Ben Smith, of Politico.com, writing of the Obama campaign linking McCain to Corsi's new attack book:

The Obama camp is pouncing on McCain's comment, in response to a question about Corsi's book, that you've "gotta keep your sense of humor."
...
UPDATE: A McCain spokeswoman says he didn't hear the question.

Am I wrong, or was that last comment a real doozie of an error? Was she saying that McCain not only can't remember the difference between Sunni & Shiite, but is losing his hearing as well? Unfortunately, although my ears are five years younger than his, I have to ask people to repeat things a lot more often than in the past, so it would surprise me if he were not. But if I misunderstand something, it's usually not that big a deal; if the president does, ...

Despite my earlier comment that I was through with this story, I just read this story in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/politics/15edwards.html?hp

Yuk!!

Anonymous wrote:Where is the article? (and by the way, thanks, Rich.)

Sorry I forgot to include it last time: http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731

Anonymous wrote: ... Okay, I have to stop following this stupid story!

There's a thought I can agree with! Everyone seems to accept that because of his handling of the situation, Edwards has removed himself from political relevance. Therefore, the details are no longer a political story, but fodder for gossip columns.

Along these lines, take a look at Fareed Zakaria's article about the turn Bush's foreign policy has quietly taken in his second term. I have enough respect for Zakaria that I read all the way through, and I'm reluctantly ready to credit Bush with significant improvement.

On the battle between Russia and Georgia, Obama took the same stand as President Bush and most world leaders, that there should be a cease-fire and negotiations. McCain stood solidly with Georgia, demanding that Russia withdraw its troops. Was Obama right that we have to accept reality and keep a reasonable relationship with Russia, or is McCain right that you back the democracy whatever the consequences?

Is the fact that McCain's principal foreign policy adviser was a paid lobbyist for Georgia until a month or two ago relevant to this discussion?

Anonymous wrote:If I heard correctly, I thought Daddy Hilton was already a modest contributor to the McCain camp.

Daddy and Mommy each gave the maximum $2300, but that's not such a big deal when your name is Hilton. Mommy said McCain's ad was frivolous and a waste of time and money.

Here is what the McCain camp says of Paris Hilton's energy policy:

"Sounds like Paris is taking the 'All of the Above' energy approach that John McCain has advocated -- both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama."

Now here is what Obama said Friday, followed by Paris's statement a few days later.
Obama: "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
Hilton: "Here's my energy policy: Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign oil dependency. And McCain wants offshore drilling. Well why don't we do a hybrid of both candidates' ideas. We can do limited offshore drilling, with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way, the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved."

It sounds to me like Hilton borrowed Obama's ideas, and that McCain then endorsed them, not realizing that he was signing on to Obama's plan. I assume that McCain supporters will see it as Obama copying McCain's plan and McCain affirming it when Hilton restated it, so maybe the basic fact is that ideas are converging.

Anonymous wrote:Please-this is laughable--it would never happen. I work in the media and absolutley know this would never happen although I have seen reporters play the race and gender card when it suits them. I would say the same thing if I heard it coming from the Obama campaign on if a white reporter wasn't allowed in--I wouldn't believe.

I also do not believe McCain, or anyone high in his campaign, would intentionally oust a black reporter. But you may recall that a similar incident involving a Muslim woman ousted from an Obama photo got quite a bit of press. Let's see whether this is treated similarly by the MSM.

Anonymous wrote:At least she looked hot...other than that I think she played into her own stereotype.

Played into it and parodied it at the same time. Her energy policy looks to me like what both McCain and Obama are spouting at this point, but stated more clearly. She puts McCain's dumb ad to shame. She's too young to be VP, but both McCain and Obama ought to be knocking on her door to get her endorsement.

Anonymous wrote:Obama & McCain's views on every topic seem so drastically different, not sure how one could be confused.

Suppose someone leans to McCain on security issues, but does not want to see the Supreme Court complete its tilt to the right? I'd stick to "undecided" rather than "confused" to describe this, but I think there are some even in our little community here who might be in that situation or something similar.

Anonymous wrote:...Personally, I don't know why anyone would vote for Obama...beyond wanting "change". This is the most import, for eant job in the world and do you really want someone who 4 years ago was in the State Senate in IL????

Yep. I guess I'm an elitist, since I believe, for example, that the intellect to be the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review is an important qualification to be president. I don't disqualify McCain for being a goof-off who rebelled against his father the admiral by drifting through the Naval Academy near the bottom of his class, but I don't see it as a plus.

McCain's past integrity as one who stood up against his party impressed me, but he has done everything in his power to make the Republican right forget that ever happened, and thereby lost my respect on that front. But the clincher for me is the thought that he will complete the capture of the Supreme Court by the radical right. Even if he pledges to appoint a woman, as someone suggested, I expect that woman would protect women's rights no more than Clarence Thomas protects minority rights.

Anonymous wrote:The people on this board are too opinionated to be undecided.

I have already pled guilty to that, and your posting certainly sounds like a confession that you're with me. But what about some of the quieter folks?

I admit that, although I have always liked McCain, his intention to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito makes it impossible for me to vote for him. The chance of Jeff being convinced to vote for him seems no greater. And the self-identified conservatives have made it clear that they won't be convinced to change their minds and vote for Obama. But there are some Obamacans here, who, I would guess, could have their minds changed. Am I right about that, and is there anyone else here who is not unalterably decided on one or the other?

In other words, can this discussion actually have a practical effect?

Anonymous wrote:It's really sad how old people (like McCain, compared above to a snapping turtle) are denigrated in this country, instead of admired. Makes me want to move to Japan.

As an old guy, I take no offense. It's not the aged being dissed, and it's not even really John McCain. It's the abstract "my candidate's opponent". We appear, most of us, to be unable to praise our candidate without denigrating his opponent.

I would like to assign all you Obama supporters the task of writing 50 times: "I support Obama, but I think McCain's a good guy too", and you McCain supporters, 50 times with the names switched.

It's too bad they can't overcome the last few decades of electoral history and run their campaigns without the mudslinging, but they're politicians, not saints.