A thread making it way through the news cycle lately has been the lack of meaningful comedy about Barack Obama on the late night comedy shows and other comedy venues in our usual laugh a minute culture. It seems comedians, at least those that are considered main stream media, are having trepidations about navigating potential Obama comedy through the mine fields of racism and political correctness. I think this gives John McCain an unfair advantage over Obama as he gets the most name exposure in these all important comedian monologues that open these world wide broadly viewed media comedy-talk American television network franchises.

Comedy is a way to acknowledge foibles, potential weaknesses or otherwise perceived human flaws in not just political leaders but also in our own friends, relatives and perhaps most important, ourselves. Comedy gives a release and can bring problems out in the open and can often lead the butt of the joke to a path of self improvement in some area of their life. So what is funny about Barack Obama?

I am looking at the polls showing we are in a horse race. We lead in state polls and are tied in national polls. The 2000 tied election was a fluke which won't occur in another one hundred years.If the electoral college really decided elections in this Republic, the Constitution would have been ammended many moons ago.

If Obama wins the popular vote he is President. If McCain wins the popular vote he is President. Don't waste hours heaping praise on each other about state polls. The only poll that counts is the one that measures the will of the majority of people in this country whether the votes come from Rhode Island or California. Check the history of elections since 1776.

Can 2000 happen again in 2008? Sure, and rabbits can fly,maybe, but don't count on it. The reality is we are tied with McCain and we should be 20 points ahead. Here is why:

Originally posted at Talk to Action.

The Catholic Right, Part Sixty-four

On July 16, 2008 Catholics United sent the McCain campaign a a letter calling on the Arizona senator to remove the controversial Catholic Right mover and shaker Deal Hudson from the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee. Hudson, a Catholic Right activist who was forced to resign from a similar position in President Bush's 2004 presidential campaign when The National Catholic Reporter broke a story about sexual harassment on Hudson's part while teaching at Fordham University.

So, who would be brazen enough to defend such a man from a similar firing?  The Catholic League's Bill Donohue, of course.

Boy was I Surprised to find my re-posted, slightly updated, diary, from yesterday, on the rescue list, I'll get to that in a minute.

There is reportedly some 43 million voters who are Veterans of our Military, active duty Members of our Military, as well as direct Family Members of both of those groups. Anyone who wants to keep cruntching numbers could keep a fairly close number of all three groups, births, deaths, enlistments etc., a huge task but a rough estimate could be had. The PLUS comes from the fact of not only the Extended Families of but also includes the Friends, Neighbors, Communities and how much they take into consideration Military Service especially when in occupation of two countries, or any dedicated service, to Country. The figures for that can't be put into a raw number, a close figure, or a percentage, they are Unknown.

Last week we learned about the 'pay for access' bribery scandal involving the administration and a man named Stephen Payne who was, before resigning because of the scandal, a member of the homeland security advisory council.  If you didn't catch the story, here's the nut:

A lobbyist with close ties to the White House is offering access to key figures in George W Bush’s administration in return for six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency.

Well, there's a new player connected with this scandal:  Randy Scheunemann

His current responsibility is to try to spin McCain's foreign policy as somehow being an asset for the candidate.

At the end of WWII  the British public voted Chruchill out of power . After fighting two World Wars.  British economy was struggling. Churchill had no effective plan to deal with the growing independence movement in the Colonies.  Atlee, with a promise of independence to India and a focus on rebuilding British economy won handily. Once Gandhi endorsed Atlee's plan, Churchill had no moves left.

So what is the relevance to today? McCain is a one-issue politician, as Churchill was. The one issue being war. And like Churchill, people will reject him as soon as the war stops being the main issue. To McCain's surprise, Maliki of Iraq just endorsed the Obama plan for Iraqi independence. Checkmate.

The inability to balance  war and politics while forming  a coherent strategy for the economy  brought an end to both men's careers.

Sorry guys. this is just one picture, but I really had to do a diary on it. b/c it's funny.

Not long ago Charlie Black caused a stir in Fortune magazine when he predicted that another terrorist attack would do a great deal to give a boost to McCain's presidential aspirations.  There was much a-do about this little 'mistake' and Charlie immediately apologized to 'the world at large' for saying such a horrible thing...out loud that is.

When nothing else works, its time to pull out the old 9/11 fear card and even though McCain made if clear that he did not agree with Charlie Black, guess who's got their crystal ball out and is predicting that there will more than likely be a huge horrible attack in Iraq very near election day this year.

How convenient.  How specific.  How amazing that among all of his other talents, John McCain can see into the future.  

It only gets worse below the fold.  Bring your helmets and wear garlic around you neck just in case.

If you're wondering why the Maliki "correction" issued by CentCom doesn't sound like a "correction" and doesn't specify what needs to be "corrected," you're missing the point.Bush and McCain aren't trying to get Maliki to retract the  his statement in terms of the policy he endorsed, they just want to salvage a meme they have been carefully cultivating since the beginning of the month: namely, that Obama has supported some mythical position called "precipitous withdrawal" and that the reiteration of his old position over the July 4th weekend constituted a "flip-flop." Now, with the insanity surrounding Maliki's statements, we can clearly see that this campaign wasn't just an effort to make Obama look indecisive and inconsistent. The campaign, facilitated by a shamefully compliant media (and even some progressive bloggers), was intended to give McCain cover to steal Obama's policy.

Wow, Frank Rich's Sunday NYT Op Ed column, It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid, just slams McCain! Despite a somewhat odd discussion towards the end about VP candidates, it's a thing of beauty, with this as the central point:

were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

Is the MSM starting to get it?

"Could I mention the presence of my friend, Congressman Steve Pearce, who I believe will be joining me in the United States Senate?"  -  John McCain in New Mexico this week.

It just gets worse and worse for John McSame and the gop.
Full lineup and other goodies below...

The Washington Post editorial team, which loves to spend its column space sneering at Barack Obama, came out with a truly pathetic editorial today.

Read it here, if you can stomach it.  

Woo hoo, this is rich:

Along those lines, Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, who the Times calls a spokesman for the Iraqi government, has released a statement saying that Prime Minister Maliki's statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated" and "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq." But as the Times notes al Dabbagh did not specify what had been mistranslated.

Another interesting detail, noted by the Times. al-Dabbagh's statement was released by CentCom. I do not know how often Iraqi government statements are released by CentCom.

So, the official Iraqi spokesman's statement was released by U.S. Central Command?  Um, are they fucking kidding us?  Couldn't they be a little more subtle about this?

Stephen D reports on a Phil Gramm Friday night dump attributing Gramm's resignation from the McSame campaign to the "Americans are whiners!" comment. I think that is just cover for the more likely real reason:

UBS, LGT Helped Hide Assets, Evade Taxes, Senate Says
By David Voreacos and Carlyn Kolker

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- UBS AG and Liechtenstein bank LGT Group aided rich U.S. clients who wanted to disguise ownership of accounts and evade taxes on hidden assets, a Senate subcommittee said.

UBS, the world's largest wealth manager, hid as much as $17.9 billion for 19,000 Americans who didn't declare assets to the Internal Revenue Service, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a report released in Washington late yesterday. LGT, owned by Liechtenstein's ruling family, fostered a ``culture of secrecy and deception'' while assigning code names to U.S. clients, the panel said.

Remember that Phil Gramm works for and lobbies for one arm of UBS in the USA. A whole lot more below...

A recent UPI poll showed that half the country believes obama would be a good commander-in-chief, still trailing McCain by 24%.

72% of respondents said McCain, the likely Republican presidential candidate, would be good commander-in-chief of the military. By contrast, 48 percent said Obama, McCain's likely Democratic challenger, would be a good commander-in-chief

However, as terence I think correctly comments in the "Obama wins the presidency" diary, "times they are a changing".  And Obama is gaining credibility on the commander in chief and experience front at the same time McCain is being exposed for his poor judgment.

So what will happen next and what does it have to do with the drat Newt movement?  follow me on the flip..

Any wiggle room on Maliki's statement supporting Obama's Iraq withdrawl plans? Sure, because when you're fucked it's kitchen sink time!

If McCain didn't have gays and the mullahs, he couldn't get elected.  But the promise of tax cuts and constant reminders of evil-doers might get it done:

Remember all those silly foreign affairs positions held by Barack Obama?  You know, like meeting directly with our enemies, which showed that Obama was naive and inexperienced?  Like setting a timetable for Iraq which was not important but on the other hand could lead to chaos and genocide?  

Over the last couple of weeks, conservative Andrew Sullivan notes that the lines between Obama's positions and those of McCain and Bush are starting "to blur."  Only, that blur seems to be moving in a particular direction.  

Iran

Obama has famously argued that the US should deal directly with the mullahs, negotiate the nuclear question and have talks without the precondition that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment. This was a clear and vital difference, we were told only a short time ago, between a reckless, appeasing Obama and the resolute, Churchillian Bushies.

And yet last week Bush authorised William Burns, a high-level State Department official, to attend talks with Tehran’s representatives on the Iranian nuclear question.

Iraq

Obama’s position has long been that troops should be withdrawn expeditiously but with care, and that the US military should shift its emphasis towards Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, lo and behold, last week we were also told that Bush was considering accelerating the exit of Iraq troops to beef up the Afghan mission.

For good measure, McCain also gave a speech backing what he calls a "surge" in Afghanistan, with more troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the style of General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces.

And that's before McCain has made any response to Iraqi President Maliki's agreement with Obama's timeline.  Sullivan notes that the candidates are now sounding an awful lot alike, and that they're having trouble "putting blue sky" between their positions.

One thing he doesn't make clear: the lack of sky is because McCain and Bush have adopted more and more of Obama's "naive" positions rather than his bowing to their towering experience.

Blurry.  It's all so blurry.  Sure, Obama has a timeline, but now Bush has a "horizon," and by tomorrow McCain will probably have a purview, or a vision, or a vista.  It's all the same.  Right?