More rampant speculation over at Politico about how McCain appears to be increasingly 'vetting' Lieberman as a breakout runningmate for the 2008 election.

That would be awesome - Elmer Fudd and Droopy Dog on one ticket, together at last!  

This is going to be a very short diary - because all that needs to be said is rather short.

To Everyone in America:

Both Barack Obama and John McCain promise to cut taxes.

John McCain plans to cut taxes on people earning over $250,000 a year.

Barack Obama plans to cut taxes for everyone else.

Where are you?  Do the super rich need a tax cut, or does everyone else?

You've been warned.  This is as ugly as, well, the McCain voters who were disguised as Hillary supporters in the primaries - but it's rather ugly - so brace yourself:

More below the fold...

The news business NEEDS a contest for president.  If it has to, it will CREATE a contest.

It isn't an issue of the mainstream news versus alternative news, or biased news versus unbiased news... it's an issue of people and money.  It's simple business, the business of eyeballs.

Oil Rig News Conference!

Yes.  The big plan is to take a heli ride over to an Oil Rig, and give a speech that you might hear a villain give on the old Captain Planet show.

Genius!

Recently, Colin Powell said he would be open to voting for Barack Obama

According to Wikipedia, the Powell Doctrine:

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States. They are:

  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

Step 1: Know McCain's stances, from a fact-based source:

Here's a nice site that indexes positions on the issues:

McCain's On The Issues page

Step 2:

Compare those positions against those of either Barack Obama:

Obama's On The Issues page

And/Or Hillary Clinton's positions:

Hillary's On The Issues page

Step 3:
Notice the changes between McCain's stances around the year 2000 and his new stances he's taken in more recent years.  Some of the changes can will be important to know.  Compare them against George W Bush's positions:

George W Bush's On The Issues page

I use the On The Issues pages just because it gives a nice broad view - any set of reliable news sites will do for more focused comparisons - but depending on your audience, you may have to be very selective and comprehensive in your sourcing.  

More below the fold...

I really hope we'll be hearing that from Hillary Clinton soon.  We'll be running out of time where that could possibly even matter before too long.  That same message with the names switched would unquestionably come from Barack Obama if he were in her position, but I'm unsure that Hillary is as big a person to speak them by July.

The video is Here

Found on:  Time's The Page

Quite a nice video - starts off seeming like it's an attack, but switches nicely to a positive ad, and then emphasizes that Obama does not take PAC money.  

I really, REALLY hope Barack takes this opportunity of singular media focus on him to make another 'More Perfect Union' speech.  

The media doesn't have anything else to pass around right now - so it's a near-perfect echo chamber with zero content.  It's just begging for actual content that Obama is so great at providing!

From Time's The Page:

MP3 link: Here

A very, very effective radio ad - really hammers home the facts about who accepts PAC money, to counter the 'outrage' amongst those who insist that all candidates act the same with regard to lobbyist money.

Transcript below the fold.

Video over at Time's "The Page" Here

Not only is Obama tough in his response to sly accusation that he's just another twisty politician pushing off Iraq for partisan reasons, but who will just do the same thing as everyone else in the end - Obama makes some excellent points in response.

Rough transcript of the video below the fold...

Yeah, Hillary... remember when you started this conversation?  It was rather nice - responding to the state of the union with a positive tone,  finding ways to help the people left behind by the Bush administration.

Now... not so much.  Rather than a positive conversation, you're going on Fox News to tear down your opponent, and your supporters are repeatedly quoting Carl Rove verbatim and in the exact context he intends, as an attempt to bolster your attacks.

Here'a an amazing article by Carl Bernstein (Of Watergate Fame) over at CNN:

Bernstein: Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences

From the article:

Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them.  The indisputable elements of  her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:  

"Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid.  It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. "

Wow - and that's really just the start of it.  That is a far-reaching set of assertions there, from someone who just wrote a definitive professional biography of the Senator.  

Here's Obama's latest TV spot in Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton is a wonderful person.  She'd make an excellent president.  It's just that her case for being cast into that position is highly reliant on a flawed argument.  That argument is that her role as First Lady of Arkansas and the US counts as the majority of her experience to be president.

That makes about as much sense as saying that being a pampered son of a former President counts as experience to be President of the United States.

'Wow - Obama gave a great speech', says the Hillary supporter, 'But, how, oh, how could Obama have allowed himself to have such an outrageous minister?!'

'I do fear that he is ruined forever - yes, forever stained by having known such a man, much less having stood by him for 20 years!'

That's right.  The new talking point is that Obama MUST be ruined, compared to Hillary for having a long-term friendship with a person who said crazy, crazy things.

That's rather rich.  

A pundit on CNN actually had a valid point recently.  

The show: Tonight on AC 360, 10 last night, at the end of the show.
The pundit: David Gergen
The point: What made today's speech special, was that Barack Obama treated his audience AS ADULTS.

This was an important point I haven't heard of before - or even seen before.  It's that thing that always annoyed me about Hillary Clinton, and John McCain - they really, truly did not speak to their audience as adults - but as customers they were selling a product to.

No more intentional silence, or similar drama - let's meet with our net-neighbors and counter some of the meaningless hatred that exists out there.  

Sure, it's hostile territory - but if a lot more people put together just a little bit of tact and friendliness, the meaningless hostility itself can become a common enemy once again.  

Isn't that the real meaning behind the idea of 'love thy enemy'? (Matthew 5:43-44)