I don't think McCain is a liar. I don't sense the malice that comes from Bush and the bushies. I just think McCain doesn't know the basics of foreign policy and Iraq, and won't admit it when he makes a mistake.

It seems like the Republicans are snake-bit lately, but this is another example of how they made their own luck. The cancellation of McCain's appearance due to an oil spill wouldn't be so ironic if they hadn't been claiming off-shore drilling is so safe that Katrina caused no oil spills (http://www.ravensblog.net/#katrina-oil). They wouldn't have been caught by Maliki essentially endorsing Obama's withdrawal timetable if they hadn't repeatedly ignored Iraqi requests for a timetable (http://www.ravensblog.net/#mccain-basics). McCain's surge gaffe wouldn't have hurt if they hadn't been trying to hard to turn the Iraq debate into a narrow debate about whether the surge worked, or they had always acknowledged that the awakening and the A-Mahdi truce were the real causes of security improvements. Bush's line about Wall Street being drunk wouldn't have happened if they hadn't privatized and deregulated everything in sight.

Obama is being a smart camaigner and getting lucky, but the Republicans are making the luck.

I follow both the Minnesota Twins and the minor league St. Paul Saints. These minor leaguers and prospects trying to stick in the majors are so much easier to root for than the cocky stars. How anybody roots for Alex Rodriguez is beyond me. I don't miss Johann Santana and didn't object to the trade. I'd rather watch the prospects develop.

It appears from what Richer is saying that Tenant didn't want to do it and neither did Richer, so they basically tried to pass it on down the line so some other poor schlub had to do make the forgery, and everyone else could claim they obeyed orders. It even sounds like they got other orders like that, which might explain why Tenant wouldn't remember it: one of a bunch of dumb things he had to do. Still, given that the letter was given to credulous conservative media to announce, you'd think this one would stick out.

I recall lots of stories in 2004 about how Bush had driven life-long Republicans to support Kerry, or how apolitical people felt compelled to try to stop Bush. I suspected the Republicans had as many such anecdotes, and they did. I doubt that is so much the case this year, but nonetheless I expect Republicans could still find a bunch of people who had never voted Republican in their lives, but will this time. Personally, I believe the polls that show the race is close, flipped a points in the Democratic direction but not a blowout. Then again, only a fool ever thought Obama would win in a blowout. Forget the issues. Many voters don't connect candidates and issues. If they did, Republicans would have trouble remaining a major party.

Glenn got towards it in one question, but this needs to be looked at more directly. Did Georgia launch this predictably disastrous war because the Bush administration told them it would be easy? There's no evidence of that yet, but it seems to fit a pattern. The neocons had their ill-conceived disastrous invasion of Iraq, they encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia, and they encouraged Israel to invade Lebanon. We know neocons don't learn from mistakes. This bizarre decision to settle the dispute with South Ossetia by force smells like Bush. McCain's support for another disaster has to be used against him, if Obama will just show the pattern.

Whenever there are news reports where Iraqis don't want us to leave now, they never ask what "now" means. Do they think we could leave in a month? Why does no one ever follow up and ask what Iraqis think of the US leaving in a year? Maybe we'd find Iraqis share the opinion of their government, that we can stay , provided we get out by the end of 2010.

I've always thought it demeaning towards Iraqis to say they would start acting responsibly once they see we're going, but I bet they would be less inclined to attack once they see we're going.

Imagine the headline: "Man who is not in public office or seeking it has affair". Sounds pointless, right? But the media have obsessed over am an who ran for president, but isn't president, isn't a candidate, isn't the candidate's running mate, and isn't seeking any other office.

It seems to me a line got crossed. Now that Edwards has been so pilloried, how many other former politicians have unreported scandals? Maybe they think no one knows, but more likely no one has cared. Now a personal scandal is a legitimate story. When conservatives delight in Edwards' problems, they should be careful what they wish for. How many other unreported scandals might now seem newsworthy? It seems like there used to be an unwritten agreement: you leave office and/or don't run, and your scandal remains private. Not any more.

By the way, we might go to war with Russia. Thought it might be worth an offhand mention. Now back to who fathered the videographer's kid.