He's been tortured enough... but then, so have we

So the media is supposedly tougher on McCain than on Obama, huh?

Then how come it's fair to question the latter's youth and inexperience while the former's age is officially an off-limits topic? As far as I'm concerned, if it's okay to publicly vet Obama and his lack of political experience, it's just as important to question why, if the Arizona senator is so vastly qualified for the office of president, it has taken him until his 71st birthday to win the support of his own party. Should he be successful this fall, McCain will become the oldest first-term president in our nation's history. So why couldn't he win the Republican nomination over a far less qualified G.H.W. Bush eight years ago? Like the co-worker who's been at your company for thirty years, he's either invaluable or unhirable, depending on your point of view.

Similarly, Obama has been criticized for the way he allegedly "exploited" his wife and two children by granting an entertainment network exclusive permission for an interview. Yet we are not allowed to even mention the misgivings of the torch-bearer for the party of "family values", such as his failed first marriage and admitted infidelity? The horrific story of McCain's torturous years as a war prisoner in North Vietnam is universally accepted support for his patriotism. However, no one even mentions his role in the infamous Keating Five. McCain's irresponsible business dealings during the Savings & Loan mess epitomized the ego-centric state of our economy in the late 1980s. Was this not emblematic of a man putting himself ahead of duty to country? At the very least, shouldn't it receive as much scrutiny as the issue of whether the other party's presumptive nominee wears a freaking flag pin on his lapel?

This brand of pettiness was in full inexplicable force during Obama's overseas visits. So why is the media given the green light to deconstruct every aspect of Obama's public appearances in Europe and the Middle East, while any talk of McCain's well-known temper has somehow been deemed unfair treatment? Even when questioning Obama's character--in particular his supposed snubbing of injured soldiers--McCain threatened what he called "a seismic event" had the Pentagon attempted to enforce its policy on a hypothetical McCain overseas hospital visit. A seismic event? Did ANYONE holding microphone or notepad say so much as, "Beg pardon, Senator?" The clip has been played ad nauseum. You mean to tell me in all this time that no talking head has uttered a syllable calling out his threat of an eruption? Yeah, the poor old guy's got it rough.

Then there are the spouses. Michelle Obama's sound byte about being a proud American for the first time--woefully out of context, of course--has been rolled so much the digital files are wearing out. She has explained herself and the comment numerous times. You'll have to take my word for it, since you likely never saw it on any of the major networks. For some reason, Cindy McCain's Vicodin addiction, the illegal prescriptions she obtained from the non-profit organization she founded, the employee she fired who discovered the scandal (and ultimately shared it with the DEA) and the subsequent investigation doesn't seem to be as important an indicator of a prospective First Lady's virtue than a sentence taken out of context.

But back to the hubbies. Isn't the temperament of the man who would run our country a legitimate issue? Isn't it at least as important as, say, the assessment that Obama's mannerisms suggest those of a man who had already won the election--in other words, that the guy with so little experience now, to his own detriment, somehow seems "too presidential"?

-------

By the way, can someone please explain to me how McCain possibly benefits from the surge in Iraq being successful? No level of our success can make the decision to go to war with Iraq any more rational. Put it this way. Let's say W gets it in his head that all he needs to reverse his approval numbers is to bomb the hell out of Cuba. The odds would greatly favor our armed forces winning this battle. But would victory make the decision to attack any more sound--much less sane?

Yes, changing your position is technically "change"

John McCain is the candidate for change, all right.

He once spoke out against the Bush tax cuts. Now his message has changed.

He once spoke out against the Bush economic policy. Now he's changed his tune.

His chief economic advisor once called us "a nation of whiners". Now his campaign has changed, adopting whining as a core element of its political strategy.

He once called his campaign the "straight-talk express". Yet he's become nothing more than a puppet, saying whatever feels like the politically advantageous thing to say at the time, parroting the words of whomever is running his campaign on that particular day.

And he boldly promised this past April 14 on Fox News that he would run a "respectful campaign" and swore - SWORE - not to lower himself to negative attacks. His broken word conveniently forgotten, McCain has changed his tactics, going so far as to blame Obama for the high gas prices, claim that he snubbed injured troops in Germany because the Pentagon wouldn't allow cameras, and compare him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, ostensibly as world-famous celebrities yet clearly a move to effeminize his attempt to appear strong on the world's stage.

If this makes his supporters uncomfortable, there's no need to worry. Things will surely change again.

Which one's the elitist again?

Phil Gramm, national campaign chairman and chief economic advisor to fellow Senator John McCain, is under fire for his comments supporting McCain's "psychological" explanation for our stagnant economy. "You've heard of a 'mental depression' ", states the Lone Star State's senator (growing loner by the minute), "this is a 'mental recession' ". Fearing the excuse of an out-of-context sound bite, Gramm then pulled his pistols out n' went fer it awl:

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline...We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today...Misery sells newspapers. Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

McCain, never wasting a minute (as is the wont of one over 70), threw Gramm under his "Straight-Talk Express" quick as he could find a microphone. He tersely stated, "Senator Gramm doesn't speak for me. I speak for me.", before suggesting a better position than economic advisor would be ambassador to Belarus. Forgetting A) the fact that Gramm, by title and edict, was indeed speaking for McCain; and B) the GOP candidate's own recent--and numerous--references to our economic woes being psychological. See, it's all the fault of us commoners. If we'd just shut up and be happy with what we've got, maybe this "good feeling" vibe can help grow his stock portfol... I mean, our economy. Yikes.

To nobody's suprise, Fox News has been spinning the Gramm story so fast their panelists no longer know which way they're facing. On Special Report with Brit Hume, Fred Barnes--who not too long ago tore Obama a new hole for his "bitter Americans clinging to guns and religion" comments--actually called the Texas senator's words "straight talk", and said the comments about being a nation of whiners were spot-on. Straight up, honest. I can't make this stuff up.

All this on the same day McCain, pressed by a reporter for his opinion on why Viagra is covered by insurance while birth control is not, confessed that it was something he hadn't really thought about. "It" being coverage of birth control, the content of bills he has voted down multiple times according to congressional record. The video clip of his hemming-and-hawing would make a La-Z-Boy recliner uncomfortable.

Being capable of voting against legislation when one has yet to give any thought to it is not an especially admirable quality. Yet still, it's more endearing than the idea that a major party candidate is so far out of touch with the basic needs of half our nation's population that he is left slack-jawed at the end of a simple health care question on birth control.

Wait. I thought Obama was supposed to be the elite one.