the damages you have already wreaked, and the backlash you are going to see from the American People. You will be seeing that, and you will probably not realize the extent of the mire you are going to experience, or get dragged through. But, it will be payback for what you did to wreak havoc on Hillary Clinton. This morning it looks like her supporters have reserved a website for her, already. HRC2012.

And John McCain? He's already at work solving America's problems.

It's a relief to know he's there, taking care of the country he is proud of, and has served for so many years.

In the past 30 years, since the voting public started disaffiliating from the two major political parties, the word "independent" has been claimed by an increasing number of people. These so-called independents, who both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain are going after, can't seem to bring themselves to figure out for whom to vote.

According to a poll by AP/Yahoo News, a whopping 40 percent of people who consider themselves independents have yet to pick a candidate. Half of the other 60 percent said that they might change their minds. Astounding.

Despite what some armchair pundits might say, usually the two candidates have incredibly divergent positions. Can anyone say that eight years of Al Gore would not have been any different than George Bush? And, this year, if you simply compare and contrast Obama and McCain's positions, you'll see quite a split.

So, how can you not know which one you'd rather vote for? How could you possibly change from one to the other? The only reason is if you're voting on personality, and not the issues.

That brings us back to the 2004 election. Late in the season, one of the TV networks put Republican pollster Frank Luntz in a room with about a dozen undecided voters. Before one of the debates, Luntz asked the attendees what they were looking for. The voters talked a big game about issues and such. After the debate, all they talked about was personality.

In the coming months, we're going to get a whole lot more of this:

Independents, whom both McCain and Obama are avidly pursuing, remain underwhelmed. Only 21 percent find the election interesting — down from 31 percent in November — and just 7 percent say it's exciting. Substantial numbers say they feel frustrated, helpless and even bored.

Independents are about evenly divided between the two candidates, with about a quarter behind each. Four in 10 remain undecided, and half say they could still change their minds.

"I really don't like some of McCain's policies, yet I don't know that much about Obama," said Philip Doenges, 46, an independent from Indianapolis. "I'd kind of like someone who hasn't been in Washington."

It's like an article out of The Onion. Between the economy, health care, the war, immigration, abortion and a host of other issues, it should be relatively easy to support one, the other, or just tell the damn pollster that you're voting for Lyndon LaRouche or staying the fuck home.

Poll: Obama backers are more excited than McCain's [The Associated Press]

Swift Boater Bud Day was on a McCain conference call today. Here's what he had to say.

The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us... I don't intend to kneel and I don't advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn't advocate to anybody that we kneel.

How long before they throw old Bud under the Straight Talk Express?

I particularly liked the article that McCain called Obama a socialist.  Well he didn't actually call him a socialist, the reporter did.  McCain did compare Obama's voting record to a Socialist from Vermont and proclaimed Obama's voting record was more socialist than the Socialist.  What does that mean?  Does it mean Obama voted his concern for the poor and under educated?  Does it mean Obama favored providing health care services to those who could not afford them?  Does it mean that Obama was against the Iraq War (actually an invasion and occupation) more consistently than the socialist?

In the world of "sound bite" politics, each candidate needs a simple slogan to label the other with.  It is not necessary to speak to the underlying issues and point out why the slogan is meaningful.  For example, McCain could have said "the most effective way to bring those currently poor into the vitality of our economy, thereby helping everyone with increased spending power, is to.... (you fill in the policy) and this approach is better than the course outlined by Obama".  In this way you could compare the two approaches. 

Interestingly, the slogan throwing technique is a dead ender for McCain given the dismal record of the Bush masters of spin.  McCain needs to stand up and disavow the President and his failed policies.  (This is not about whether you like Bush or not, or whether you are a conservative Republican or not.  It is a recognition that the Bush 8 years have been a total failure and the results are all around us to see.  Spin cannot hide them.)  Once that is accomplished, McCain could put forth his own ideas and let the American people decide.

David Sirota, Creators Syndicate, July 18, 2008

In the asylum that is American politics, beware a candidate like Barack Obama when he is lauded for moving to "the center" - because usually that means he is drifting away from it.

Over the last month, the Democratic presidential nominee has backed a measure to permit warrantless wiretapping and protect telecom companies when they violate customers' privacy; sent conflicting signals about whether he will reform the NAFTA trade model; and threatened to revise his timetable for ending the war in Iraq. Universally, reporters have billed this dance as a move to the middle. As the Associated Press claimed in a typical description, Obama's shifts are designed "to appeal to the center of the electorate."

However, empirical data prove "the center of the electorate" is exactly the opposite:

-- Polls by Quinnipiac University and the Mellman Group found majorities support warrant requirements for wiretaps and oppose immunity for companies that released private consumer information without such warrants.

-- Surveys by Fortune magazine, CNN and the Wall Street Journal report that most Americans oppose NAFTA-style trade policies.

-- For years, major polls have consistently shown Americans want a firm timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. As just one of many examples, five separate USA Today surveys since 2007 have shown majorities want the president to "set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq."

So, the undebatable evidence tells us precisely where the center of public opinion is. Yet when a presidential candidate moves away from the center, we are told he is moving toward it. What gives?

Read More Here

1. From Jib Jab come's this little gem: Time for Some Campaignin'. It's a musical of sorts.

2. This doesn't really have much to do with the 2008 election exclusively, but you have to see it. AFSCME union commercial redubbed.

This was a PSA that the voice-over person decided to record an "alternate" version of for fun. This comes from the archives of a local tv station. You won't find this anywhere.

It's one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

3. "I'mma Vote Obama Way" - it's one catchy tune.

4. This edition's featured video is "McCain leaves Fox speachless." It'll make you laugh and make you feel pretty good.

Speaking at a General Motors facility in Warren, Michigan, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate touted the decrease of violence in Iraq, but said Al Qaeda is not yet defeated there.

"I predict that they will make an attempt as we get in to the election season to make more of these spectacular kinds of attacks which they're still capable of doing," he said. "The suicide bombers, et cetera, would not surprise me and we've already found out that they're going to try and step up their attacks and try and do things in a more spectacular fashion so that they can erode the support of the Maliki government."

Watch: McCain predicts terrorist attempt during election season

The comments come a day after the Arizona senator appeared to make a rhetorical shift in how he described conditions the war-torn country, telling reporters aboard his campaign bus that "we have succeeded in Iraq."

"I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq. Not 'We are succeeding.' We have succeeded in Iraq," he said Thursday.

Last month, senior McCain advisor Charlie Black stirred controversy in an interview with Fortune Magazine, when he touted the Republican presidential candidate's national security credentials and said another terrorist attack on the United States would likely boost his White House chances.

McCain repudiated those comments, and Black later apologized.

From the linked (above) article:

But now that Mr. Obama is about to travel there and elsewhere in the region, Republicans seem unable to decide whether that is worthy of praise or an opportunity for payback for Mr. Obama’s unrelenting criticism of their own policy.

"I’m pleased that he is going to Iraq for only the second time and Afghanistan for the first time," Mr. McCain, who last visited the region in March, told reporters aboard his campaign bus on Thursday in Kansas City, Mo. "If he was so concerned about Afghanistan and the threat there and the need to send troops, don’t you think he should have gone there?"

Earlier in the day, Mr. McCain’s communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, had dismissed Mr. Obama’s trip as the "first-of-its-kind campaign rally overseas." But Mr. McCain initially rejected that "damned if you do, damned it you don’t" approach and sought a more nuanced position.

"I can only give you my opinion, and I will talk to her," Mr. McCain said. "The fact is that I’m glad he is going to Iraq. I am glad he is going to Afghanistan. It’s long, long overdue if you want to lead this nation."

[...]

Later on Thursday, in Grand Haven, Mr. McCain elaborated on his and Ms. Hazelbaker’s initial remarks. He differentiated the Iraq and Afghanistan parts of the trip from its other legs, saying Mr. Obama’s activities in the other countries could have “a political flavor, to say the least.”

Basically, McCain is saying that Obama'strip is solely political.  I'm sure that there are some political aspects to his trip.  We're playing presidential politics, after all.  But to suggest that the trip is only political is far from the truth.  Was McCain's trip earlier this year political?  In any case, Obama needs to see what's happening on the ground and talk to the people there so that he can formulate sensible policy if he's elected.  And since meeting foreign leaders is a huge part of the presidential job description, those leaders will naturally want to meet both Obama and McCain.

In truth, McCain seems a little upset (ok, maybe more than a little) that his trip earlier this year didn't attract more media coverage.  All three network anchors are going to Iraq with Obama.  That's a lot of wattage and free media for Obama.  It's even a bit unfair to McCain. 

But let's face it: There's a lot of excitement about Obama, his campaign, and what it may mean for our nation if he wins.  It's natural for the media to follow Obama; he means viewers, ratings and ad dollars.  Besides McCain and some die-hard supporters of his, no one really seems to care all that much about McCain and his campaign.  There isn't a whole lot of excitement in or around his campaign. 

Whose fault is that?  That's a loaded question, but I'd have to say Bush/Cheney, McCain and the Republican Party all share the blame.  The country is sick of Bush/Cheney and their failed policies.  The Republicans had a weak field in the primary and they're nominating an older, unexciting candidate.

Congressman Ron Paul
Statement before the Financial Services Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Humphrey Hawkins Hearing on Monetary Policy
July 16, 2008
Mr. Chairman,
Today we find ourselves on the verge of an economic crisis the likes of which the United States has not
seen in decades. Our economy is very clearly in a recession, and every time someone tells us that the
worst has passed, another serious event takes place, as we saw once again last week and early this
week. Everyone now realizes that the situation is dire, yet either no one understands the cause behind
the credit crisis, or no one is willing to take the necessary steps to ensure as orderly an end to the crisis
as possible. Instead, we hear talk of further bailouts. The Fed-brokered takeover of Bear Stearns, a
supposed one-off incident, has now been joined by a potential bailout of the Government-Sponsored
Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The two GSE's have been disasters waiting to happen, as I and many others have warned over the
years. It was bad enough that Fannie and Freddie were able to operate with significant advantages,
such as lower borrowing costs and designation of their debt as government debt. Now, the implicit
government backstop has turned out to be an explicit backstop, just as we feared. The Greenspan
reflation of the economy after the dot-com bust pumped additional liquidity into an already-skewed
housing market, leading to an unsustainable boom that from many accounts has only begun to unravel.
With a current federal funds rate of two percent, and inflation at over four percent, the Fed is currently
sowing the seeds for another economic bubble.
At the heart of this economic malaise is the Fed's poor stewardship of the dollar. The cause of the
dollar's demise is not the result of a purely psychological response to public statements on US dollar
policy, but is rather a reaction to a massive increase in the money supply brought about by the Federal
Reserve's loose monetary policy. The policies that led to hemorrhaging of gold during the 1960's and
the eventual closing of the gold standard are the same policies that are leading to the dollar's decline in
international currency markets today. Foreign governments no longer wish to hold depreciating
dollars, and would prefer to hold stronger currencies such as the euro. Foreign investors no longer
wish to hold underperforming dollars, and seek to hold better-performing assets such as ports and beer
companies.
Every government bailout or promise thereof leads to moral hazard, the likelihood that market actors
will take ever riskier actions with the belief that the federal government will bail them out. Bear
Stearns was bailed out, Fannie and Freddie will be bailed out, but where will the line be drawn? The
precedent has been established and the taxpayers will end up footing the bill in these cases, but the
federal government and the Federal Reserve lack the resources to bail out every firm that is deemed
“too big to fail.” Decades of loose monetary policy will lead to a financial day of reckoning, and
bailouts, liquidity injections, and lowering of the federal funds rate will only delay the inevitable and
ensure that the final correction will be longer and more severe than it otherwise would. For the sake of
the economy, I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to give in to political expediency, and to
oppose loose monetary policy and any further bailouts.

Things do not look so hot for the Republican Party in 2008. Barack Obama leads John McCain in the polls. Senator Obama raised $52 million last month. The down ballot picture looks bleak with the Democrats poised to make gains in the House and Senate. Some of this is just historical. Americans often tire of a party in power and the GOP has held the White House for 8 years now. Some of this is the GOP’s own fault. Right now the Republican party stands for militarism, warrantless wiretapping and bailouts. That is not a winning platform.

While many will rush to predict a new era of Democratic dominance, I will beg to differ. I think the Republicans are set up nicely for a comeback in 2010 and 2012. The first thing that will happen is new leadership. Majority Leader John Boehner is not a bad Republican. He has never taken an earmark and he should have our enduring respect for that bit of principle. He took over the House Caucus when the GOP was at a low ebb and there was nothing he could do about the losses in 2006 and the probable losses in 2008. However, losses dictate that someone must pay the price and Boehner will do so with his leadership post. After the 2006 midterm debacle, House Republican Study Chairmen Mike Pence and principled conservative Arizona Republican Jeff Flake threw their hats in the ring for leadership positions. They were defeated, but with a shrinking GOP caucus that will consist of mostly red state conservatives, their chances for taking control of the House GOP are extremely high. Pence and Flake will put a new face on the Republican Party. One is from Indiana and the other is from Arizona. Neither is a southerner and both are strong fiscal conservatives. Their election will change the perception of the GOP from that of a southern dominated party that dominated by social conservatives and who desire out of control government spending. The Republican Party will again look and sound like what people expect to look and sound like. No longer being the party of George Bush will help, but a Republican Party that has leaders who not only speak the words of lower taxes and smaller government, but actually believe it and have credibility on the issues will help even more. This credibility will come from not being associated to the mistakes and leadership of the past. The fact that Pence and Flake will be new faces and names on the national stage will allow the GOP to make a clean break from the Bush/Delay leadership that drove the GOP over a cliff.

While the message will change, the GOP will also have to reset the electoral map. This where I think the GOP is well positioned. Take Ohio for example. In 2006, the Democrats blew the Republicans out of the water. They won the gubernatorial and senate campaigns by ridiculously large margins as Ohioans rejected both the Bush administration and the corrupt Administration of Governor Bob Taft. However, Ohio is a swing state. It leans right, but it is in play in Presidential cycles because of the state’s diversity. If you examine the results in 2006 you quickly come to the conclusion that the Democrats maxed out their vote totals. There is no where to go but down. Now, one could make the argument that the Democrats are do not need to win by 12 and 24 points each race. That would be true, but that also discounts for the fact that when you have big margins in swing states like Ohio, it is most likely a rejection of the party in power as opposed to an affirmation of the winners.

Projection by Fivethirtyeight.com also show the Democrats picking up 4 or 5 seats in the Senate. While that would not be a good night for Republicans, it falls far short of the apocalyptic predictions of a 60 seat Democratic Senate majority that bust any Republican filibuster. That would indicate the worst is over for Republicans. Losing 4 or 5 seats is what they expect. They would have held serve in that the Republicans did not lose any seats such as Kentucky or North Carolina that they expected to win.

Now the comeback can commence. The Democrats will be forced to take ownership of issues and legislation. They no longer have President Bush to kick around anymore and have to explain to the American public why thy want to tax them more, spend more and why their gas prices are still high. Red State Democrats will fueled the takeover in 2006 will be forced to walk a delicate line. They can march with Obama’s ultra leftist agenda or they can alienate their voters back home. Either way, the Democrat Party loses.

The Republican base will not be depressed for long. As President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid enact the most liberal agenda since the New Deal Republicans will unify in opposition behind new leadership rather then point the guns at each other and play the blame game for electoral losses. As we saw with the Democrats after the 2000 and 2004 defeats, being out of power is he ultimate motivator for a political party. While 2008 looks like it will not be a great year for the Republican Party, the beginnings of a Republican comeback are out there.

Message:
This is the administrator of the entire board, not the moderators! Cool it or the two of you will be banned.

I recieved word that their was a troll on board! I am sorry to tell you; Politico is making some good debate here! This is a board for anyone to talk! It would be boring if everyone just agreed!

You both need relax and cool it! You've been in heated discussion for a while now. If you cannot play nice you both will be banned.

30yrdem learn to walk away; Politico is allowed his own views. If he gets nasty thats when they get banned. I need proof of cursing and fowl language to bann someone; not just someone who dis-agree with your POV.

My reply:

I will cool it, did you even read my post...go ahead and ban me... apparently you don't want me to support McCain in the forums here.

I was not the one trashing McCain and his wife.

My point is....

No one has been paying any attention to this site.... it took until the next day for them to see the comments we posted... I had contacted them via email, put up a Troll Alert...(they took it down of course) .. It is not really my thing defending McCain anyway... The site  has up topics such as the one I mentioned before about Colin Powell being McCain's VP???..

My choice - my only choice for John McCain's Vice-President?

COLIN POWELL!

No one would be better!

I asked myself, really?.... Shouldn't there have been some sort of list asking who we, as the visitors to the site, thought would be a good choice?... This person has made up his/her mind... Is Powell on the list? ...Yes I do like Powell but I have read he is voting for Obama ( I don't know if that is true or not) so do you think he wants to be McCain's VP?... I even have two different Pages here at this site... One for Palin and one for Romney... just information pages about them... stuff I thought might be helpful to others if they wanted to know more about the two... If there is someone you want information on who you like as VP for McCain let me know and I will do a Page... I really have no preference right now who McCain picks. I will open up comments on the pages so you can leave your opinion....

Under Issues For Democrats there are 4 topics at the site...Best POLLING DATA in America ... Free Speech - Not at Democratic Underground! ... Latest Poll -Closing the GAP! ...Obama's 143 Days of Senate Experience ... So who ever is posting this stuff thinks those are issues for Democrats?  Read this...

Democrats for McCain - It takes Courage.
Democrat for McCain.

You must be courageous to say that you are a Democrat for McCain. You may be ridiculed. You may be harassed. You may be told that you have no idea what you are doing. Or what you are thinking.

But just as John McCain has shown over his lifetime to service to America that he is truly courageous, you too, in some small way by comparison, will be courageous too by openly admitting that you are a Democrat for McCain.

You will be doing exactly what John McCain has been doing in the Senate - reaching over to the other side of the aisle and stating that you too can work with all people to get America going in the right direction. You too are not afraid of limiting your self to party labels. It is about our country, is it not?

Stand up and be counted! Be brave. BE COURAGEOUS!

Be a DEMOCRAT FOR McCAIN.

And let the world know.

You can make your own mind up about this site but it in my opinion it is being run by a republican who does not have a clue how dems feel about Obama, Clinton or McCain. They have no clue what PUMA is all about.. What democratic issues are... Yes John McCain is known for reaching across the isle and for standing up to Bush, (on the tax cuts then he flipped on it), I am not afraid of anyone's opinion... it is my vote!... I am taking down my link on the right to the site, that I will miss because it is so cute....Maybe I will just break the link....

Encase you missed it... check this out from the good reads list ...**EXCLUSIVE: Brain Williams Writes Home**

Satire???

]]>