This one may make you dizzy if you think about it hard.  Sen. McCain, in the course of misstating Clinton and Obama's health care plans, made fun of government airport security, saying "the next time you think the government should take over the health-care system of America, go to our airport and go through security."

Who was the commie who proposed that the government take over airport security in the first place?  Why, none other than Sen. John McCain.  Back in 2001, he said "the safety and security of our airports and airliners is a government responsibility,"  and "rolled his eyes" at those who opposed federalizing airport security.  He assured a mother who lost a son on 9/11 that he would make sure "all airports in America [with 5 exceptions] will have a federal security force."  When he got off the phone with the bereaved mother, McCain explained that "the important thing…is federalization."

McCain supporter John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations who once declared "there is no such thing as the UN", calls for military action against Iran, bizarrely declaring it's "the prudent thing to do". 

McCain has also casually called for war with Iran, when he infamously sang about bombing Iran.  (Great joke during a time of war). 

Obvious question for the media:  "Sen. McCain, do you agree with your supporter John Bolton that striking Iran would be "the prudent thing to do?" 

Another obvious question: "Sen. McCain, would there be a place in your cabinet for John Bolton?"

Bolton not only has a temper to match McCain's, he has similarly dangerous views about foreign policy.  It might be worth it for the groupies on the Straight Talk Express to press for answers to these questions.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about John McCain's ties to convicted, and unrepentant, Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy.  A piece in yesterday's Chicago Tribune picked up on this shady connection, noting that McCain has "his own radical friend".  The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and other outlets have also picked up on the story. 

Well, The Seminal was ahead of the pack, but w're glad to see others noticing this connection as well.  Steve Chapman, who wrote the Chicago Tribune piece, says that  McCain campaign aides refused to answer questions about the subject.  Maybe Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews (unlikely), and Keith Olbermann (best bet) can press McCain for answers about his connection with Liddy, a convicted felon who calls McCain "a close personal friend" and has donated money to McCain over the past ten years. 

This is the tip of the iceberg—there are many more shady/radical McCain connections to explore.  Looking forward to seeing the media explore each of them. 

A front page headline in Saturday's Washington Post read "For Bush in Last Year, It's the Principle".  The article discussed Bush's plan to push ahead "with proposals that appear to have last chance of passage".  What caught my attention was this passage, considered in light of the article's headline:

Presidential aides characterize Bush as intent on pursuing matters of principle, regardless of the polls.  Democrats accuse him of needless stubbornness at the expense of improving a battered economy and addressing other problems.

Hillary Clinton lost me for good when she said that John McCain has crossed the commander-in-chief threshold but suggested that Barack Obama has not.  She shouldn't be so quick to concede that McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief.  Perhaps Clinton is awed by his military background (certainly, the media gives McCain a free pass), but the rest of us should be able to consider the question soberly.

McCain claims that his military experience qualifies him to be president during war time.  Has anyone bothered to question this piece of received wisdom?  McCain deserves credit for his service–but the war he served in ended 33 years ago.  Saying McCain's service n Vietnam qualifies him to be commander-in-chief in 2008 would be like saying a World War I veteran's experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief during the Korean War.

These results are unofficial, but as of now Obama won an extremely close contest.  Daily Kos says the candidates split the pledged delegates but Obama picks up a superdelegate (the party chair who said she'd vote for the caucus winner).  It's Indiana and North Carolina's turn on Tuesday–polling shows Clinton with a lead in Indiana and Obama ahead by about the same amount in North Carolina,  No offense to Guam, but never thought I'd be following their caucus returns.

John McCain is furiously backpedaling after suggesting yesterday that our dependence on oil from the Middle East has led us to fight in that region.  McCain's "damage control" wasn't much better–he claimed he was talking about the first Gulf War and that we went to war in 2003 because of WMD.

McCain won't get off the hook so easy–it doesn't pass the straight-face test to accept that McCain was talking about a war fought 17 years ago when, coincidentally, we are at war right now in the Middle East.  But, even accepting McCain's lame explanation, there's a follow-up question begging to be asked:

Sen. McCain, you say we went to war in Iraq because of WMD.  But Iraq didn't actually have WMD–can you explain why more than 4,000 Americans have died and another 30,000 have been wounded in a war fought to capture WMD that didn't actually exist?

Note: this isn't the only "clarification" McCain has had to make recently.  He is also backtracking from his claim that a Minneapolis bridge collapsed because of wasteful government spending.  (Minnesota's Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty carefully called McCain's comments a "theory", noting that federal investiagtors are currently determining what caused the collapse).  Daily Kos has more on these and other McCain "clarifications". 

The media seems to have pretty low expectations for McCain.  An AP story yesterday noted that McCain "is making promises that would cost billions of taxpayer dollars, yet he is vague about how he would pay for them."  Sounds like someone may be holding McCain accountable…but not so fast, AP is quick to let McCain off the hook because "[u]nlike the Democrats, McCain has made a career of trying to cut spending."

So now it's good enough for a politician to simply "try"–success is not required?  If Obama or Clinton want to end the war in Iraq, the key question, I guess is whether they will "try" to do so, not whether they actually get the job done.

It's been five years since Bush somewhat prematurely declared "Mission Accomplished".  While most of us see this as a terrible miscalculation that has harmed the country, especially members of the military and their families, for Bush, it's all about him (and all about bald-faced lies).

Dana Perino, Bush's Press Secretary apologist, claims that the anniversary is really about "the price [Bush has paid] for not being more specific on that banner."  Yeah, that's the ticket Dana.  Poor Bush, who was terribly misunderstood when he played dress-up soldier for a day , and damn that press for continuing to "play this up" as Perino puts it.

It's human nature to look for the easy way out.  Why should reporters be any different?  The media has gotten used to well-worn, comfortable ways of "reporting" on presidential elections.  They accept, and repeat, over and over, the Republican meme that Democrats are elite latte drinkers, out of touch with ordinary Americans, while Republican candidates, no matter how privileged and wealthy, are presented as men (they've always been men) of the people.  It's a lot easier than thinking critically and maybe it's more fun to talk about Obama's bowling score than it is to discuss the war in Iraq, health care, or the economy.

A Bloomberg piece yesterday, entitled "Obama's Record Has Republicans Dusting off "Liberal" Attacks", is a case in point.  This isn't reporting, it's a hackneyed piece of stenography, not much different than something McCain's press shop would write up if given the opportunity.