As McCain’s ads take the low road - including a recent one drawing numbers from a Tax Center that said he would swell the debt and defecit to record levels - Obama’s strike for the middle: The middle class that deserves someone appealing to them:

Obama does get me hoping again, sometimes when I can barely dare to do so. The following glimpses from his campaign insiders - related by Howard Fineman - stand to make me electrified.

“If I had to bet my life on it, I’d bet it is Joe[.]”

Nothing in this race’s next phase could make me happier.

“Joe won’t be afraid to get in McCain’s face, which is what Obama needs,” said one non-contender source.

Absolutely. Just look at this strongly voiced article on the opinions of the left. People want blood in the sand, and Obama can’t be the one to go on the attack.

Biden seems to live for the attack.

And a source personally close to Obama simply said “Biden makes the most sense.”

And to answer the question you must be asking yourself, no, I am not that quoted source. I just say what they said, all the time.

As if reinforcing this, Obama cited Joe today in a speech he gave to the VFW. It not only underscores the importance Biden has had in this campaign - it was an emphasis of the Senator’s awesome foreign policy experience.

Biden is perfect. Now it remains to be seen if we can hope for perfection.

I almost titled this story - “AP Finally Reports Something Correctly”; it seems the Associated Press committed a Freudian slip in print when writing about McCain’s VP list.

“His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent.”

It happens to everyone. What’s that old expression about broken watches telling the time twice a day?

And in related news, Bill Clinton knows what time it is - time to rally ’round the party standard and get to circling the wagons, with the Democratic Convention due next week.

Or, rather, he knows it’s time for self-serving, vindictive grandstanding, what with he and his wife (and even Chelsea and Socks and Hillary’s AV team) practically headlining the Democratic Cathartha-fest 2008. He gave a preview of coming detractions yesterday.

“Obviously, I favor Senator Obama’s energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors,” Mr. Clinton said. “But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change.” He added, “I’m very encouraged about where the presidential rhetoric is in this campaign.”

The message is clear: Since my wife’s not running, it doesn’t matter a good goddamn who you vote for.

In order for that message to change, the Democrats better get wise to the fact that the Clintons are as much a part of the vain, backbiting Bush era as the man in the White House himself.

Among the more gut-curdling and inhuman of Jerome Corsi’s repugnant distortions about Obama was the allegation that the Senator cast a vote for infanticide - a claim Corsi’s feckless partisan meat puppet of a show host, Sean Hannity, just nodded to; and a claim Corsi made on no less than three separate occasions, not counting his book.

Jerome Corsi, author of the book, The Obama Nation, falsely claimed on Hannity’s America that Sen. Barack Obama said, “Even if a child was born … the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion.” Corsi similarly falsely asserted on Hannity & Colmes that “[a]fter a child’s born, Obama … in the [Illinois] state Senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion,” and on Sean Hannity’s radio program, said that “Obama’s on record as let’s kill the baby if that’s what the mother wants.” In fact, Obama has never supported giving people the right to kill their children.

Tragically, millions of Americans will likely not make the obvious assumption that such a claim is preposterous. Research shows that Corsi is being thoroughly mendacious - the law he refers to would not have defined what “born” or “alive” meant, while at the same time letting family members bring lawsuits against doctors they thought acted inadequately. It was bad law - either doomed to die quickly or to drag costly suits into its slow demise.

But this all raises the question, where does Obama stand on “life” and “choice” issues, and what, if anything, has he sought to do about them?

We are given a clearer perspective on the complexity of that answer by Obama’s handling of the Illinois Liability Law above. For Obama did support another bill, the Born Alive Act, that bestowed the full rights of a human being on a child born during the process of an abortion. In essence, it’s intent - protection of a born child - was the same, and of his interest.

Does this mean Obama is not in favor of unrestricted abortion rights? It may dismay progressives - or excite centrists and pro-lifers - to hear that he has supported banning various late-term procedures.

How does he maintain that 100% NARAL record, then? Obama has never failed to vote in support of a female individual’s right to the procedure. Yet he has claimed that the restriction of the procedure in the more gruesome instances is warranted and legal. And he has gone an extra step, taking the rhetoric he laid out in his political writings and incorporating them into the policy action of the party he had won the leadership of.

Obama, and key others in the Democratic Party and the former-GOP pro-life community, have lately strove to make abortion reduction a bi-partisan issue by putting it in the Democratic Party platform. Yes, it is now an official part of the platform to pursue the goal of reducing incidence of abortion. And, as I noted in a previous post, it is high time that they wrested this particular moral high ground from the tenuous, exploitative grasp of the GOP.

I say “exploitative,” because the GOP platform has been anti-contraception, anti-sex education, anti-natal welfare, anti-adoption, but fiercely and uncompromisingly anti-abortion. It smacks of callous calculation rather than actual concern that they have no real functional interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies or providing for the chaotic circumstances that afflict any unprepared mother, but are obsessively interested in the child when it’s in the mother. One may argue that the GOP does care about those other concerns, but it is hard to argue that their policies have made that care manifest in a way that helps.

the Republican line on abortion–the singular focus on banning it–was just a cynical ploy. I know that many GOP leaders were sincere, but overall the strategy was simply to oppose abortion symbolically while doing nothing to reduce abortions in real life. Moreover, there is evidence from history and from around the world that banning abortion would not even reduce abortions (have we ever banned anything successfully?).

Pro-life Christians are finally getting this.

This has left the “life” issue up for grabs: Not just “life” as defined as opposition to a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but “life” that can expanded to include care and respect for all phases of the process - for the sexually active girl or woman, for the life whose fate depends on her, and for the child that must be cared for all the more after its born. And this is what the 2008 platform seeks to achieve.

The effect would be profound, in that it would turn an issue that has only been useful as partisan demonization - and hardly for limiting abortions - and transform it into a bipartisan call to provide actual care for all life. If Obama is both sincere and committed to the causes he has been bold enough to speak on extensively and candidly in the past, especially in his writing, the Republican wedge issue that only fosters the problem may be turned into an urge to support Democratic social aid programs.

Can Obama speak strongly enough to be considered sincere? All indications are that he will do just that tomorrow at the Faith Forum to be held at the Saddleback mega-church. It falls to him to not only regurgitate the Clinton-era idiom of “safe, legal and rare” about abortion, but to synthesize the effort to actually reduce abortions with the earnest concern for all life.

I trust he won’t disappoint. Obama devotes a whole chapter of Audacity of Hope to the subject. There is no doubting his depth of consideration, feeling and concern; he at one point compares the guilt of some women over their past abortions to that of former slave holders - clearly he recognizes the severity of the decision involved. And that he, not McCain, is a zealous Evangelical Christian, gives him additional premium to his claim of spiritual investment in a better life.

Today, Matthew 25 - a progressive Christian group central to the nascent efforts like those above - released a commercial for Obama.

It is the organization’s title - the Biblical passage that says that those who don’t just bide time in this life, but work at charity, are saved, and any who do less are damned - that resonates with Obama’s faith. He has been an activist for the poor, the disadvantaged and the denounced on both sides of the political spectrum. There is no doubt that he struggles for the least of us.

We’ll see what stand he takes for “the least among” the pro-life movement tomorrow.

The Clintons have returned in force. Just like Caesar at Pharsalus, you think you have them pinned down and starved out, then you drop your guard for a moment and for the throat they go. In this case, they just got Hillary’s name entered as a possible Convention nominee.

The New York Daily News reported recently that Clinton had asked not to be nominated. But at a fundraiser last week in California, Clinton told supporters she was looking for a way to recognize them at the convention. “I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected, she said. “I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.”

That “way” will just happen to be a parade of division, a muttering chorus of doubt like a bad case of tinitis.

Colbert was right. This isn’t just “catharsis.” It’s a whole damn Greek drama.

Why the DNC allowed this to happen is beyond me - like we need more mania, arrogance, disunity, incompetence, nostalgia, avarice, back-biting and partisanship in this campaign. It certainly isn’t for the cause of banding behind Barack, as recent events have shown.

First we had Bill using an ABC exclusive interview opportunity to gripe about the primaries and deny that Obama’s ready to be President:

Then it came out that, behind closed doors, Hillary had encouraged her supporters in “PUMA” (Party Unity My Ass) to find some way to express the will to nominate her at the convention.

All this is occurring with the backdrop of The Atlantic having published the e-mails of the Clinton campaign; e-mails that reveal:

Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel.

Also clarified was the strategy of the Clinton campaign against Obama - that being to always be on the attack; to go for his person, not his policies; to cast him as “foreign” and not Americans. These are the very strategies of the GOP, and they are attacks that the Clintons have never refuted - have, in fact, only underhandedly stoked. It is no surprise that they are attacks that still have edge and venom to them.

What is a surprise is that all of this amounts to the DNC and the Obama campaign spotlighting the Clintons at the Convention. Given key speaking slots - even for Chelsea - and central billing on the schedule, they will be dominating the coverage with their controversy, their undermining unpredictability, their swaggering spitefulness.

Already they’ve managed to secure a rotten plank in the DNC platform, one emetically toxic to the cause of feminism, that as much as states that Hillary’s primary loss was due not to Obama’s excellence but to “demeaning portrayals of women [that] cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of many.” How proponents of the Clinton position cannot see that their planned “protest’s” tawdry emotionalism, passive-aggression and self-indulgent divisiveness would be pathetic regardless of gender is beyond me. That they are not only allowed, but even endorsed, and transformed into an animus to accuse media bias and therefore dismiss the failings of the disgusting Clinton campaign as non-existent is a slash through the hamstrings for both women’s equality and political progress.

It is likely that the foundation of the Convention will be further cracked as the insurgent cries of PUMA get to voice their open-throated outrage that their cult idol, Clinton, did not triumph - or in the hopes that she still will.

Why the Democrats are not preventing this, and letting the isolated and bankrupt Clintons just starve away in a pit of their plummeting poll numbers, is beyond me. They are putting the knife to their outstretched throats for the sake of some nebulous loyalty to the wheezing machine of the past. They just don’t get it - the last thing this xenophobic feeding frenzy of a race needs is more blood in the water.

Why they don’t get it is one of the chief reasons it took a city-annihilating hurricane, an economic topple, two debilitating and senseless wars, massive civil rights violations and a smattering of sex scandals to bring them back to something resembling power in 2006: The America of today does not crave complexity, revolutionary anger, minority sensitivity, heated debate and diversity.

The America of the 21st century is scared, tired, hopeless.

They want simple answers, unflagging positivity, overweaning pride, absolute loyalty and unity.

Until the DNC gets this, they’re never going to really hold the throne.

And if the ravenous Clintons - who have already muscled their way into turning the Convention into televised party suicide - have their way, that throne will be set on one of the prettiest and most promising pile of broken dreams we have seen in over a generation.

Numbers like Mark Nickolas discovered are why whenever I hear the term “liberal biased media” these days, I get another white hair. They prove the media’s not liberal, or ideological, or even sensible.

They are merely deliberately stupid, arrogantly untruthful, gluttonous, sycophantic greedheads who have the interests of a fight promoter and the morals of a gulag commandant.

For the numbers show that even compared to Karl Rove and parties with an ideological bias, the media is harsher in its estimate of Obama’s appeal and abilities: That the polls of Zogby and the like compile to show Obama 127 electoral votes ahead, Rove at 77 ahead, the Cook Political Report at 66 ahead - and all of these are far larger than the most preferenntial media outlet, CNN, which has Obama at only 32 ahead.

Most channels and print media figures hover around 28 by Nickolas’ discovery; the Washington Post even goes so far with poll gymnatics to put McCain ahead by 6 EV.

The media is, for the time, wrong. The professionals, after all, are getting far different numbers than the ones that illustrate the campaigns as a tooth-and-nail death match that could swing either way (so stay tuned!).

But the media tells people what’s true and what they should feel about it. People react accordingly. And so the question becomes how long before the self-fulfilling prophecy of a tight race is born out, and the media - as they did with Iraq - coaxes the public to embrace the disaster they’ve dreamt up.

McCain’s disastrous economic policies are imprinted with George W. Bush’s legacy and thrown in his face with this new ad from the Obama campaign.

The ad will hopefully remind voters that unless they change who’s in charge economically, they’ll keep getting what they’re getting economically.

But loud and clear, it states Obama’s for the middle class - a tune he should trumpet as much as possible.

Obama has put the energy revolution central in his campaign, as embodied by the commercial he’s spent millions to have play during the Olympics.

Share it with your friends by copying and e-mailing this link:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1717903009

It also brings to the fore how truly progressive and visionary he intends to be.

Obama gave a response to McCain’s insipid “Celebrity” ad today while addressing a crowd in Iowa. It not only was artful and exciting but, as is his style, cut the core of why the ad was vile and galvanized people to reject such shenanigans.

“Given the seriousness of the issues, you’d think we could have a serious debate,” Obama said. “But so far, all we’ve been hearing about is Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I mean, I do have to ask my opponent, is that the best you can come up with? Is that really what this election is about? Is that what is worthy of the American people?”

That is what’s annoyed me the most about the GOP’s campaign - my dismay that they can’t seem to run on the issues.

What is McCain’s plan, exactly, on Iraq? How will his economic policies, set on keeping the financial rules forged by the Bush administration in place, benefit our country better than the Dems? What are his major initiatives?

Instead, we only get his contempt for his opponent - most of which seems arbitrary and manufactured, at best. That kind of contempt breeds contempt - it shows contempt not for Obama so much as for the American people, asking them not to vote because they believe in something, but because they’re afraid of someone.

The crowd yelled: “NOOOOOOOOOO.”

“Even the media has pointed out that Senator John McCain — who started off talking about running an honorable campaign — has fallen back on predictable political attacks and demonstrably false statements. But here’s the problem. All of those negative ads spending all this time talking about me, instead of talking about what he’s going to do, that’s not going to lower your gas prices…”

And how is McCain going to do that? His offshore drilling plan has been debunked as a pure deception. How is he going to handle the rising cost of living for the middle and lower class? He has said he wants to keep the system almost exactly as it is, financially.

Ultimately, this begs the question: Does he even care to tell us? Does he even have the basic respect for voters to give them a choice, rather than scaring them and leaving them to make assumptions that he’s better than the distorted image of his opponent?

Where is his respect for our democracy?

“It’s politics as a game,” Obama said. “But the time for game-playing is over. That’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.”

Big cheers from the Iowa crowd.

And make no mistake, dear reader, that is why Obama is running, and why he is appealing.

This means that the extremists and ideologues on both sides of the spectrum are going to be disappointed. Already we hear outcry from the left-leaning “progressives” that Obama won’t do enough for them - won’t snatch us out of armed conflicts immediately; won’t stand absolutely against gun rights and for abortion rights; won’t always turn a deaf ear to the GOP.

That is because the very essence of his political career is to do away with that kind of divisiveness - especially on his own side. His chief mentors in Congress have included as many Republicans as Democrats, and his prose speaks not of a desire to push through a particular piece of liberal legislation, but to unite all people, regardless of party, in finding solutions.

That is the greatness of Obama - and that is true change.

McCain, with his deceit and gamesmanship and sentimentalism and fear-mongering and insular, elitist attitudes, is proving more of the same.

Adding his voice of support for Obama’s foreign policy vision to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s, the Afghan ambassador to the US endorsed a vision for his country identical to Obama’s - and vastly different than John McCain’s.

Obama considers Afghanistan the foremost front in the War on Terror; McCain doesn’t. Obama considers more troops an urgent priority; McCain doesn’t. And while the ambassador agrees on all these points, he is also vocal about the main division between Obama and McCain on Afghanistan: Whether the US should pursue al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas regardless of Pakistani support or not.

“We would appreciate it if Pakistan could take full responsibility in dealing with them,” [Afghan ambassador Said Jawad] said. “But if they can’t, if they don’t have the resources, they should allow the international community to take these elements out, for the sake of Pakistan, for the sake of Afghanistan, and for the sake of the world. These are criminals. We should allow the humanity to go out and eliminate these enemies of humanity. We should not fool ourselves with the legal questions such as sovereignty.”

I’m not sure if I like the phrasing of the last sentence, but I agree with its sentiment insofar as that the GWOT depends on us violating the sovereignty of other nations for the sake of tracking down non-state actors - terrorists. All those Tom Clancy-type scenarios that are the bread and butter of counterterrorism are, by and large, illegal. They throw sovereignty out the window for the sake of beating the bad guys. Heck, that’s the mission definition of the CIA.

So for McCain to criticize that with one side of his mouth while he props up the reasoning behind the Iraq invasion is vile hypocrisy and big time dumb. Fortunately, the rest of the world seems to agree with his opponent.

Now all that needs to happen is for the American electorate to give a listen to the rest of the world.

Obama fired off the closest he’s come to a flat-out attack ad today. Levelled at McCain, it packs in a bit of positivity at the end.

Tragically, it’s true. A piece from the Washington Independent is a good account of my feelings on the McCain candidacy, “Maverick McCain Turns Mean“.

Worse yet, as Obama’s ad points out, you can put “Mendacious” and “Moronic” up there too.

MoveOn.org, always game to defy Obama’s denunciation of 527s and go their own way, moved in the right direction with their latest ad. I present it here for your enjoyment:

I was glad to see it, as much for MoveOn’s sake as for Obama’s. I say this because MoveOn does best following the lesson its name conveys - being a positive, progressive force, rather than a reactive, critical force. I can hardly call to mind a commercial against someone that they did artfully, and a commercial for something that I didn’t like.

Let’s hope they stay away from “Betray-Us” and stick to baby chicks.

By request, here is the entirety of Obama’s statements from the guest book at Yad Vashem:

I am grateful to Yad Vashem and all of those responsible for this remarkable institution. At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world. Let our children come here, and know this history, so that they can add their voices to proclaim “never again.” And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims, but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit.

In the latest in my increasingly repetitive complaints about media bias, I present you a sigh of relief on my part and the statistical study that inspired it.

This study, released today from The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, one of the leading statistical analysts of media, has been reviewing the the recent content of the three major networks. Its findings were no surprise to me:

…when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

This, when combined with the recent Tyndall report that many McCain supporters have been using as foundation for their gripe of media bias, is what troubles me. Tyndall’s numbers suggested Obama was getting vastly more air time than McCain. Confidants of mine consoled me that the greater air time meant that McCain’s lack of exposure would fatally atrophy his campaign over time.

I was unconvinced, and this study makes me further unconvinced, for if you’re hearing for 72% of a vast amount of time how much a snobby, out-of-touch, vulnerable, presumptuous, you-name-it bum someone is, how does that help their image? It would seem given that kind of content, more air time would hurt, not help, a candidate.

As he inspires the world, Obama is losing the press here at home. This means that, in an essential way, he is losing the election.

Bob Cesca has written a very well-researched article on this topic, and I suggest you read it in full. I disagree with a central tenet of Bob’s thesis, though - namely, that it is the press’ fear of a liberal bias that has them so hot for Obama’s blood and hateful of his dignity.

My take is that it’s the NASCAR-commentary phenomena: That if the press reported diligently, without a mind to insult and denigrate Obama to balance him with the pathetic mess that is the McCain campaign, it would not generate as much ratings. Why just polish the Golden Boy when you can tear him to pieces? In short, you draw better crowds with public executions than you do with press conferences.

The evidence of this is tragically abundant, and if anyone out there has serious proof to counter it, I welcome it. I would love a press bias towards Obama. Instead, with attributions, I have the following coverage of his trip:

AP: “In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous…”

TIME Magazine: “capable to become the Commander in Chief of a superpower — without seeming presumptuous…”

The National Journal: “He is well aware voters here at home might see that as presumptuous…”

Washington Post: “Whether by the end of this week he will be seen as presumptuous or overly cocky…”

Chicago Tribune: “That means walking the fine line between looking presidential and appearing arrogant and presumptuous…”

Boston Globe: “plus the growing sense in some quarters that the presumptive Democratic nominee is getting a little presumptuous…”

The LA Times covered his Berlin speech today, with the following front page headline: “Obstacles Linger For Obama - The Democrat is winning friends abroad, but is struggling to gain real ground over McCain at home.” The entirety of the front page column is devoted to Obama’s weaknesses. Not a word of the speech is featured.

If we look on sites that compile the Op-Ed columns and punditry, we see more of the same.

On RealClearPolitics, we have David Brooks sneering that “Obama Plays Innocent Abroad.” Then there is Howard Kurtz at the WashPost, dismissively stating, “Obama Abroad: We Get The Picture,” a piece saying that the trip was manipulative, crass showmanship. Then “The Presumptive - And Presumptuous Nominee” and “Pride Clouds Obama’s Vision” and “A Flat Performance In Berlin.”

There is only one positive piece, called “Our First Community-Activist President?”

One could look at this and see a media struggling to maintain objectivity in a time of inspiration. To that analysis, I would ask, “Why is inspiration a bad thing?” But even that conclusion isn’t accurate, as is evidenced by a discussion on Tuesday’s Morning Joe between pundits from a variety of news sources.

…Mika Brzeznski, Andrea Mitchell and Very Serious Mark Halperin … agreed that after three days of reporting the actual news that Senator Obama’s overseas visit was successful, they should deliberately attempt to “trip him up” — to “hold him accountable.”

Apparently they decided not to wait three days. The blood is already in the water, the feeding frenzy is on. But expect a greater slaughter in the days to come, to continue until the press can exclaim in orgasmic delight, “Obama is an underdog in the polls - now we really have a race!”