John McCain is a diplomatic disaster just begging to happen. A more generous observer than I might excuse his frequent factual gaffes - repeated references to countries and borders that don't exist, forgetting that Sunni al-Qaeda and Shiite Iran are sworn enemies, putting events such as Iraq's "Anbar Awakening" and the US military "surge" in the wrong chronological order - as the normal mental slippage anyone might experience while they near their twilight years. What cannot be so easily overlooked are those comments and actions of McCain's which suggest that he really is a rather angry and hateful old man, not to mention something of a loose cannon on the deck.

Take for example his efforts at humor involving the fantasized slaughter of Iranian civilians: His singing of "bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" back during the primaries and his more recent suggestion that exporting cigarettes to the Iranians might be a good way of killing them, neither of which should be coming out of the mouth of a prospective president. Following the "bomb, bomb Iran" incident McCain's lack of tact was made even more painfully obvious when he callously refused to admit any error in offending the Iranian people by suggesting that they would be better off dead. Whatever we might think of Iran's rulers, the Iranian people are not our enemies, and making jokes about killing them with bombs and cigarettes is no way to win "hearts and minds" in the Middle East or anywhere else.

McCain's remarks about killing Iranians echo previous comments made by him regarding the people of Vietnam. "I hate the gooks," McCain told reporters during his 2000 primary campaign, "I will hate them as long as I live." However rooted these comments may be in McCain's own war experiences, and however excusable they may be for any private citizen likewise scarred by war, they simply cannot be overlooked in a prospective president: the stakes are too high, the need too critical for a competent Diplomat-in-Chief in the Oval Office. Taken in the context of his later remarks about killing Iranians, they would also seem to suggest a fairly callous and cold-blooded attitude on McCain's part toward peoples he regards as enemies. Made once - and on the basis of such deep-seated hostility as that McCain appears to harbor toward certain peoples of the earth - such remarks may all too easily be made again, and again, and again.

Then we have the matter of McCain's infamous temper, such as when he reacted to disagreement on immigration reform from fellow Republican senator John Cornyn of Texas by screaming, "F*ck you!"; such as when he called fellow Republican senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico an "a**hole"; and such as when he called fellow Republican senator Charles Grassley of Iowa a "f*cking jerk." Keep in mind that these incidents occured, not in private or among political enemies, but on the floor of the United States Senate among fellow Republicans; and could therefore just as easily happen, say, at a G-8 Summit or a gathering of NATO leaders. How would it look on the world stage for a red-faced, whited-haired John McCain first to get all the countries wrong, then to make jokes about bombing one of them, then finally to blow his stack and call one of their presidents a "f*cking jerk"?

Indeed McCain's outbursts and insults have already, on occasion, occured before the eyes not only of America but of the world. His hatred of "gooks" and his desire to kill Iranians have both been widely noted in the world press, and would likely precede him on any presidential tour of Asia or the Middle East. While our French allies were fighting alongside US troops in Afghanistan, McCain had the following to say: "You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it" - not only insulting, but irrelevant, and quite possibly a reason for pro-American French president Nicholas Sarkozy's enthusiastic endorsement of Barack Obama. Once in a 1987 meeting at the height of Central American tensions, according to fellow Republican senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, McCain reached across the table and physically assaulted a Nicaraguan representative, seizing him by his shirt collar. "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine...," Cochran later said when endorsing Mitt Romney for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, "...He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

If McCain worries even his fellow Republicans, then how worried should the rest of us be? 

There was a time when I honestly believed that John McCain might actually hold true to his promise to wage a clean and respectable campaign against Barack Obama for the high office of President of the United States. There was a time when I bore McCain no personal enmity despite my political allegiance to his opponent. Perhaps this is only because I didn't know as much about McCain as I know now; perhaps I had been told about McCain's "maverick" status so many times by the media that I actually believed it; perhaps I hoped that McCain's experience with Bush-Rove tactics in 2000 would prevent him on moral grounds from employing the same tactics in 2008. Whatever the case, that time has now passed.

John McCain is attempting to win the White House by dragging the 2008 presidential election into the same pit of Rovian filth that won for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. McCain is running a campaign based, not on issues and ideas, but on cheap shots and negative personal innuendo. Clearly unable to compete intellectually with Obama, McCain has deliberately sought to lower the level of discourse in this contest to that of the locker room and the back-alley brawl. While Obama strives to maintain the high ground, McCain wallows in sewage and asks the rest of us to join him. If this general election contest has taken a hard negative turn of late, it is entirely McCain's doing. It didn't have to be this way.

John McCain deserves no mercy from Democrats. He deserves no respect, no personal or professional consideration, no hero treatment. He deserves to be hit hard, again and again and again, until there's nothing left of his campaign but a bloodied corpse. He deserves to have every personal failing drawn out for all to see, every bit of dirty laundry from the McCain past taken out and waved before the cameras, every skeleton exumed. He deserves to be pummeled by Obama in the upcoming presidential debates until he is reduced to a helpless, quivering blob of hairy cottage cheese. He deserves to have his infamous temper provoked, and to be baited into making a public ass of himself just as he has done so many times before. He deserves all this, and more - much, much more. If in the end his Senate career is destroyed along with his presidential bid, so much the better.

When John McCain tells Americans that he has always been a passionate supporter of civil rights, Americans need to be reminded that McCain voted against the federal Martin Luther King (MLK) holiday in 1983, that he supported a Republican governor who rescinded Arizona's state MLK holiday in 1987, that he voted to eliminate federal funding for the MLK Federal Holiday Commission in 1994, and that he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1990 no less than four times. Only days ago, however, McCain claimed to "have  supported hundreds of pieces of legislation which would help Americans obtain an equal opportunity" and to have been instrumental in "fighting for the recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday in my state." John McCain is a liar.

When John McCain tries to convince Americans that he has always been right on the war in Iraq, Americans need to be reminded that back in 2003 McCain told us victory would be achieved easily and quickly, and that US troops would be greeted in Iraq as liberators. When John McCain tells Americans that he is a reformer, Americans need to be reminded of his role in the "Keating Five" scandal, of his more recent improprieties as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee with corporate telecom lobbyists, and indeed of the fact that his campaign is entirely run by lobbyists. When John McCain talks about "family values," Americans need to be reminded how he flip-flopped on Jerry Falwell, calling the late religious bigot an "agent of intolerance" one day and then kissing Falwell's fat, hairy behind the next. When John McCain talks about the "sanctity of marriage," Americans need to be reminded how McCain shamelessly dumped his own first wife, following her crippling injury in a car crash, in favor of the younger, prettier, and much richer woman who bankrolled his entry into politics and to whom he is married today. John McCain is a hypocrite.

While I am pleased that the Obama campaign has begun to hit back against the McCain attack machine, I also understand Obama's need to hold the high ground and not allow himself to be dragged into the same cesspool McCain occupies. This, alas, is the difficult balance Obama must maintain if he is to win. Thankfully, the rest of us have no such tightrope to walk, and no such need to go easy on one bitter old gas-bag who needs to be put out of his misery and ours. For Democratic leaders in Washington, for local Democratic activists, and for Democratic bloggers, the time has come to start taking John McCain apart.

For weeks now John McCain and his campaign have been grumbling that the media pay far too much attention to globetrotting elitist Barack Obama and far too little attention to hometown hero McCain. With McCain's apparent shift now to a campaign strategy based on nothing but negativity, it would seem that the Unhappy Warrior is finally getting the attention he deserves.

McCain's latest series of petty attack ads and whining complaints against Obama have drawn jeers and expressions of disappointment even from McCain's supporters. Most embarrassing to Republicans was the McCain ad comparing "celebrity" Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, described by former McCain strategist John Weaver earlier this week as "childish." Time columnist and former McCain admirer Joe Klein likewise expressed disappointment at McCain's negative new line of attack: "A few months ago, I wrote that John McCain was an honorable man and he would run an honorable campaign...," Klein wrote Thursday, "...I was wrong." The same day, ABC News suggested that in going so overwhelmingly negative McCain risks caricaturing himself as an "angry, bitter old man." Meanwhile, the New York Times charged that McCain has now dropped any "straight talk" he may once have offered voters in favor of a ride on the "Low-Road Express":

"In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to "lose" in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers).... Many voters are wondering whether a McCain presidency would be an extension of Mr. Bush’s two disastrous terms. If the way Mr. McCain is running his campaign these days is an indication, Americans don't have to wait until next January for the answer to that one."

Quickly following McCain's "celebrity" ad came the charge that Obama was playing the race card against McCain, apparently based on the fact that Obama occasionally mentions the challenges of being the first African American with a real shot at winning the presidency - a charge from the McCain camp that Eugene Robinson describes in today's Washington Post as nothing more than a piece of "snarling, mean-spirited nonsense":

"Of course the McCain campaign isn't really offended that the first black major-party candidate for president in American history might mention this distinction from time to time. The idea is to slow Obama down before he runs away with this thing, and the weapon of choice is handfuls of mud.... Remember St. John the Reformer, who promised a high-minded campaign and said he wouldn't question his opponent's patriotism? Clearly, he's been replaced by an evil twin. The switch seems to have taken place during his opponent's world tour, when Obama's prescriptions for Iraq and Afghanistan began to look prescient -- and McCain's began to look irrelevant."

Here, McCain seems to have completely forgotten his own previous opportunistic praise for Hillary Clinton's run as America's first potential female major-party presidential candidate - an attempt to pick off Clinton supporters at Obama's expense that by McCain's new standards would make him just as guilty of playing the gender card as he now says Obama is of playing the race card (one might also recall those numerous recent instances in which McCain has played the age card, the I'm-more-American-than-you card, and the tortured POW card). Also in today's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne berates McCain for running precisely the same type of campaign George W. Bush and Karl Rove ran against McCain himself in the 2000 Republican primaries:

"...It's hard to imagine the American electorate buying McCain's new advertising effort to undermine Obama by accusing him of being a "celebrity" and comparing him -- OMG! -- to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain has made matters worse by falsely accusing Obama of wanting to raise taxes on electricity and by offering a phony account of why Obama decided not to visit wounded American soldiers in Europe.... By running an attack campaign that is almost a parody of George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 exertions, McCain is chucking away his greatest opportunity, which is to show that he could reform Republicanism and offer voters an alternative way of breaking with a past they have come to loathe.... Voters are in a mood to give the status quo a swift kick. Instead of offering puerile ads trashing Obama, McCain should show how he'd be the change we've been waiting for."

Be careful what you wish for, John: You just might get it, and you just might deserve it.

In a small but portentious victory for progressive online activists, FoxNews host E.D. Hill was forced to apologize today for her suggestion Friday (June 6) that Barack and Michelle Obama's now-famous knuckle bump might be some sort of "terrorist fist jab." After the remark was reported the same day by progressive media watchdog group Media Matters, which also encouraged readers to sign an online petition and e-mail Fox in protest, the story spread quickly through the blogosphere, finally catching the attention of the mainstream media. Today, Fox bowed to the pressure and Hill was forced to issue a half-hearted apology. Today also, Fox announced that Hill's show, America's Pulse, would be cancelled, though it is unclear whether this additional development is connected to her "terrorist fist jab" remark (I like to think it is). In any case, the fact that Fox and Hill were forced to issue an embarrassing apology, in addition to the possibility that her remark may even have resulted in the loss of her show, is a great statement on the power of progressive online media activists, bloggers, and YouTubers. While Hill's is a minor case, don't forget that former Republican senator George "Macaca" Allen of Virginia was brought down in 2006 by one guy with a video camera and an internet connection. Today Allen's seat is held by a Democrat. This election year, online activists will again play a crucial role in fighting the Republican slime machine, including its paid shills at Fox.

The general election campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain has now officially begun, and as McCain stumbles out of the starting gate, early momentum strongly appears to be with Obama. On the Republican side, worries abound as to whether McCain himself is up to the challenge he faces, as neoconservative columnist William Kristol observes in today's New York Times. "With the battle against Hillary Clinton behind him, everything seems to be going swimmingly for Obama...," Kristol unhappily writes, "...Meanwhile, the McCain campaign dog-paddles along."

Kristol was especially irked by McCain's poor performance in a speech timed to coincide with Obama's nomination victory last Tuesday. McCain's speech was widely panned by conservatives and liberals alike, who found fault with far more than the harsh, lime-green background which, as liberal blogger Atrios observes, made McCain "look like the cottage cheese in a lime Jell-O salad." (see video). Conservative commentator Fred Barnes of FoxNews said that McCain's speech was "painful" to listen to, while on CNN Republican media consultant Alex Castellanos remarked: "Last I checked this was not a speech-making contest.... Thank God." CNN's Jeff Toobin said more bluntly of McCain's speech: "That was awful.... That was pathetic." Politico's Jonathan Martin asks, "Is there a way John McCain can win the presidency without giving another speech?" Probably not.

McCain's problems, however, don't end with his lack of speechmaking prowess, as Pulitzer-winning political journalist Thomas B. Edsall observes at the Huffington Post. Here, Edsall quotes congressional scholar Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution on McCain's political problems including the lack of a clear rationale for his campaign:

"McCain continues to embrace Bush policies on the most important issues, relying on a reputation for independence and moderation that could be lost in the heat of battle with Obama and the Democrats.... At the end of this long interlude, the only rationale for his election that has emerged is that Obama cannot be trusted to lead the country at a time of great danger because he is too inexperienced, naïve, liberal, elitist, and out of touch with American values. 'Elect me because the other guy is worse.' Not much of an argument in the face of gale-force winds blowing against the Republican Party."

While McCain has serious problems even with the base of his own party, his campaign also trails Obama's in enthusiasm and the ability to attract new voters, as conservative commentator Bay Buchanan writes in Human Events:

"...In reality there is only one candidate. Barack Obama. In November he will win or he will lose.... John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps.  And while his strong suite is experience, especially on military matters, it was gained almost entirely in Washington, a city that 80% of Americans now believe has miserably misled and mismanaged the nation."

While current poll numbers show a narrow lead for Obama over McCain nationally, MSNBC's First Read notes today that both campaigns expect a 10- to 15-point "bounce" in poll numbers for Obama over the next few weeks while he is covered as the new presumptive Democratic nominee by the media and his bruising nomination battle with Hillary Clinton fades in the rear-view mirror. The Republicans won't go down without a hard, dirty fight, however, and despite his considerable advantages Obama can also expect a rocky road ahead.

As Media Matters reports, FoxNews host E.D. Hill teased an upcoming discussion of political body language on the June 6 edition of her show, America's Pulse, by offering the following on Barack and Michelle Obama's now-famous knuckle bump: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently." In the ensuing discussion with Janine Driver, introduced by Hill as a body language expert, Hill again referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," adding that "people call it all sorts of things" (though I know of no one else who has called it a "terrorist fist jab"). Further revealing her vast ignorance, Hill went on to ask Driver: "Is that sort of a signal that young people get?" At no point during the discussion did Hill explain her earlier reference to a "terrorist fist jab" (see video). Given the complete lack of any basis whatsoever on which to make such a suggestion, it could only have been a clumsy attempt to plant suspicion of Obama in the minds of her viewers. Meanwhile, as Media Matters further reports, Fox host John Gibson insulted a black caller on his June 6 radio show as follows: "You don't know what Barack Obama stands for. You just like him because he's... like you and you want to see one of you up there, and you don't care what he stands for" (hear audio). As Media Matters observes, this is not the first time Gibson has insulted a black caller on the subject of Barack Obama. On April 9, Gibson told a caller: "You're sticking with Obama, because he's... a brother.... He is lying to your face but he knows you are so... you so identify with him on the basis of race, you will not even see the lies." These are desperate tactics, loser's tactics, but I suspect we'll see a lot more of the same between now and November 4.

Hillary Clinton gave a gracious concession speech and energetic declaration of support for Barack Obama today, an important first step in unifying the Democratic Party for the general election campaign following a long and contentious nomination battle. Despite my own, often sharp criticism of Clinton throughout the nomination contest, her speech today confirmed for me her strengths now as a prospective vice-presidential running mate for Obama; and should our nominee choose Mrs. Clinton as his running mate, he would have my full support in doing so. A formidable opponent in the nomination fight, Mrs. Clinton will be an invaluable ally in the fight for the White House. The next concession speech you hear, sometime the evening of November 4, 2008, will be John McCain's.

If the first days of the 2008 general election contest are any indicator of what lies ahead, I would be tempted to think that Obama might as well go ahead, as they say, and start measuring drapes for the Oval Office. McCain has gotten off to a stumbling, bumbling start that must have more than a few Republicans more than a little bit worried about how their man will hold up against a Democratic rival who is clearly and vastly McCain's rhetorical and oratorical superior. I expect Obama will mop the floor with McCain in every presidential debate, not to mention far outshining him in speeches as he did this week. Streaking out of the starting gate Tuesday night as polls closed in South Dakota and Montana, Obama celebrated victory with a rousing, inspirational speech that more than befit the historic occasion of his night as America's first African American presidential nominee. McCain, meanwhile, gave an ungracious, pandering, and downright ugly speech in which he refused either to congratulate Obama himself or to recognize the significance of his victory for African Americans, choosing instead to begrudge Obama his "eloquence" and pander to angry Clinton supporters by suggesting that Obama owed his victory to "pundits and party elders." McCain's speech was widely panned by conservatives and liberals alike, who found fault with far more than the harsh, lime-green background against which we were treated to McCain's pasty visage and smarmy grin as pictured here (see video). Conservative commentator Fred Barnes of FoxNews said that McCain's speech was "painful" to listen to, while on CNN Republican media consultant Alex Castellanos remarked: "Last I checked this was not a speech-making contest.... Thank God." CNN's Jeff Toobin said more bluntly of McCain's speech: "That was awful.... That was pathetic." Politico's Jonathan Martin asks, "Is there a way John McCain can win the presidency without giving another speech?" Probably not.

Beyond mere speechifying ability, Obama's real policy differences with McCain could not be more obvious. While Obama promises to end the war in Iraq and bring US troops home as quickly as possible, McCain promises only more war in Iraq and perhaps beyond. While Obama promises fiscal policies aimed at improving the lives of working Americans, McCain promises to continue Bush policies favoring the rich. While Obama would appoint progressive Supreme Court justices to replace those certain to retire within the next president's term, McCain would appoint staunch conservatives, making it particularly clear that he would support overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision affirming a woman's right to choose whether to give birth. As McCain's lobbyist problem continues to haunt him, Obama has set a new course for the Democratic Party he now leads by declaring for the first time that, like his primary campaign, his Democratic National Committee will no longer accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists. The differences couldn't be clearer.

The next concession speech you hear will be John McCain's.

The first days of the 2008 general election campaign following Barack Obama's nomination victory this week appear thus far to strongly favor the young senator from Illinois. Streaking out of the gate Tuesday night as polls closed in South Dakota and Montana, Obama celebrated victory with a rousing speech that more than befit the historic occasion of his night as America's first African American presidential nominee. Republican nominee John McCain, meanwhile, gave an ungracious, pandering, and downright ugly speech in which he refused either to congratulate Obama himself or to recognize the significance of his victory for African Americans, choosing instead to begrudge Obama his "eloquence" and pander to angry Clinton supporters by suggesting that Obama owed his victory to "pundits and party elders." McCain's speech was widely panned by conservatives and liberals alike, who found fault with far more than the harsh, lime-green background against which we were treated to McCain's pasty visage and smarmy grin (see video). Conservative commentator Fred Barnes of FoxNews said that McCain's speech was "painful" to listen to, while on CNN Republican media consultant Alex Castellanos remarked: "Last I checked this was not a speech-making contest.... Thank God." CNN's Jeff Toobin said more bluntly of McCain's speech: "That was awful.... That was pathetic." Politico's Jonathan Martin asks, "Is there a way John McCain can win the presidency without giving another speech?" As McCain's lobbyist problem continues to haunt him, meanwhile, Obama has set a new course for the Democratic Party he now leads by declaring for the first time that, like his primary campaign, his Democratic National Committee will no longer accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists. As McCain fumbles, bumbles, and stumbles, Obama strides proud and strong toward the Oval Office. Offhand, I'd say this looks like a damn good way to start a general election campaign.

Barack Obama won a symbolic and powerful endorsement today from Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. In his youth a member of the Ku Klux Klan and an ardent segregationist, the 90-year old Byrd has spent the past forty years of his fifty-year Senate career working for racial reconciliation, an effort certain to echo in news of his endorsement today of the man who may be this country's first African American president. Byrd's endorsement comes as Obama's second superdelegate endorsement of the day, shortly following that of Washington state Democratic Party chairman Dwight Pelz.

"I believe that Barack Obama is a shining young statesman, who possesses the personal temperament and courage necessary to extricate our country from this costly misadventure in Iraq, and to lead our nation at this challenging time in history...." Byrd said in a statement today, "...Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support."

Coming a week after West Virginia's primary and just a day before the Democratic primary in neighboring Kentucky, Byrd's endorsement is certain to be a lead item in this evening's news; and could give Obama a last-minute boost in Kentucky as well as in Oregon, whose primary ballot deadline is the same day. In any event, the Byrd endorsement brings Obama one superdelegate vote closer to wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Much obliged, Senator!

 UPDATE: Following endorsements for Obama by Washington state Democratic Party chairman Dwight Pelz and Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, new superdelegate endorsements for Obama were announced today by Kansas state Democratic Party chair Larry Gates and Alaska DNC members Cindy Spanyers and Blake Johnson. This brings Obama's daily total to five superdelegates today, while Hillary Clinton has received none.

If Hillary Clinton was expecting her West Virginia win to stem the tide of superdelegates to Barack Obama, she must be a little disappointed this morning. Obama has picked up four more superdelegates since West Virginia polls closed yesterday, beginning with Lauren Wolfe and Awais Khaleel of the College Democrats of America late last night, followed by US representative Pete Visclosky of Indiana and Democrats Abroad chairperson Christine Schon Marques this morning (see New York Times). While Clinton and her supporters play with the illusion of having changed the game in some way, Obama strides toward the nomination, his delegate lead over Clinton barely dented. Only on Planet Hillary have the West Virginia results made the least difference to anyone. Here on Earth, we all know that Clinton won in West Virginia by pandering to the racial and cultural fears of voters who still think that Obama is a Muslim who wants to be president so that he can take their guns away and force them to convert to Islam; and many of whom probably wouldn't vote for Clinton in November even if she were the nominee (see Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, New Yorker). In the lead-up to the West Virginia primary both Clintons criss-crossed the state shamelessly playing to every fearful prejudice one cares to mention, painting their opponent as an outsider, a city-slicker, a college boy, someone who is "not like us" and who doesn't "share our values." Essentially in many respects, Clinton and her surrogates are now running a Republican campaign against Obama. Superdelegates will also note that while Democratic voter turnout has been massive in other states, yesterday's in West Virginia was relatively unimpressive, awarding Clinton considerably fewer popular votes than she was expecting, and reinforcing the perception that the nomination race has run its course and we have a winner (see MSNBC). No game-changer here, folks.