Good-night, Dick

The Fickle Finger of Fate has struck. From BBC News:

Actor and comedian Dick Martin, whose series Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In made stars of Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin, has died in California, aged 86.

Martin, who also directed a string of TV shows, was being treated for respiratory problems in a Santa Monica hospital, a family spokesman said.

“He had some severe problems for many years, and had pretty much stopped breathing a week ago,” he added.

The series took U.S. TV by storm when it began in January 1968.

Rather than relying on scripted song-and-dance segments, it offered quickfire jokes, political satire and slapstick from a team of young actors and comedians, creating catchphrases such as “sock it to me!”

The show was fronted by Martin and Dan Rowan, who had worked together as nightclub comics since the 1950s before breaking into TV.

Although I was pretty young when Laugh-In was originally broadcast (1968-1973), and my mother was definitely not a big fan of my brother and I watching the show (though my father saw it regularly), I sneaked peeks at it as often as possible. I remember well the parodies of network news, the Farkel Family, and how at the end of every episode, Rowan would turn to his partner Martin and say, “Say good-night, Dick,” with Martin answering, “Good-night, Dick.” Laugh-In was the Saturday Night Live of the Nixon era, but even faster-paced, with each longer segment book-ended by quickie skits, often dances.

Rowan died in 1987. Martin died yesterday. But the laughs go on.

McCain’s Campaign Is Floundering

From today’s New York Times:

Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, Republicans say.

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain’s inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

“The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington--and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question,” said Terry Nelson, who was Mr. McCain’s campaign manager until he left in a shake-up last fall. “If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign.”

The full story can be read here.

READ MORE: “McCain Struggles on Cusp of General Election,” by Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen (Politico); “ For GOP, Panic ‘Is in the Wind’,” by Steven Benen (The Carpetbagger Report).

McCain Himself Used to Think He’s Too Old

“Well, in 2004, I expect to be campaigning for the re-election of President George W. Bush, and by 2008, I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers home and await the cavalry charge there.” -- John “100 Years War” McCain, asked during an interview in 2000 with The New Hour’s Jim Lehrer whether he’d finally lost the desire to be president someday.

(Hat tip to The Carpetbagger Report.)

McCain Aide Backs Obama

This is pretty telling, and a decidedly bad omen for John “100 Years War” McCain’s presidential bid. It seems that, after admitting last summer that he admired Barack Obama’s “unique potential to change the country,” and adding that he wouldn’t work against the Illinois senator if Obama were to become this year’s Democratic nominee for president, top McCain campaign aide Mark McKinnon has followed through on his word: he’s announced that he’s leaving McCain’s campaign, rather than create negative advertisements targeting Obama.

As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reports:

Mark McKinnon, the lead media consultant for Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) presidential bid, is stepping down from that role--making good on a pledge he made last year not to work against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the fall campaign.

McKinnon confirmed his decision to The Fix this afternoon. “I’ll be transitioning, shifting position from linebacker to head cheerleader,” said the always-colorful McKinnon. He added that he would continued to be a “friend and fan” to the campaign.

McKinnon, a former Democrat, played a central role in Gov. George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign and the Bush-Cheney reelection four years later. He was part of a large contingent of Bush operatives to make the transition to McCain in late 2006 and early 2007, but was one of only a handful who stuck with the Arizona senator after his campaign’s implosion last summer.

That same summer, McKinnon told Cox Newspapers that if Obama was the Democratic nominee, he would not play an active role in McCain’s effort to defeat the Illinois senator.

“I just don’t want to work against an Obama candidacy,” McKinnon told Cox Washington bureau chief Ken Herman; electing Obama, he added, “would send a great message to the country and the world.”

After a week during which the hotheaded McCain has already been hammered for his campaign’s superfluity of ethical lapses involving lobbyists on the payroll, as well as his ignorance about who’s really in charge of Iran’s foreign policy, McKinnon’s departure as his message-maker would seem to be a wounding blow to McSame’s shrinking hopes of serving out Bush’s third term in the White House.

READ MORE: “Keeping Vow on Obama, McCain Adviser Resigns,” by Jim Rutenberg (The New York Times); “‘Maverick’ McCain? Not When It Counts,” by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report); “Myth of McCain Multilateralism,” by A.J. Rossmiller (AMERICAblog); “McCain More Conservative Than His Image” (AP); “McCain Will Face Rebellion at GOP Convention” (Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire).

Quote of the Week

Yeah, I know, it’s only Tuesday. Still, this gem from yesterday’s announcement that American billionaire businessman Warren Buffett is backing Barack Obama for president is priceless--a great slap at George W. Bush:

After voicing support for Obama, Buffett nonetheless noted the U.S. economy had managed to do “awfully well” despite a depression, two world wars and many financial crises.

“They say in the stock market ... buy stock in a business that’s so good that an idiot can run it because sooner or later one will,” he added.

“Well, the United States is a little like that. We can take a little mis-management from time to time,” Buffett said.

(Hat tip to Charles Smyth.)

Slip’s Up

This one sneaked up on me. Seven years after Alaskan author John Straley published his last detective Cecil Younger novel, Cold Water Burning, he’s suddenly back in bookstores with a historical standalone, The Big Both Ways (Alaska Northwest Books). Of the plot, Independent Crime’s Nathan Cain writes:

The story begins when logger Slip Wilson walks off the job after seeing one of his coworkers die in a gruesome accident. He has two grand in a tin and he’s planning on going back east and settling down. Unfortunately for him, he happens upon Ellie Hobbes, a pretty blonde communist with a union organizer’s corpse in the trunk of her car. One death leads to another, and soon Slip, Ellie, and Ellie’s young niece Annabelle are forced to flee Seattle in a dory while they are pursued by private security thugs, union members and the police.

I used to like Shamus Award-winner Straley’s Younger stories, though I haven’t read them in a long while. Too bad the author has had to go to a small publisher like Alaska Northwest Books to get this one into print, but at least it gives us all a chance to rediscover his work.

“Shut the Hell Up!”

In the realm of televised rants, some are merely pathetic, while others just make your mouth hang open in awed amazement:



Full transcript here.

Turnabout’s Fair Play

An excellent point, from AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis: “Republicans declare war on Michelle Obama, but they think Cindy McCain being a drug addict who stole drugs is off-limits?” Right. Fat chance.

“The West Wing” as Crystal Ball?

Stupid Quote of the Week

George W. Bush is always braying on about how Americans have to make sacrifices, even though he asked absolutely nothing of the nation’s wealthiest citizens when he committed the United States to an invasion of Iraq. In fact, he gave them a handsome tax break, while pushing off the real costs of his warmongering onto the shoulders of our grandchildren. But now Dubya insists that he, too, has sacrificed for the “war effort.” How? He tells Politico reporter Mike Allen that he’s given up golf. Says the prez:

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization’s high commissioner for human rights.

“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life,” he said. “I was playing golf--I think I was in central Texas--and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, ‘It’s just not worth it anymore to do.’”

Oh, boo-fuckin’-hoo. When we see you send your two daughters off to fight in the Middle East conflict you provoked with your lies, Mr. Bush--a conflict to which other American parents have willingly sacrificed their own children--then and only then will you be making an honest commitment to your war of choice.

READ MORE: “Bush Makes the Ultimate War Sacrifice,” by David Terranoire (A Dark Planet); “We Call Bullshit,” by Warren Street (Blue Girl, Red State).

Bush Beats Truman

While George W. Bush hasn’t sunk quite as low in ABC News/Washington Post polling as he did in the latest CNN/Opinion Research survey, surely this can’t be making Republican’ts happy in the run-up to a presidential election:

Eighty-two percent of Americans now say the country’s seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the last year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And 31 percent approve of Bush’s job performance overall, while 66 percent disapprove.

ABC goes on to note that “In presidential approval polls by Gallup since 1934, just three presidents have gone lower: Jimmy Carter, who bottomed out at 28 percent approval in July 1979; Richard Nixon, 24 percent in July and August 1974; and Harry Truman, 22 percent in February 1952.”

But it seems that Bush already holds one record:

Bush now has gone 40 months without majority approval, beating Truman’s record (also during economic discontent and an unpopular war) of 38 months from 1949-52.

It seems astonishing to me that John “100 Years War” McCain would be actively running to serve, effectively, a third Bush term, when the guy to whom he’s kissing up is so incredibly unpopular. Then again, a lot of stuff McCain does is bewildering.

READ MORE: “Voters Still More Concerned With Bush Than Jeremiah Wright,” by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report); “U.S. Outlook Is Worst Since ’92, Poll Finds,” by Jon Cohen and Dan Balz (The Washington Post).

The Real Comeback Kids

Somehow, I have to find enough time to enjoy this new book.

The Book You Have to Read: “The Lunatic Fringe,” by William L. DeAndrea

(Editor’s note: A couple of Fridays ago, blogger Patti Abbott introduced what, in her words, “I optimistically hope will become Friday recommendations of books we love but might have forgotten over the years. I have asked several people to help me by also remembering a favorite book. ... I also asked each of them to tag someone to recommend a book for next Friday. I’m worried great books of the recent past are sliding out of print and out of our consciousness. Not the first-tier classics we all can name, but the books that come next.” Last week, I was tagged for this assignment by The Rap Sheet’s Ali Karim. I’m only too happy to add my two cents.)

My pick: The Lunatic Fringe, by William L. DeAndrea.

In 1980, the year this book came out and the same year in which I bought a copy, I was living in Portland, Oregon, working at my first newspaper job for peanuts, and endeavoring to make those peanuts buy something more than white rice for dinner. Whatever possessed me to plunk down my cash for a brand-new hardcover copy of The Lunatic Fringe ... well, I can only imagine now. It was probably because I’d read and enjoyed DeAndrea’s two previous novels, the Edgar Award-winning Killed in the Ratings (1978) and The Hog Murders (1979), and just couldn’t wait to dive into the third. This novel’s cover alone would’ve caught my eye, with its old-fashioned typography and its suggestion of historical intrigue. Together with journalism, I had studied history in college, and even back then knew that if I were to ever write fiction, it would have some historical backdrop.

Likely, The Lunatic Fringe’s flap copy closed the deal for me:

THE TIME: August, 1896, during the McKinley-Bryan presidential campaign

THE PLACE: New York City

THE STORY: Renowned political cartoonist Evan Crandall, sometimes known as “E. Noon,” becomes a pawn in the newspaper circulation war between William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. At the same time, a plan to assassinate William Jennings Bryan is being undertaken by a pair of villainous anarchists. On a quiet Saturday evening, Officer Dennis Patrick Francis-Xavier Muldoon finds Evan Crandall murdered in his apartment and a beautiful naked lady tied to Crandall’s bed. He goes to find help, and when he returns the mysterious lady, known as the Pink Angel, is gone.

Enter Captain Ozias Herkimer, who believes no part of Muldoon’s story and furthermore doesn’t want any strange goings-on in his district. He promptly dismisses Muldoon from the force. Never one to be discouraged or to shirk his duties, Muldoon enlists the aid of firebrand Police Commission Theodore Roosevelt. Together they set out to find the Pink Angel, who has disappeared into the night wearing nothing, it seems, but Muldoon’s revolver.

Political and criminal conspiracies. Theodore Roosevelt, about whom I’d read much already. A richly embellished look back at 1890s Gotham. Oh, and of course the presence in that adventure of a young seductress--a naked young seductress, to boot. Hmm. Now that I think about it, I’m surprised I bought only one copy of The Lunatic Fringe, expensive (at $10.95) though it may have been at the time. It had the very sort of ingredients that have attracted me to historical mysteries ever since. Furthermore, it crackled with good humor, in its dialogue as well as its plot turns, many of which concerned Officer Muldoon’s family and foibles. And it boasted a fine, action-packed dénouement in which Muldoon and Roosevelt are both called upon to exercise their wits and energies.

This was the first crime novel I read with old New York City as a setting. But it would certainly not be my last. I credit The Lunatic Fringe with leading me on to Robert J. Randisi’s Bat Masterson novel, The Ham Reporter (1986), William Marshall’s distinguished pair of Virgil Tillman tales, The New York Detective (1989) and Faces in the Crowd (1991), Caleb Carr’s two historical novels, The Alienist (1994) and The Angel of Darkness (1997), E.L. Doctorow’s The Waterworks (1994), the pseudonymous J.D. Christilian’s Scarlet Women (1996), Andrew Bergman’s private eye Jack Levine novels, including Tender Is Levine (2001), and Suspension (2000), Richard E. Crabbe’s brilliant story of chicanery centered around the 1880s construction of the Brooklyn Bridge. However, The Lunatic Fringe is the one of those I recall most vividly. Perhaps because I went on to read it two more times, after relishing it so on the first run-through.

I tried to keep up with William DeAndrea’s many works over the years. Glancing across my bookshelves, I spot Five O’clock Lightning (1982), his story of a baseball fan’s murder at Yankee Stadium in the 1950s, and Written in Fire (1995), the first of two novels he wrote about wheelchair-bound lawman/newspaper publisher Lobo Blacke and his “legman,” writer Quinn Booker, set in turn-of-the-last-century Wyoming. (It was followed by 1997’s The Fatal Elixir.) He penned intricately plotted, character-rich stories that I found hard to pass by. But DeAndrea was also quite prolific, so I did miss reading a few of his books along the way. Which is particularly sad, because he died early--at age 44, in 1996, after winning a third Edgar for his reference work Encyclopedia Mysteriosa (1994), which is also on my shelves. He was married to Jane Haddam, who continues to make her name in crime-writing circles.

After The Lunatic Fringe, I hoped the author would one day return to Dennis Patrick Francis-Xavier Muldoon, the Pink Lady, and their horse-flop-infested Manhattan. Although he never did, I can go back there anytime, just by picking up this novel and flipping through its dry, slightly age-fragranced pages. Buying it when I had so little else might have been the best thing I could’ve done with that $10.95.

Click here for links to this week’s other forgotten books.

And since the cost of contributing to this series is that I’m supposed to tag some other blogger to write about a similarly shuffled-to-the-backstacks book for next week, I shall gladly pass the baton on to ... Kevin Burton Smith. I hope you have as much fun with this assignment as I did.

“We Now Know Who the Democratic Nominee’s Going to Be, and No One’s Going to Dispute It”

Tonight’s lopsided victory for Senator Barack Obama in North Carolina, and Hillary Clinton’s razor-thin win in Indiana--if she can even hold on to that--have finally brought NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert to the conclusion that Obama is the presumptive nominee. If Clinton concedes in the morning, Obama can finally get on to the business of bringing Democrats together behind his banner, showing up John “100 Years War” McCain for the Republican’t caricature he is, and winning the White House in November. ’Bout time.

READ MORE: “Obama Wins; How Does Clinton Lose?,” by Marc Ambinder (The Atlantic); “Hillary Will Drop Out by June 15,” by Lawrence O’Donnell (The Huffington Post).

Again, the Headline Speaks for Itself

From the CNN news site: “Poll: Bush most unpopular in modern history.” To quote:

A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.

“No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president’s disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Bush’s approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively), but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s,” Holland added. “The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 66 percent disapproval in January 1952.”

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider adds, “He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974.” President Nixon’s disapproval rating in August 1974 stood at 67 percent.

The poll also indicates that support for the war in Iraq has never been lower. Thirty percent of those questioned favored the war while 68 percent opposed the conflict.

Hmm. I wonder if John “100 Years War” McCain is rethinking his decision to keep his lips pressed firmly on Bush’s ass. Probably not. He knows that the only chance he has of triumphing in this year’s presidential contest is to convince all those Americans who voted for Bush twice, that they weren’t wrong in doing so, and that he’ll carry on Bush’s policies.

READ MORE: “George Bush Is John McCain’s Rev. Wright,” by Joan Walsh (Salon); “8 in 10 See Recession, 73% Disapprove of Bush (McCain) Economy,” by Chris Ryan (AMERICAblog).

Stupid Statement of the Week

Senator Barack Obama took a giant step toward putting the mini-controversy surrounding his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, behind him this week. But John “100 Years War” McCain has done next to nothing to denounce or silence his own spiritual adviser and supporter, Texas pastor John C. Hagee, who has his own wacko ideas of how things work in America. To quote from Bruce Wilson of the site Talk to Action:

In a sermon given at his San Antonio, Texas Cornerstone megachurch that was telecast and available in up to ninety million homes worldwide, controversial pastor John Hagee, who has endorsed the presidential bid of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, Jr., claimed that American public schools provide abortion services. Hagee stated, “Your daughter can get an abortion in public school without telling you but she can’t get an aspirin without your approval.” The pastor also claimed that public school teachers can force their students to study a “precursor to witchcraft” and suggests that America has invited “satan” and demonic spirits into its public school systems by failing to display the Ten Commandments on classroom walls. Presidential hopeful John McCain, Jr. has said he is “glad to have” Hagee’s support and “admires” the leadership of the Texas pastor--who has declared God has cursed and doomed America.

The video can be found here.

This is the same Reverend Hagee, you will recall, who claimed that Hurricane Katrina’s clobbering of New Orleans was divine retribution (“All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.”), said that “The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty,” and has demonstrated an unbelievable level of sexism in his “jokes” (“Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.”). Yet McCain hasn’t demonstrated anywhere near Obama’s level of courage by condemning Hagee for his offensive statements. The closest he’s come was in relation to criticizing Hagee for anti-Catholic statements, when McCain said of the Texas preacher, “He says he has never been anti-Catholic, but I repudiate the words that create that impression.” In other words, McCain claims not to be responsible if other people take Hagee’s bigoted statements the wrong way.

So why do media pundits press Obama to denounce Wright’s ideology, but not force McCain to do the same thing with Hagee?

READ MORE: “Top 10 Outrageous Quotes from McCain’s Spiritual Advisers,” by Katie Halper (Open Left); “Three Candidates, Two Sets of Rules--Is It Racism?,” by Bob Cavnar (Houston Chronicle); “Voters Far More Concerned with Bush than Jeremiah Wright,” by Steve Benen (The Carperbagger Report); “Kerry Rips MSNBC on Wright: ‘You People Need to Let Go of This,’” by Jason Linkins (The Huffington Post).

McCain Inconsistent on Iraq, Too

Every day, it seems John “100 Years War” McCain brings us new examples of his willingness to flip-flop on issues, to have everything both ways. Talk about political candidates lacking firm convictions--McCain is surely Exhibit A. Now it’s been shown that his consistency on the one issue he’s tried to make his alone--a commitment to continue George W. Bush’s disastrous Iraq conflict--hasn’t been consistent, either.

When it comes to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was for the idea before he was against it.

Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.

In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan--something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign--the senator offered nothing short of a categorical “no.”

“I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”

Although McSame has criticized Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for advocating troop withdrawals from Iraq, even in the absence of a clear U.S. “victory” (he decried it as a “failure of leadership”), he himself has endorsed curtailing the U.S. occupation there. As Think Progress reported last November:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has long supported a 50-year troop presence in Iraq--or the “South Korea model”--set forth by President Bush and Gen. Petraeus. “We have had troops in South Korea for 60 years and nobody minds,” he said in June. On the Charlie Rose Show in August, McCain said the Korea model was “exactly” the right idea.

Yesterday on Charlie Rose, McCain changed his position, arguing that the Korea-like presence is not an “analogy” he would use for Iraq. Recognizing the “nature of the society in Iraq,” McCain suggested that Iraqi opposition to a permanent U.S. occupation may make the South Korea model implausible:

ROSE: Do you think that this--Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?

McCAIN: I don’t think so.

ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?

McCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

Think Progress has the video here.

UPDATE: Does it surprise anybody to learn that McCain can’t even keep his story straight on whether or not he approved of Bush’s silly banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq five years ago? It shouldn’t.

READ MORE: “McCain Flip-flopped Four Times on Iraq Regarding Staying 100 Years,” by John Aravosis (AMERICAblog); “McCain Is the Right’s Trojan Horse,” by Arianna Huffington (The Huffington Post).

Who Was Your First?

There’s a lively discussion going on over at Crimespace, having to do with the first adult crime novels people read. Mickey Spillane, Agatha Christie, Lawrence Sanders, and Elmore Leonard all seem to have been used as entry drugs into the genre. As I’ve explained before, I started out reading Ross Macdonald and then went on to Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, and Robert B. Parker. They led me, in turn, to Arthur Lyons, Sara Paretsky, Peter Lovesey, Loren D. Estleman, John. D. MacDonald, and ... well, pretty soon the list got out of hand. Although I was introduced to crime fiction through television, books in this field long ago became of greater interest to me. Like so many others, my reading crime fiction has finally convinced me to try writing it myself.

If you’d like to join that Crimespace discussion, click here.

And by the way, the woman who started this particular thread, Carole Gill, has one of the coolest Crimespace pages I’ve seen yet. There’s nothing like a little “In the Mood” to get one’s batteries charged first thing in the morning.

Just How Elderly Is John McCain?

Funny you should ask.

McCain: the Bin Laden Candidate?

Following directly on the heels of John “100 Years War” McCain’s designed-for-the-gullible charge that Senator Barack Obama is the favorite presidential candidate of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas (while McCain claims he’d be Hamas’ “worst nightmare”), Time magazine’s Joe Klein writes today:

If McCain wants to go that route, I can suggest another: that John McCain is probably the favorite candidate of Osama bin Laden, just as George W. Bush was Osama’s presidential preference.

Why? Because both Bush and McCain have bought Osama’s disinformation about Iraq being the central front in the war on terrorism. Of course, bin Laden wants the gullible neocons to take the Iraq bait because Afghanistan really is the central front of the war on terrorism--more precisely the Afghan-Pakistani border areas where the real Al Qaeda lives. The war in Iraq has been a grand strategic gift to Osama, keeping the U.S. military tied down elsewhere and off his tail.

Bush, McCain, and their Republican’t compatriots (along with Joe Lieberman) have embroiled the United States in a violent occupation of Iraq that threatens to do long-term damage to the U.S. economy and is creating international animosity toward the United States. Tens of thousands of American soldiers are being sent to die or be mangled halfway around the world, in a war based on lies and the inability of a president to admit when he’s wrong. And Bush hopes to continue this madness by helping to elect a philosophical clone.

Undoubtedly, bin Laden sleeps with a smile on his face.

READ MORE: “Obama Accuses McCain of ‘Losing His Bearings’ with Comment” (AP). The video is here.

Are You Paying at the Gas Pump for Bush’s Willingness to Let the Dollar’s Value Tumble?

You betcha.

Wanna Really Piss Off McCain?

As we await a conclusion to this year’s hard-fought Democratic race for president, progressive bloggers and the Democratic Party have been smacking presumptive Republican’t nominee John “100 Years War” McCain with criticism on a wide range of subjects. They’ve hit him for his lack of knowledge about the economy, his adoption of George W. Bush’s failed policies, his innumerable flip-flops, his advanced age (if elected to the White House, McCain would be 72 years old--the most elderly person ever to assume the U.S. presidency), his federal campaign-financing scandal, his being rich and out of touch with the needs of most Americans, and his anger-management problems (McCain even called his rich wife a “cunt”). Meanwhile, The New York Times, which endorsed McCain in the GOP primaries, has pointed out how he’s now exploiting a loophole in the campaign-finance system (a system that he’s previously fought to protect and strengthen) in order to take cheap flights on his wife’s corporate jet. And even The Army Times has slapped him down for his national security gaffes.

But it seems the condemnation that most easily gets under this cranky Arizona senator’s skin concerns his own statement, made during a campaign stop in New Hampshire in January, that he’d be willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the next century, if necessary. “That’s fine with me,” he told a questioner.

Naturally, given his volatility on this issue, the Democratic National Committee has launched an advertisement using McSame’s own words against him. Serves him right for making such an idiotic and politically tone-deaf statement.



In a press statement accompanying the release of this spot, DNC Chairman Howard Dean says:

What John McCain doesn’t understand is that the American people aren’t fine with being in Iraq for 100 years in any capacity. The American people want a President who will responsibly end the war, not more of the same failed policy in Iraq that continues to cost $12 billion a month. They want a President who will invest that money here at home to create jobs and ensure our kids have health care. The more voters learn about John McCain, we’re confident they will recognize that he is the wrong choice for America’s future.

Even McCain has conceded that the worsening state of Bush’s lies-incited Iraq adventure--which the GOP senator has defended repeatedly--is his Achilles heel. Back in February, he told reporters that his biggest challenge in this race is to convince voters, who are understandably tired of the cost and bloodshed associated with Bush’s Middle East war, that the United States is actually winning. If he can’t, he added, “then I lose. I lose.” Almost immediately after uttering that remark, however, McCain tried to distance himself from it. Just another example of how, despite his reputation for candidness, he’s actually willing to say anything--or hold his tongue--to get elected.

UPDATE: “Right on Cue, Republican Whining Commences on ‘100 Years’ Ad,” by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report); “FOX Accepts ‘100 Years in Iraq’ McCain Ad,” by John Aravosis (AMERICAblog).

READ MORE: “100 Years War,” by Joe Klein (Time); “John McCain and Bush’s Torture Powers,” by Glenn Greenwald (Salon); “ McCain’s Compassion Tour,” by Gail Collins (The New York Times); “Meet the Racist Who Showed John McCain Is Powerless and Inept,” by Joe Sudbay (AMERICAblog).

Dust Off Those Dust Jackets

I forgot to mention here Patti Abbott’s intriguing new “Forgotten Book Fridays” project, which asks bloggers to write about a favorite work that has been pushed to the literary wayside over the years. Among this last Friday’s first crop of picks was The Lady in the Lake, Raymond Chandler’s 1944 novel (and the inspiration for Robert Montgomery’s 1947 film noir of the same name). I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see some of the choices from The Rap Sheet’s “One Book Project” show up in this series as it evolves over the coming months.

Abbott promises to keep track of each Friday’s “Forgotten Book” offerings across the blogosphere in her own blog, Pattinase.

The Electability Gambit

Since Hillary Clinton managed to pull off a much narrower than expected victory in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary this week, suddenly the American media are questioning Barack Obama’s ability to win the general election battle against John “100 Years War” McCain? Gimme a break. Once more, the media strive to create a horse race where there isn’t really one. As analyst Charlie Cook, founder-editor of the Cook Political Report newsletter, writes in National Journal,

The good news for Hillary Rodham Clinton is that she’s winning a lot of battles. The bad news is that the war is pretty much lost. Sure, she won Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary by a strong 9 points in the face of being outspent on television ads by Barack Obama 2-to-1. She also won Ohio, Rhode Island, and at least the primary part of the bizarre “Texas two-step” primary-and-caucus combination on March 4. But today, she is 133 delegates behind Obama, 1,728 to 1,595, according to NBC News. At this point last week, she trailed by 136 delegates. Since then Clinton has scored a net gain of 10 delegates in Pennsylvania, according to NBC, but has lost a few more superdelegates, so she has made little headway.

If this contest were still at the point where momentum, symbolism, and reading tea leaves mattered, Clinton would be in pretty good shape. Everything she has needed to happen is happening now. Obama is getting tougher press coverage and critical examination. He’s also getting rattled a bit, and he didn’t perform well in the recent debate in Philadelphia. Clinton is winning in big, important places, but it’s happening about three months too late. ...

As long as Clinton is winning, she can’t quit. But even in victory, she isn’t getting any closer to securing the nomination. This political purgatory will continue if she manages to win Indiana but loses North Carolina--hard to drop out but harder to see winning the nomination. If she loses in both states, then her campaign’s donors and creditors, as well as superdelegates and party leaders, are likely to intervene. But that can’t happen as long as she continues to win.

The Clinton folks are now trying to get the media to swallow the ludicrous proposition that Senator Obama is somehow unelectable, even though he’s well ahead in this race. It might work; reporters covering the 2008 presidential campaign have already shown themselves to be gullible, and suck-ups, to boot. How else to explain their willingness to accept the fallacy that McCain is some kind of political centrist, or that he’s a straight-talker, rather than the abject flip-flopper he is in reality?

But blogger and political analyst John Cole dismisses the Clinton camp’s assertions out of hand:

If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him?

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in [Pennsylvania], when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double-digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?

Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, further shreds Clinton’s contention regarding Obama’s unelectability in an interview published yesterday in National Journal. When asked whether there isn’t some legitimacy to Hillary Clinton’s argument that only she can triumph against McSame in the must-win big states in November, Plouffe responds:

Well, let me just [address] the big state question--you know, they point to California, New York, Massachusetts. We are going to carry those states comfortably. Yes, she did win Ohio and Pennsylvania in the primary. If you look at polling matchups of McCain versus Obama and Clinton in Pennsylvania, we perform roughly equal. We’ve won a lot of big battleground states--Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington state, Iowa, Virginia. North Carolina, by the way, is going to be a big battleground state in 12 days, so I guess by their definition they need to win there. So this is kind of a ridiculous argument that, you know, they are trying to latch on to.

I mean, I think her electability issues are the following: she’s got a high unfavorable rating. It would be the highest unfavorable rating for any presidential nominee in recent history. Fairly or not, the majority of voters don’t trust Senator Clinton. Those two points are related, obviously: her unfavorable rating, and the sense that voters do not find her honest or trustworthy. And I do think she has limited appeal with independent voters. A Democratic nominee has to be competitive with independent voters. Ideally you’d win them. John McCain has unique appeal with independent voters. Senator Clinton has difficulty matching up with him with independent voters. She’s got less appeal to Republicans, and I also think she’s not going to create the kind of turnout we will in the African-American community and with all voters under 40.

So I think she’s got real limited range here, and we think that we will be just as strong as she will be in the core battleground states like Pennsylvania, like Ohio. But the question is, in Iowa, in Wisconsin, in New Mexico, in Nevada--these are states that have always been very close, that a Democratic nominee has to carry. And we’re doing much better than she is against John McCain.

Once more, it seems the only way that Clinton backers can get ahead in this contest is by trying to tear down Obama. That neither reflects well on her, nor will it benefit the Democratic Party when Obama finally becomes the nominee. A good part of the reason I switched my allegiance from Clinton to Obama is because the senator from New York seems willing to use ugly Republican’t tactics against a fellow Dem. That’s not sportsmanlike, nor is it at all politically smart. It gives McCain material to build on in the general election, and in the meantime it’s damaging both Hillary Clinton’s national standing and--much worse, in my book--the standing of her previously very popular husband, former President Bill Clinton.

It’s time for Senator Clinton to find a graceful way out of this race, to accept the fact that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate--and most likely the next president of the United States. All she’s doing now is making it easier for Republican’ts to put up a decent showing in the latest White House race, and invite trouble for the Democratic Party, despite McCain being just an older version of George W. Bush. And we all know how electable he would be nowadays.

READ MORE: “Party Fears Racial Divide,” by Jonathan Weisman and Matthew Mosk (The Washington Post); “Dems’ Suspense May Be Unnecessary,” by Elizabeth Drew (Politico); “On Course for Another White Guy Election,” by Thomas B. Edsall (The Huffington Post); “Media Conventional Wisdom Shifting Towards Belief Clinton Could Defeat Obama?,” by Joe Gandleman (The Moderate Voice); “Heading Toward the Danger Zone,” by Bob Herbert (The New York Times).

“Adolescent, Mindlessly Belligerent War Cries”

It’s becoming abundantly clear that, if you like George W. Bush’s bellicose foreign policy, you’re really going to love what John “100 Years War” McCain has in mind if he gets into the White House. First, he stupidly “joked” about bombing Iran, now this. From Glenn Greenwald’s column today in Salon:

John McCain was on a conference call with right-wing bloggers yesterday and boasted:

I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.

What possible reason would a U.S. President have for turning himself and our country into a “nightmare” for Hamas, let alone its “worst nightmare”? Hamas is a single-issue Palestinian group, focused exclusively on its “territorial dispute” with Israel (and, in light of its victory in the U.S.-demanded election, is also now preoccupied with governing the Palestinian Authority). Is there anyone who thinks that Hamas has tried to, will try to, or ever could attack the U.S.? Hamas is an enemy of Israel, not the U.S. Is that a distinction we even recognize any more?

What exactly is the point of feeding Israel billions of dollars every year in military aid if we’re going to deem every one of its fights to be our fight, and every one of its enemies to be our Enemy? Is that actually what Americans want to do: insinuate ourselves even more into other endless, intractable religious and ethnic conflicts in the Middle East?

More disturbingly still, this chest-beating threat from McCain is merely the latest in a long line of adolescent, mindlessly belligerent war cries emanating from the Serious foreign policy candidate.

Greenwald’s full piece can be found here.

Does McCain Know What He Believes Anymore?

More evidence--as if we really needed it--that John “100 Years War” McCain is a world-class flip-flopper and political panderer, this time coming from The Washington Post:

Now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, however, McCain is marching straight down the party line. The economic package he has laid out embraces many of the tax policies he once decried: extending Bush’s tax cuts he voted against, offering investment tax breaks he once believed would have little economic benefit and granting the long-held wishes of tax lobbyists he has often mocked.

McCain’s concerns--about budget deficits, unanticipated defense costs, an Iraq war that would be longer and more costly than advertised--have proved eerily prescient, usually a plus for politicians who are quick to say they were right when others were wrong. Yet McCain appears determined to leave such predictions behind. ...

To supporters, McCain has simply seen the light and now understands the power that business tax relief has to spur economic growth and innovation. Said J.D. Foster, a former Bush White House and Treasury tax policy expert, now at the Heritage Foundation: “It’s logical that he wouldn’t be repeating the arguments he made then. We all learn from experience.”

To critics, it is political pandering. “It’s just part of the new John McCain that’s taking on the conventional wisdom that in tight races, you have to energize the base and win by 50.000001 percent,” [former U.S. Senator Lincoln] Chafee [R-Rhode Island] said. “I was frankly surprised that he’s kept it up after securing the nomination. I thought he’d move to the center, and I haven’t seen it.”

You’ll find the full Post story here.

READ MORE: “McCain Invests His ‘Credibility Capital’ in Hiring Lobbyists,” by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report); “Will McCain denounce Floyd Brown?,” by Joe Conason (Salon); “McCain Tour Highlights Those He Doesn’t Plan to Help,” by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report); “Arianna Huffington on McCain: Hijacked by the Right” (Real Time with Bill Maher).