With most of the traditional media helpfully ignoring John McCain's confusion over Shiites, Sunnis and their respective relationship with Iran, we'll have to settle for a little humorous attention:

In a major speech on the war in Iraq today, presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain said that the Iraqis have split into two factions, Shiites and Sunnis, with a sinister goal in mind.

"My friends, the Iraqis have divided themselves into these two groups for one reason and one reason only," McCain told an audience in a retirement village in Scottsdale, Ariz. "They are trying to confuse me."

McCain said that while the two groups of Iraqis are "well-nigh impossible" to tell apart, he vowed to commit American troops to Iraq "for as long as it takes for me to figure out just what the difference between Sunnis and Shiites is."

"If it takes 100 years, 1,000 years, or a billion zillion years, we will stay there until I can tell Sunnis and Shiites apart," the Arizona senator said.

Of course it is said that all humor is based on the truth...

John McCain once said:

The fact is if you want to drain the swamp, take the money away from the bigtime ... lobbyists, they lose their power and influence.

But that was then and this is now, because John McCain has named Doug Goodyear, the CEO of a consulting firm that "earned $3 million last year lobbying for ExxonMobil, General Motors and other clients" to manage this summer's GOP convention.  It gets better:

Potentially more problematic: the firm was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma's military junta, which had been strongly condemned by the State Department for its human-rights record and remains in power today. Justice Department lobbying records show DCI pushed to "begin a dialogue of political reconciliation" with the regime. It also led a PR campaign to burnish the junta's image, drafting releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing "falsehoods" by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses.

Comedy.  The man who will run the convention to name John McCain as the Republican nominee to carry out George Bush's third term, is a lobbyist who once defended an oppressive military regime by calling George Bush a liar.

It's at times like this that you realize how difficult it is to be a straight talking maverick.

Update:  And now, Goodyear has resigned:

The public relations executive that Senator John McCain’s campaign tapped to run the Republican National Convention this summer resigned his post Saturday after a magazine reported that his firm had lobbied for the military junta that runs Myanmar. [...]

A McCain campaign official said that the campaign appreciated Mr. Goodyear’s timely resignation, and his work for the convention. The official said that there was no word yet on a successor.

"It’s obviously unfortunate,’’ the official said, "but we’ve just got to move on."

Maybe Jack Abramoff will get out of prison in time to take over...

[h/t to fhamme]

It's time to draw a line in the sand.  There are forty-seven members of the Blue Dog Democrats, and we need to know which ones support the U.S. troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and which ones agree with Rep. John Tanner that they are nothing more than deficit-enhancing debris. This is what Mr. Tanner had to say when announcing the plan by a segment of the Blue Dogs to block a vote on the GI Bill of Rights:

Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it’s butchers, bakers or candlestick-makers.

A group that has voted time after time to support George Bush's war, at a cost of over $500 billion dollars, now dismisses the men and women who risked their lives as candlestick-makers who don't deserve money to go to college?  The Blue Dog's reason?  Because their budgetary rule of pay-as-you-go has "been ignored one too many times."  Yes, these champions of fiscal responsibility are fine with George Bush's twice-a-year $100 billion "supplementals," they are fine with billions going to Halliburton and Blackwater, but when it comes to providing a benefit to the people who fought in the war that the Blue Dogs supported, well, to hell with the troops.  

The Blue Dogs only need 15 votes to block a vote on this measure which scheduled to come up next week, and when asked if they had enough members opposing the bill, Blue Dog leader Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) said:

"There’s 47 of us, what do you think?"

I think that out of the 292 co-sponsors of the bill , 36 are Blue Dog Democrats, which means one of two things:  either Tanner and Boyd plan to join forces with Republicans to kill this bill, or there are at least 4 Blue Dogs who don't have the courage to stand by their convictions and do the right thing.  
It's time to find out where the Blue Dogs stand.  Do they stand with the troops or do they stand with George Bush, John McCain and the Blue Dogs who dismiss the troops as "candlestick-makers" who don't deserve benefits when they return from war?   Call and ask if they intend to help block H.R. 5740.

Mike Arcuri:  (202) 225-3665
Joe Baca:  (202) 225-6161
John Barrow:  (202) 225-2823
Melissa Bean:  (202) 225-3711
Marion Berry: (202) 225-4076
Sanford Bishop:  (202) 225-3631
Dan Boren:  (202) 225-2701
Leonard Boswell:  (202) 225-3806
Allen Boyd:  (202) 225-5235
Dennis Cardoza:  (202) 225-6131
Christopher Carney:  (202) 225-3731
Ben Chandler:  (202) 225-4706
Jim Cooper:  (202) 225-4311
Jim Costa:  (202) 225-3341
Bud Cramer:  (202) 225-4801
Lincoln Davis:  (202) 225-6831
Joe Donnelly:  (202) 225-3915
Brad Ellsworth:  (202) 225-4636
Gabrille Giffords:  (202) 225-2542
Kirsten Gillibrand:  (202) 225-5614
Bart Gordon:  (202) 225-4231
Jane Harman:  (202) 225 8220
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:  (202) 225-2801
Baron Hill:  (202) 225-5315
Tim Holden:  (202) 225-5546
Steve Israel:  (202) 225-4669
Nick Lampson:  (202) 225-5951
Tim Mahoney:  (202) 225-5792
Jim Marshal:  (202) 225-6531
Jim Matheson:  (202) 225-3011
Mike McIntyre:  (202) 225-2731
Charlie Melancon:  (202) 225-4031
Michael Michaud:  (202) 225-6306
Dennis Moore:  (202) 225-2865
Patrick Murphy:  (202) 225-4276
Collin Peterson:  (202) 225-2165
Earl Pomeroy:  (202) 225-2611
Mike Ross:   1-800-223-2220
John Salazar:   (202) 225-4761
Loretta Sanchez:  (202) 225-2965
Adam Schiff:  (202) 225-4176
David Scott:  (202) 225-2939
Heath Shuler:  (202) 225-6401
Zack Space:  (202) 225-6265
John Tanner:  (202) 225-4714
Gene Taylor: (202) 225-5772
Mike Thompson:  (202) 225-3311
Charlie Wilson:  (202) 225-5705

And yet another nail in the coffin of Hillary Clinton's failed bid for the Democratic nomination:

Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months...

However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  [...]

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama.

[h/t to spiderstumbled22]

Today the New York Times weighs in on Hillary Clinton continuing her campaign, saying that while she has the right to to do so:

...we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel — neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas.  [...]

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that "Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She added: "There’s a pattern emerging here."

Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.

Meanwhile, Obama has picked up three more superdelegates and the endorsement of the American Federation of Government Employees union.

Time has come up with a list of the top five strategic mistakes Hillary Clinton made during her unsuccessful bid for the White House, and while in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter why she went from inevitable to also-ran, there is one point in the article that deserves some attention:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all.

It should be noted that Penn denies the story, so we'll just have to take him at his word that he isn't that stupid.  But if it's true it does raise the question, was this the stupidest thing said or done by a Clinton surrogate over the course of her campaign?   Because Penn had some stiff competition.  Who could forget:

• Geraldine Ferraro's claim that Obama has an unfair advantage because he was black.
• Bob Kerrey's happiness that Barack Hussein Obama attended a madrassa and had all that experience with Muslims.
• Billy Shaheen's concern over Obama's use of drugs and possible questions on whether he was ever a drug dealer.
• Andrew Cuoma saying that "You can't shuck and jive," in reference to Obama.
• And of course the First Surrogate, Bill Clinton, comparing Obama's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's wins in the 1980's, and then being shocked at the suggestion that he was trying to paint Obama as "the black candidate."

Let's throw Mark Penn a lifeline here and prove that he wasn't the worst of the Clinton surrogates. Share your favorite (for lack of a better word) "worst surrogate moment," of the campaign.    

For those hoping that Hillary would graciously accept the reality that she isn't going to win the nomination...don't. During a conference call this morning, the Clinton campaign said that they will continue to fight for the nomination because, well, because. The (long) hour boiled down to, she has the best chance to beat McCain, she wins all the really important states, and darn it, white people really like her.

There were two rather comical moments to break up the monotony of listening to talking points being regurgitated for the umpteenth time. The first was when Howard Wolfson said, when talking about Florida and Michigan:

This is a country of 50 states.

Coming from the campaign that has spent the last three months dismissing as irrelevant any state that Clinton lost, this was laughable. But when Wolfson was asked about overnight fundraising numbers and said that he "hadn't had a chance to look," well, besides being laughable, I think it's safe to say that that was a boldfaced lie.

So it's on to West Virginia.

Former Senator George McGovern, who endorsed Hillary Clinton last October, has read the writing on the wall, and today:

...urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama.

After watching the returns from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries Tuesday night, McGovern says it's virtually impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.

Who's next?  

John McCain:

Senator Obama obviously has no national security experience, and therefore that's reflected in his judgment on a number of those issues.

And now, a look at McCain's judgement:

Dick Cheney:

And when the history is written, it'll be said that we lived in a safer country, and a more hopeful world, because George Bush was President of these United States.

When you are done laughing, please mock at your leisure...

Al Franken once said that the easiest job in the world was being a fact-checker for Rush Limbaugh, and today we learn that the second easiest job is being a media critic for the Washington Post.  Here's Howard Kurtz on:

Why the Press Turned on Obama

And for an explanation, Kurtz goes to another media critic:

There was so much talk about him getting such an easy ride that some journalists got tired of it.

You may be asking yourself when those journalists are going to get tired of all the talk about the easy ride they're giving McCain.  Apparently not until "Saturday Night Live" does a skit.  

...journalists were stung by a pair of "Saturday Night Live" skits that portrayed them as in the tank for Obama.

And if that challenge to their journalistic integrity wasn't enough, Obama wanting to eat his breakfast without interruption helped create:

... the growing media perception of Obama as aloof.

So there you have it.  A comedy show and a waffle was all it took to energize the media into bringing Obama "back to earth."   If only "Saturday Night Live" would do a skit about the media's lack of coverage of John McCain...heck, the actors wouldn't even have to act.  

With only six months until the presidential election, what could be more informative than a report on the campaign styles of John McCain verus Barack Obama? Why talk about issues when, "mannerisms on the trail can provide insights into how one could behave in office"? Spontaneous and accessible or disciplined and remote, witty and quick or a gifted orator...inquiring minds want to know. But instead of dissecting this drivel du jour, let's focus on a bit of unintended comedy from this Associated Press article by Liz Sidoti:

After events, McCain almost always takes media questions. Then, it's back to his bus, where McCain parks himself in a leather captain's chair with a scrum of reporters squeezed in around him, balancing their tape recorders on his knees. He'll spend hours talking with them about anything, sometimes leaving reporters with little else to ask and the candidate pushing: "What else? What else?"

Well, sure. We've all seen how merciless the media scrutiny of McCain has been. Few candidates could have withstood the beating he took over the question of whether he's a straight talker or the straightest talker.

But the next time Ms. Sidoti and the rest of McCain's adoring scrum run out questions about how much of a maverick he really is, perhaps they could ask him about how many years he is willing to let U.S. soldiers die in Iraq, whether he is so gung-ho for war with Iran that he's willing to lie or if he really just doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, how he can be the anti-lobbyist candidate while lobbyists run his campaign, which views he shares with John Hagee and Rod Parsley, when his wife is going to release her tax returns, which big contributor besides Donald Diamond has he done favors for, how long will he continue to break finance election laws...or they could just head back to his "cabin" for another barbeque.

We often hear about news outlets slashing their budgets and downsizing their operations in an effort to save money, but there's one thing that the traditional media really needs to invest in and that's a dictionary, because it doesn't seem like they know what the word "clarify" means.

Twice in the past two days, the media has reported on outrageous or downright disturbing claims made by John McCain on the campaign trail to whip up the faithful, and then have described his backpedaling as "clarifications," rather than the flip-flopping, damage control that they are.  On Wednesday, McCain said:

The bridge in Minneapolis didn't collapse because there wasn't enough money. The bridge in Minneapolis collapsed because so much money was spent on wasteful, unnecessary pork-barrel projects.

That's pretty clear, right?  A definitive statement that the bridge collapsed because of pork barrel spending.  But after the national co-chairman of his campaign, who also happens to be the Governor of Minnesota, objected, McCain was allowed to clarify and say what he really meant was:

...only that earmarks divert money from necessary projects toward unneeded pork-barrel ones.

Obviously we all misunderstood when he said "the bridge collapsed because..."   And then yesterday McCain said:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

My friends, that's a straightforward statement.  But damn, it does sound bad.  So the media allowed him to clarify it:

No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons.

Oh, he meant that other war...the one we fought 17 years ago.  Well, sure.  It's a shame that "the word 'again' was misconstrued."  Because he certainly never meant that it's happening today...or that it's ever happened before.  

"Again" doesn't mean again, "the bridge collapsed because," doesn't mean the bridge collapsed because, black is white, up is down, move along, there's nothing to see here...and the straight talking, moderate, maverick express rolls on.  

And of course there are other issues that have popped up during this campaign that McCain hasn't had to clarify, but that's only because the media chooses to ignore them.  But if they ever finish writing that novel and get back to doing their day jobs, perhaps they could get McCain to explain:

• What he meant when he said, on three occasions, that Iran was training Sunni extremists to fight in Iraq?  Since he is the self and media appointed foreign policy candidate, it would be nice to know if he's aware of the difference between Sunnis, Shiites, and their respective relationship with Iran.
• Which of Reverend John Hagee's positions does he endorse?  That the Catholic Church is a cult that conspired with Hitler, that Hurricane Katrina was a just punishment for the people of New Orleans, that America is cursed and doomed, or that abortions are available in public schools?
• Why he is now saying that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was a mistake when in 2003 he cited it as proof that the conflict was over?

And if that's too much hard work for the media, can they at least ask McCain to clarify exactly how many years he is willing to have American soldiers attacked, wounded or killed in Iraq?  So far we only know for sure that it's less than a 100 years.
   

Once again the Associated Press is helping with John McCain's efforts to lessen the impact of his saying he's fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years.  The lede in today's article

Republican John McCain defended himself Friday against television ads that accuse him of advocating a 100-year war in Iraq.

The ad accuses him of nothing.  It simply uses his own words against a backdrop of the cost of this war.  

Instead of taking stenography from the McCain campaign, the Associated Press should try watching the ad.

Today we officially enter the sixth year of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.  And during yesterday's White House press briefing, when asked if Bush would commemorate the day in any way, Dana Perino said:

Yes, I get -- no, I understand. That's the anniversary of when that banner flew on that ship. President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said "mission accomplished for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission."

The anniversary of when that banner flew on that ship?  Some might describe it as the day that George Bush made a dramatic jet landing on the deck of a ship that was within spitting distance of land, using its sailors for an equally dramatic photo-op, so he could announce to the world that:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

...but sure, let's go with it being the anniversary of the day they needed a bigger banner.  Otherwise people might remember the price in blood and treasure that we've paid in the five years since we "prevailed."  And don't forget, it's not just the men and women killed, the tens of thousands of the wounded, and the untold hundreds of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis who have suffered.  As Dana Perino reminds us:

And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner.

On that day, 128 U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, and today, five years and 3,935 additional deaths later, the toll stands at 4,063.  So let's take a moment to remember the price the White House has paid for not being specific on that banner.

With April joining a long line of "deadliest months" for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and on the day before the five year anniversary of Mission Acommplished, one would think that Iraq would be front and center in presidential politics.  One would be wrong.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former first lady who hasn't driven a car or pumped gas in many years because of Secret Service restrictions, joined a blue-collar worker at a filling station Wednesday to illustrate how the high price of gasoline is squeezing consumers.

It should be noted that this photo op to show concern for the little people's pain included "a Secret Service motorcade consisting of six gas-guzzling Suburbans, two squad cars and a green SUV."

And Barack Obama:

...took his campaign today to a slightly different setting -- a lunch and a discussion with working families at a park in Indianapolis.

Credit where credit is due:  they weren't saying they were fine with staying in Iraq for 100 years or singing about bombing Iran, but neither were they putting any focus on wanting to get us out of Iraq. Considering that this war is costing us lives every day and billions of dollars every week, it's not an issue that should be relegated to a throwaway line in the daily stump speech, tucked between pseudo fixes for the energy crisis or sandwiches in the park.  

And in case you missed it, four more U.S. soldiers were killed today in Iraq.

There has to be a joke about trial lawyers in here somewhere:

A Greek court has been asked to draw the line between the natives of the Aegean Sea island of Lesbos and the world's gay women.  [...]

Three islanders from Lesbos — home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women — have taken a gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

This is an open thread for Lesbians, Lesbians and everybody else...

Well, finally.  During today's White House press briefing, Dana Perino was asked, for the first time since the New York Times broke the story more than a week ago, about the administration's propaganda program aimed at the American people for the past five years.  It should be noted that the question was asked only because Helen Thomas Len Kinsolving forced Perino's hand:

Q How about this gentleman's question, Dana? How about him? He's had his hand up all this time.

MS. PERINO: Yes, I'm well aware. I am sure it will be a great question. Go ahead.

Q The New York Times has reported that over the last --

MS. PERINO: Definitely going to be a good question. (Laughter.)

Q -- over the last six years the Pentagon conducted a secret operation designed to sell the war in Iraq and the war on terror to the American people. It recruited more than 75 ex-military officers, many with financial ties to the defense industry, provided them with talking points and an extraordinary degree of access not available to ordinary members of the press, including meetings with the Secretary of Defense, and it got them higher supposedly independent military analysts by every U.S. television network. One of its participants described it --

MS. PERINO: Do you have a question?

Q One of its participants described the program as "psyops on steroids" and others said that if they --

MS. PERINO: Is this your opinion?

Q I'm describing the program.

MS. PERINO: What's your question?

Q Others said that if they departed from the Pentagon's talking points, their access was cut off. And my question is, did the White House know about and approve of this operation?

MS. PERINO: Look, I didn't know -- look, I think that you guys should take a step back and look at this -- look, DOD has made a decision, they've decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the things that we try to do in the administration is get information out to a variety of people so that everybody else can call them and ask their opinion about something.

And I don't think that that should be against the law. And I think that it's absolutely appropriate to provide information to people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of those military analysts ever agreed with the administration. I think you can go back and look and think that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk to people.

Interesting answer, isn't it?  She didn't even bother with the non-denial, denial, regarding the White House's knowledge of the program.  After more than a week of the media silence, apparently she wasn't expecting anyone to rock the you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours boat that is the White House press corps.  And she doesn't think it should be against the law?  Huh?  Is she admitting that the program was illegal?  

If only there were people whose job it was to investigate government operations like this...we could call them journalists.

Update:  It wasn't Helen Thomas who prompted the question, it was Les Kinsolving of WND and the person asking the question was Eric Brewer of Raw Story.  Kudos to Eric.