In 2000 , many balmed Nader for Al Gore's lost because he ran as a hard core liberal who took votes away from the democratic candidate..

So , this year , some may feel that Nader in the race could hurt Obama , right??..Well , think again.

Take a look at the latest poll released by NBC/WSJ..Here's the money quote.

But Obama’s lead over McCain expands to 13 points when third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added into the mix — with Obama at 48 percent, McCain at 35 percent, Nader at 5 percent and Barr at 2 percent. However, it’s important to note that the pro-Obama vote (48 percent) and anti-Obama vote (adding up to 42 percent) is consistent with the result from the two-way match up.

Some may asked themselves , "how is it that Nader gets 5% , but Obama manages to expand his lead against McCain.

At first , i asked myself the first question , then quickly realized what's going on here.

McCain has been ripping on Obama over the past couple of days over Obama canceling his trip to see wounded US troops in Germany.

Of course, nevermind that the Pentagon told Obama he couldn't visit with his campaign staff, and the fact that Obama called up the troops instead.

Full Lineup and other goodies below...

Calling Obama a troop-hater is acting like a child.

Whining for attention while Obama shows himself to be the adult on the world stage is acting like a child.

Smear emails on Snopes.com are not scripts for TV ads. You're new to the Internet, but you're not a child.

I was just wondering what would the talking heads use to usurp the bounce in the national daily tracking polls.  

McCain Nation? Scratch that- Obama Nation. See below.

AP story on the front page of the WSJ: "McCain Blasts Obama on Troop Visit"

Obama's campaign called the accusation "wildly inappropriate." His spokesman has claimed that the visit to a military hospital in Germany was scrapped after the Pentagon raised concerns about political activity on a military base. Earlier, though, the campaign had said Mr. Obama decided the visit might be seen as inappropriate politicking. However, the Pentagon said the senator was never told not to visit.

As reported on CNN yesterday, after denying the Iraqis actually called for withdrawal even though they did, Senator McCain is now conceding that a 16-month timetable for withdrawal is "pretty good", so long as we remain flexible about keeping troops there if the situation deterioriates.  You might recognize that position, because it's the same as Senator Obama's.

Recently, John McCain has conceded the need for more troops in Afghanistan, even if it means delaying routine troop redeployments to Iraq.  Again, this is a long-held view of Senator Obama's.

And while McCain may be opposed to talking to Iran and North Korea, the Bush Administration isn't, and has made notable progress on North Korea's nuclear program.  Again, talking without limiting yourself is the kind of approach Obama has put forth.

Do you see a pattern?

If, as John McCain insinuates, Obama's policies of diplomacy in the middle east and withdraw from Iraq are a sign that Obama would rather lose the war than the Presidency, what does that say about the Bush Administration's sudden interests in diplomacy and withdraw?

Let me start off by saying this is not a conspiracy theory diary. It is simply me introducing some questions into the debate that I feel are worth asking.

It is not simply a matter of stagecraft.  The mass adulation Barack Obama's international tour has received, Frank Rich argues in this week's column, is a matter of the power Illinois's junior senator has amassed to shape events, become must-see television, and set the agenda for what politics are discussed in this country.

What made this possible?  The title of Rich's column gives a hint: How Obama Became Acting President.

Can I say BREAKING?  No, but I did a Google search and got the answer.  Just type in "bob novak" gossip, fox, vp.  There it is....  Well, you have to read between the lines.

"When Fox and Friends asked if he had his famous shorts on, he demurred...
Bob Novak: I may have been suckered by the McCain camp on the VP rumors. It’s possible that the Romney rumors were just a trial balloon that the McCain camp floated out to test the waters. In which case, let’s hope he’s got a Palin up his sleeve."

Answer after the break...

Over the weekend, I had a house full of very rich Republicans from a virtually all-Republican town in Connecticut who were staying at my bed and breakfast because all their daughters attend camp nearby.

They're all voting for Barack. None have ever voted for a Democrat in a presidential election. But they can't stand John McCain and think Barack is the visionary leader our nation has long been starving for.

Did you notice?

Mccain's new ad uses footage of Barack Obama playing basketball with the troops, to argue that he has been ignoring them. I cannot imagine anything more disingenuous...or more stupid.

I have been posting sample scripts for a counterattack and I hope the Obama camp will seize on the basketball footage for their pushback.

This ad works with either Reed or Webb or any military person:

Hi, I'm Senator ____

You may have seen John Mccain's new ad that launches false attacks against Barack Obama for "ignoring our troops".  It's an ad so misleading that it actually includes footage of Barack Obama playing basketball with our troops on his recent trip to Kuwait, in order to make its point.

If John Mccain wants to use the troops as a political football that's his choice. But he was one of only __ Senators, who stood with George Bush in opposing our new GI Bill, a bill that was supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans alike, and meant to give our returning men and women all the benefits they deserve. John Mccain said it was "too generous".

Barack Obama stood with our troops. John Mccain stood with George Bush.

Inspired by McCain's new ad:

I guess John McCain would rather lose our respect than lose an election

It appears John McCain would rather lose his bearings than lose an election.

It appears John McCain would rather hurl specious, lie-filled attacks at Barack Obama than lose an election.

It appears John McCain would rather try to distract us from his lack of an economic plan, health care plan or responsible energy plan than lose an election.

It appears that John McCain would rather have his campaign taken over by Karl Rove than lose an election.

With the new ad out where McCain attacks Obama for not going to see wounded troops in Germany, I wonder if this whole thing was a big Rove-like set up.

Recall that the Obama folks were planning to go on the hospital visit but were told quite late in the week that they couldn't go with campaign staffers, only with congressional staffers.

But since the Obama folks learned of this so late, after the congressional staff had left, they went ahead and canceled the trip.  

So someone needs to ask
Who approved the visit without telling the Obama folks that they needed to have congressional staff along - and then who told them otherwise - and what links do they have to White House staff or the McCain camapaign?

In my day, wingnuts took some pride in their attacks.  The email character assassination campaign was a work of art.  Remember the one about how Oliver North used his Senate testimony to warn about al-quaeda and bin Laden?  The story went that one Senator arrogantly dismissed his warning.  If you got the email shortly after 9/11, the offender was Al Gore; in 2004, it magically changed to John Kerry.  

It didn't matter that the whole exchange never happened; the target audience wasn't going to comb through pages of testimony to check.  Besides, the email included a note from somebody you never heard of, who said, "I checked it out - it's true!"  Good enough.

Like most things, the decline of quality wingnuttery can be blamed on Vince Foster.

You simply cannot make this stuff up. The video speaks for itself.