A licky boom boom down!

Washington Post:

McCain even seems to have forgotten what saved his greatest legislative achievement, which is campaign finance reform. When he was asked during the Saddleback Church debate which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated, he named Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. It happens that those are four of the five justices who voted in 2003 to uphold the McCain-Feingold law.

Reformer, you know say daddy Rove you gonna blame...

McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry As Distortions

Why did the NYT pick such an awkward way to report that people are disgusted by McCain's misleading ads? Is McCain barbing the stirring outcry, or are his barbs stirring the outcry?

I guess they can't say his distorting ("misleading" implying too much willfulness on his part) barbs ("smears" doing likewise) are "stirring outcry" - it wouldn't be "objective" to confirm what his campaign is doing. Instead, they announce that others are calling him on his lies, and phrase it so poorly that no one can accuse them of writing the kind of damning headline McCain is asking for.

The only thing at this point that could make me really worry about the outcome of this election is if McCain started attacking Obama on something that wasn't categorically nonsense. Running on loudly debunked lies and lies alone in September does not bode well for a campaign.

Folks prepping for another season of yelling "wtf, Nader?" owe it to themselves to read the transcript of his recent Meet The Press interview. I won't be voting for him, in part because Obama's inspired me to give the Democratic party one last chance, and in part because I'm disappointed Nader can't find a younger, unscarred mouthpiece to voice his refreshing, entirely merited complaints about our current nominees. Surely some charismatic celebrity like, I dunno, Eddie Vedder, or maybe a cute policy wonk, would be willing to hold a similar stance for the Green party. Better that than have Nader once again suffer the smears of self-loathing Dems, who would rather criticize those who actually voted their liberal ideals for abandoning the party rather than acknowledge its unsatisfactory record. Why sneer about the crippling futility of staunch liberalism when the centrists can't seem to achieve anything themselves? Why claim change must happen from inside the party when those in power silence worthwhile debate? Accusations of him ruining the 2000 election are not just ill-informed, they're pathetic.

Nader rightly notes in the interview that if the Dems fail to win this election, "they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form." America is hungry for reform, something that should be incredibly easy for either nominee to exploit. But I'm also sympathetic to the idea that neither party is truly motivated to achieve it. If the next four years fail to prove otherwise, I won't be screaming for a third party so much as a new second.