Hey everyone! So, Ana Marie Cox and I got together to do our second vlog, and I for one think that the improvements keep coming. In the first place: shorter. In the second place: better production values. Still stuck with me, sadly. But great questions this week! Many thanks to all of you who sent them in. Keep it up by emailing your inquiries, about whatever you like, to my email address.

This week: Is John McCain really bitching at the press? Is there anything truly important to Obama's overseas trip? And Robert Novak hit somebody with his car, because he is a troll from Mordor. Enjoy!

If you're like me, and you follow the world of shut-ins and conspiracy whack jobs, you probably already know that there are people out there who believe that Senator Barack Obama was not born in the United States and has doctored his birth certificate. It's one of those smears that the New Yorker wasn't able to properly capture on that brilliantly orchestrated "satire" that absolutely put to bed much of the confusion voters have about Obama's fearful un-Americanness, precisely as the artist intended.

The whole birth certificate rumor persists, nonetheless, mainly because the propagators of this insanity are the sorts of people for whom exculpatory evidence actually bolsters their case. Matt Yglesias, however, is on the case:

The idea, it seems, is that Obama was secretly born outside the United States and his parents said to themselves, back in 1961, "this interracial kid will probably be president some day so we'd better cover up his place of birth and pretend it happened in Hawaii so he'll be eligible even though he'd actually be eligible anyway." Something like that.

Seems smart! On the other hand, there's another set of loons who believe that Obama's parents gave him the middle name "Hussein" as a warning to us all that he's a secret Muslim terrorist, somehow knowing in 1961 that three decades later the United States would become the sworn enemy of a man with the same name. It's so hard to know who to believe, so hopefully this is the sort of thing the forthcoming X-Files sequel will sort out.

Hello, and welcome to your Obama Talks To The Germans Liveblog, which has unexpectedly begun early! They do prefer their trains run on time over there, don't they?

Obama is telling Berlin to "do their duty" and big upping NATO and telling people to "look at Berlin" and not at John McCain, who is at some wurst-hut in Columbus, Ohio today.

Obama credits Berlin for starting the whole wall-tearing down craze. The fall of the Berlin Wall "brought new hope," but it also allowed terrorists to come through those walls. The 9/11 terrorists trained in Hamburg, after all, he says. That's sure to be a happy thought for the Germans. Also, the polar icecaps are melting, which means people will need to build new walls called "levees."

The Germans have gathered in a group that looks like many thousands, probably because the Decemberists are playing.

Obama says the Europeans are "bearing new burdens," so he's sorry about all those Americans who criticize Europe. Look to the people passing themselves off as Canadians, Berlin!

"That is why the greatest danger of all is to build new walls" between people. Immigration reform? Then he says that walls between Christians and Jews and Muslims must be torn down. I'm guessing he's not including the Western Wall. Though I don't know. Maybe his note read: "You're next."

"History reminds us that walls can be torn down." Also, the basic tenets of civil engineering remind us of this.

Obama tells the Germans that America needs NATO troops in Afghanistan, probably because he understands the current deployment of U.S. troops and knows that it's going to actually going to take more than McCain's SURGE MAGIC to make the SUPER SURGE in Afghanistan work.

"This is the moment where the world needs to support the millions of Iraqis," Obama says. SO BRING ME YOUR STRONG, STRONG EUROS and I will end the war. Everyone claps. Ha, ha! You're on the hook now, Germany.

"This is the moment to give the children" - the KINDER - back their future. Please do not break out in a rousing chorus of "Tomorrow Belongs To Me." That would send the wrong message.

The McCain campaign alerts me that their candidate is now juggling six flaming chainsaws, and it's really awesome, and you're missing it.

Obama links the phrase "Never Again" to Darfur. One should note that Darfur, itself, has demonstrated the limitations of saying "Never Again."

"I know my country has not perfected itself...we've made our share of mistakes." That's going in an ad, I betcha!

This next part...every language is spoken, every idea is welcome...that's pretty darned good oratory, though! "These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart."

Might as well dispatch a day nurse to check on Chris Matthews' restless leg. This is his "Obama as Gift To the World" credo writ large.

Wow, apparently Berliners demand a short address. Good thing Obama didn't make any of his primary night addresses in Germany.

Andrea Mitchell calls the speech "soaring." Obama departs the scene, and now Alphaville will play, or something. Really, my knowledge of German pop music sort of ends with their Afternoons In Utopia album.

Mark Halperin is on Fox. He's got a very limited range of analysis, so I don't feel bad about having the sound down. He's probably saying things like, "Berlin is in Germany!" and "Obama spoke using words!"

Germans are pretty excited, high-fiving Obama. At least I hope those are high-fives! Everyone has a digital camera.

Chuck Todd says that maybe John McCain should have competed by doing a bus tour of Michigan. I think maybe John McCain should get out of the business of demanding that Obama goes on overseas trips.

CNN is the first network to break away from the coverage. Fox and MSNBC are sticking with it. Chuck Todd calls Obama's move an attempt to grab onto Bush's "reverse coattails." Fox has broken away from the coverage. MSNBC is sticking with it because OMG BRIAN WILLIAMS IS IN THE SHOT NOW. John Kerry is relegated to a sidebox, because Obama is now with Hero Newsman and the Most Important Boom Microphones In The World.

Meanwhile, John McCain is about to circumnavigate the state of Ohio in a jetpack that he designed and built himself. It's too bad we are missing it!

Mika: "Even the sunlight served Obama well." SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. The winged chariot of Phaeton himself has smiled upon Obama. Meanwhile, McCain wanted to do a photo-op on a rain-swept oil derrick today.

So, that's it. Obama is loved by Germans, which is bad for America. Brian Williams is a golden God. Walls are bad, unless they are load-bearing walls or border fences. America has made mistakes, which is blasphemy. And the SUN IS VOTING FOR OBAMA. Ich bin ein liveblogger!

POSTSCRIPT: Want to know where John McCain actually is? He is at the "Fudge Haus," talking about small businesses and the Dalai Lama as some atonal windchimes bang in the background. These are "bad optics" even if you close your eyes.

Over at The Next Right, Patrick Ruffini is really, really worked up over Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, and wants to put the Senator in...uhm - Deutch? - for daring to print posters in German, the language that Germans speak in Germany. Better that Berliners wither in confusion over the speech, I suppose!

Anyway, Ruffini calls the posters "extraordinary" and a "lapse in judgment" and "breathtakingly arrogant." But Ruffini is losing his bearings! As it turns out, John McCain has a bilingual website of his own! And bilingual advertising! And he's even done a bilingual version of those adorable townhalls he loves so much! And I find none of those things to be "extraordinary" or "breathtakingly arrogant" or a "lapse in judgment." So perhaps Ruffini would like to explain himself on this matter. My moron-to-English dictionary is standing by.

As many of you likely already know, right-wing radio freakazoid Michael Savage recently garnered a helping of the bad sort of attention when he referred to autistic children as "brats" who, "in 99 percent of the cases... [haven't] been told to cut the act out." Well, since then he issued a "clarification" on those remarks, claiming that he spoke out only because he wanted to - get this - raise "awareness."

His statement, in part, reads:

My comments about autism were meant to boldly awaken parents and children to the medical community's attempt to label too many children or adults as "autistic."

Just as some drug companies have overdiagnosed "ADD" and "ADHD" to peddle dangerous speed-like drugs to children as young as 4 years of age, this cartel of doctors and drug companies is now creating a national panic by overdiagnosing "autism, for which there is no definitive medical diagnosis!

Many children are being victimized by being diagnosed with an "illness" which may not exist, in all cases. Just a few weeks ago doctors recommended dangerous anti-cholesterol drugs for children as young as 2 years of age! Without any scientific studies on the possible dangers of such drugs on children, corrupt doctors made this controversial, unscientific recommendation.

Well, if there's one thing I know about the HuffPo community is that they don't take kindly to the malefactions of people like Savage. And if there's a second thing I know about the HuffPo community, it's that they like the refreshing commentary of my wife, Caroline, a special education professional who has years of experience working with the autistic. [This is an inside joke from the Sunday Morning Liveblog, which - ha, ha - I guess you'll all have to start reading now! --Ed.]

Anyway, she read Savage's statement, and later clarification, and offers the following professional insights.

1. "How anyone can observe autistic children and conclude that they are "brats" completely eludes me. A great many autistic children are actually perfectly sweet, compliant children."

2. "'Drug companies' do not 'diagnose' people, let alone 'overdiagnose' people. I'm a little shocked that I actually need to explain this."

3. "Autism does not have a 'definitive medical diagnosis?' Really? Really. I'm going to have to bet Michael Savage a smack across the face with the DSM IV that there totally, totally is."

4. "In my professional opinion, I feel it's likely that this Michael Savage fellow has failed to arrive at, or at the very least, complete the formal operational stage of Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development."

Anyway, there you have it. Tune in next week, when Michael Savage raises awareness of fire safety by burning down a Berkeley, California bathhouse.

A perfect example of how badly the media muddies the water when it comes to the Iraq War occurred in the late morning on MSNBC. At around 11:40, Contessa Brewer took up one of the key issues that those Cheeto-eating bloggers have been completely on top of: namely, John McCain's inability to articulate any sort of coherent foreign policy, mainly because it's all built on facts he doesn't completely understand and strategies whose failures he has to furtively labor to keep obscure.

Remarkably, Brewer actually took discussed McCain's recent lapse on the conditions on the ground that were contemporaneous to the beginning of the "Surge." Brewer reported that McCain's remark failed to "align with the facts," and then went on to get the basics of those facts exactly right.

Really, I was so excited that MSNBC was even covering this matter that I felt like leading everyone in one of those "slow clap" scenes from bad movies where one guy starts clapping and soon everyone in the room breaks into applause. Sure, there was a little equivocation ("McCain may have gotten it wrong."), but I was willing to look past it, because it looked like Brewer was just setting up the shot for another on-air personage to bang home.

Unfortunately, the other person in the room was Jonathan Capehart, who immediately busted out his broken down hurdy-gurdy and started to crank:

It may have been a mistake but let's keep in mind Senator McCain has always been about the Surge. The Surge is working. The Surge is what's made Iraq safer and what made it possible for Senator Obama to take the trip that he did earlier this week. So I think what Senator McCain is trying to do is plant the seed of doubt in voters' minds that Senator Obama is up to the task...

Really? You "think" McCain may want to "plant the seed of doubt in voter's minds" about Obama? I'm sure that Capehart used all of his reportorial expertise to almost reach that painfully obvious conclusion.

Things trended downhill from there.

...now everyone is pointing out that maybe Senator McCain has the facts wrong, it now plays into the narrative. The story line that Senator McCain has a little trouble remembering little details.

Capehart goes on to cite a couple of McCain's gaffes, and suggests, again, with amazing trenchant analysis, that Obama and McCain are "both trying to get at each other." But he's really badly missed the point here. If the "storyline" is that "McCain has a little trouble remembering little details," then we're all in trouble, because the storyline should be that McCain is saddled with trying to win on Bush's failed war strategy, and so he's stuck in a box, endlessly insisting that the limited success of the "Surge" can be used to cancel out major national security failures. The narrative should be that John McCain lacks a cogent foreign policy framework to make America safe.

Capehart goes on to cheerfully utter that "the average voter isn't paying attention to this much detail," that "maybe" McCain "got facts wrong," that (again with the painfully, stupidly obvious observations!) Obama and McCain "are having a fight," and, appallingly, that "foreign policy is Senator McCain's strength." At that point, Contessa Brewer finally attempted to fight back and end the segment, saying, "Conventional wisdom had it it was his strength but we'll see how this goes."

But Capehart actually jumps back in, fighting to get in an insistent last word:

Right but it is his strength. You get Senator McCain off the Surge and off the war and onto the economy and he's in quicksand. He loves having this debate on foreign policy even though it doesn't look like it's a winner for him.

The problem here is this naive, incorrect, zombie-drool assertion that foreign policy is McCain's strength rules the day amid mounting evidence that there is actually no facet of contemporary foreign policy on which McCain seems to be even nominally conversant.

I don't know where this shooting gallery is where all these reporters are getting their regular doses of Surge Logic(TM), but if we want to change the "narrative" to something that better comports with reality, someone needs to find it and BTMFD.

[WATCH.]

BREWER: It may not jump out at you but McCain's assertion there doesn't align with the facts. Colonel McFarland actually said the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006. When Sunni tribes decided to start fighting al Qaeda. And the Surge did not begin until months later. Meaning McCain may have gotten it wrong. Jonathan Capehart is a editorial writer for The Washington Post. Is it a gaffe? A mistake? Was it intentional spin?

CAPEHART: It may have been a mistake but let's keep in mind Senator McCain has always been about the Surge. The Surge is working. The Surge is what's made Iraq safer and what made it possible for Senator Obama to take the trip that he did earlier this week. So I think what Senator McCain is trying to do is plant the seed of doubt in voters' minds that Senator Obama is up to the task, one of being president and two of leading a country at war but the problem that he has when he says, you know, that Senator Obama has the facts wrong and now everyone is pointing out that maybe Senator McCain has the facts wrong, it now plays into the narrative. The story line that Senator McCain has a little trouble remembering little details. We saw the Sunni versus Shiite problem he had with Senator Lieberman walking up to him reminding him he got it backwards. And then you also have the gaffe he made confusing Somalia and Sudan. There are all these little things that make people wonder if Senator McCain is all there. The Obama campaign earlier on would use words like Senator McCain is confused or he's lost his bearings. They are both trying to get at each other.

BREWER: Barack Obama has been asked about McCain's fighting back on this whole Surge thing and Obama has said, look, I'm not going to criticize my opponent while I'm here on foreign soil. I'm not going to it on this trip. Are we splitting hairs when we're parsing the meaning of these words? These two are really focusing on the details. Did Barack Obama support the surge? Now he says we're glad the Surge coincided with this standing up by Sunni leaders and all worked together and all of it together is a success. Is the average voter going to be paying attention to this kind of detail?

CAPEHART: The average voter probably isn't paying attention to this much detail, but when you look at the larger context here, you have Senator McCain saying that Senator Obama got facts wrong when everyone is pointing out that maybe Senator McCain was the one who got facts wrong. Also, they are having a fight. Obama and McCain on foreign policy. Foreign policy is Senator McCain's strength. Even with the war --

BREWER: Conventional wisdom had it it was his strength but we'll see how this goes.

CAPEHART: Right but it is his strength. You get Senator McCain off the Surge and off the war and onto the economy and he's in quicksand. He loves having this debate on foreign policy even though it doesn't look like it's a winner for him.

Joe Scarborough may think he's got us bloggers pegged correctly as Cheeto-eating miscreants, but at least one protester in Chicago knows the score where the mainstream media is concerned, totally nailing them as being ridden with foreign bodies.

The sign in the image below reads: "Obama is simply a creation of our Russian-infested media & rigged polls!! He has no prior accomplishments that would qualify him for the most important job on earth!!!" You tell 'em, random, Cold War obsessed guy! Bloggers may love their snack food, but at least our washrooms aren't breeding Bolsheviks!

[Image by Jack Cantey, Copyright 2008. Used with the artist's permission. For more of Jack Cantey's series, "Chicago Photography 2008," click here.]

When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news are over," her words framed what looked like a lament, but her recent deeds make them seem like a threat. Her recent interview with Senator Barack Obama, at the very least, certainly failed to glorify any of the parties involved.

Follow me through the video and long-ish blockquote below...

COURIC: Before the surge, as you know, Senator, there were 80 to 100 U.S. casualties a month, the country was rife with sectarian violence, and you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"

OBAMA: Well ... because ... what I was referring to, and I've consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

COURIC: But didn't the surge ... help do that?

OBAMA: Let me finish, Katie. What happens is that if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There's no doubt that that's gonna have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. If that means that we're detracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, where conditions are deteriorating, if it means that we are distracted from going after Osama bin Laden who is still sending out audio tapes and is operating training camps where we know terrorists' actions are being plotted. ...

COURIC: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

OBAMA: No, no ... of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with al-Qaeda - something that we hadn't anticipated happening.

All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence. So this, in no way, detracts from the great efforts of our young men and women in uniform. In fact, that's one of the most striking things about visiting Iraq is to see how dedicated they are, what a great job they do - all those things ... are critically important. What I'm saying is it does not solve the broader strategic question that we have been dealing with over the last five, six, seven years. And that is how do we take the limited resources we have, both militarily and financially, and apply them in such a way that we are making America as safe as possible? And I believe that my approach is the right one.

COURIC: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

OBAMA: Katie, as ... you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

COURIC: But yet you're saying ... given what you know now, you still wouldn't support it ... so I'm just trying to understand this.

OBAMA: Because ... it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States. That money could have been applied to having a serious energy security plan so that we were reducing our demand on oil, which is helping to fund the insurgents in many countries. So those are all factors that would be taken into consideration in my decision-- to deal with a specific tactic or strategy inside of Iraq.

COURIC: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq ... would exist today without the surge?

OBAMA: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that, not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

You rarely see an interview couch such hopeless inanity in the pretense of not getting an answer to the question, but, what can I say? Couric's a whiz at this. You see the problems coming a mile away when Couric frames the discussion as a response to people "scratching their heads," people "asking why," and people whose "eyebrows" are raised. Such people, of course, do not exist and cannot be named. Tis the beginning of a Straw Man argument, which has sadly become the first resort of many in the press. From there, the line of interrogation is rivetingly unconcerned with substantive analysis of Obama's Iraq War position - it's a silly little trap of false logic, in which Couric attempts to get Obama to admit to the obvious - that 100,000+ troops in Iraq have affected the conditions in the country, and hang a false admission of "Surge" efficicacy around his neck.

Obama seems to understand the trap is being set, but he disappointingly fails to expose it for what it is. In his foreign policy speech, delivered before his trip, Obama did a fine job in differentiating the tactic of the "Surge" as but a thin sliver of tactic within a larger foreign policy strategy that has failed to deliver any of the outcomes that were promised. Even if we could cast the "Surge" as an unqualified success, the overall strategy has netted America four major failures. And within the larger context of a failure to find WMDs, a failure to improve America's security, a failure to thwart or even impede al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, and a failure to prevent malign regional forces like Iran and Hezbollah from increasing their regional influence, the "Surge" is entirely without relevance - a fourth quarter field goal when you're down four touchdowns.

All of this should have been, and likely is, apparent to Obama, but with Couric, his decision to get Talmudic - to borrow an appropriate term - does him no good at all.

Still, it is Couric who carries the greater malignancy in this exchange, and there's no greater offense than her question, "But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?" WIth that word, microcosm, one can see the main toxin that's embedded in Surge Logic (TM) in high-contrast clarity. That is Couric carrying water for the McCain campaign, attempting to assert that the "Surge" is somehow a "microcosm" of the War in Iraq, the logic being that if we can admit that the "Surge" had any positive effect on the conditions in Iraq, then we must also admit that the War On Iraq was a success.

Against this toxin, Obama needs to come hard with the antidote. Making the Four Failures, outlined above, a central part of the puchback, is an essential first step. Obama would also be well-served to hit back with some Iraq War history - explicating how violence diminished as a result as some pre-Surge events, like the completion of Baghdad's sectarian cleansing, and the Anbar awakening.

And the latter point is critical, because Obama's opponent, John McCain, recently gave an interview in which he either demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of his beloved "Surge" or chose to actively lie about it. The interviewer on that occasion? You got it! KATIE COURIC.

As Ilan Goldenberg wrote, "This is not controversial history. It is history that anyone trying out for Commander in Chief must understand when there are 150,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential element to the story of the past two years. YOU CANNOT GET THIS WRONG."

But McCain did, and Couric didn't offer up any of the same furtive, insistent questioning. The critical difference? Couric's brain is too stuffed full of idiot oppositional talking points and Straw Man arguments to actually know anything about the Iraq War. And that's why the Glory Days of TV News are over.

For all of my ideological differences with the man, I've always appreciated the way MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has seemed to applaud and encourage people of all leanings to get engaged in the political life of the country. But I have to condemn his actions this morning, where he launched into an anti-blogger diatribe that was both defamatory and, even worse, cliched. Now, I'll admit that I, having long given up blogging from home (which too often led to shameful practices, like the watching of Judging Amy reruns on TNT), personally benefit from actually coming into an office, where I am encouraged to wear actual pants and am soothed psychologically by the clickety-clack of other people's keyboards. Still, the key difference between me and Joe Scarborough is that I am right on the "Surge" and he is wrong, and changing into my flannel footie PJ's isn't going to change that.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bag full of crushed up Cheeto dust to mail to MSNBC's Manhattan headquarters.

[WATCH.]

John McCain addressed a town hall meeting in Rochester, NY, today, and the line that everyone will be talking about, or would, if anyone in the media felt like applying any scrutiny to the McCain campaign, is this:

My friends, we have to drill offshore. We have to do it! Oil executives say within a couple years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it? We need to do it.

Of course, based upon what we know about who, exactly would benefit from drilling "within a couple years," it's clear that the above transcript needs to be re-punctuated.

My friends, we have to drill offshore. We have to do it! Oil executives say: "Within a couple years we could be seeing results from it." So why not do it? We need to do it.

We have to do it!

Back in June, John McCain fought back against the Democrats' "50-State Strategy" by launching an eleven state strategy of his own, sinking $16 million worth of ads into Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Those ads carried the same message that McCain's former commanders used to shout at the entire Navy every time the Senator boarded a plane: "Don't hope for a brighter future!" And, as you might expect, people hated the message, and cried.

The results of the investment are graphed by Mark Nickolas at Political Base. In nine of the states targeted, McCain's support in the polls fell precipitously. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, slight leads or dead heats became Obama leads. In Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New Mexico, small Obama leads grew to blowouts. And in Missouri, a large McCain lead has dwindled to a statistical tie.

Exacerbating the problem is the fact that Obama only spent $5 million on advertising in June. The only state where McCain gained traction was Nevada, where no one hopes for a brighter future, preferring instead to hope that desperate, debt-ridden subprime mortgage holders risk their life savings at keno.

One of the key components of the McCain hagiography, besides the downed planes and the wife-swapping is that he was a fearsome critic of the way President George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld prosecuted the Iraq War. OH! How he HATED it! Hated it something fierce! But then John McCain bravely authored the philosophy of the idea of the notion of the strategy that became known as the SURGE! And then, somehow, it became totally okay to hire one of the architects of the Rumsfeld plan as his foreign policy advisor.

Am I trying to say that there are some inconsistencies in McCain's backstory on Iraq? Uhm, yyyyyyyyyeeeeeessssss. And now Jed Lewison of JedReport.com has just released his latest video, an extremely comprehensive collection of McCain clips (never-before-seen for most people) which chart the Arizona Senator's position on Iraq over the last several years, and puncture one of the candidates central contentions.

Lewison writes:

My newest video features John McCain talking about the Iraq war from 2002 through the present, exposing -- in his own words -- the lie behind his claim that he was the war's "greatest critic." It demonstrates his chilling commitment to fighting this war no matter what the people of America -- or Iraq -- want.

It is long -- nine minutes, thirty seconds -- but much of the material it contains will likely be new to you...and devastating to McCain.

Take a look:

Senator John McCain is running a pair of ads that say -- get this -- that the media is "in love" with Barack Obama. I know, I know...take a moment to cradle your poor head tenderly in your hands and note the attendant irony of the candidate best known for courting the press, straight up, as his "base," complaining bitterly about this. The press' great affinity for John McCain is well-known. There's a book about it. Even an RSS feed.

So let's not pretend that McCain hasn't been the blessed recipient of the press' ardent devotion. At the same time, let's not kid ourselves! Obama's won a sizable measure of the press' favor for himself as well. Chris Matthews really did feel that tingle up his leg, y'all!

Still, timing is everything, and McCain would have looked like a fool if he had run these ads two weeks ago, when the press was engaged in jumping up and down on Obama's head for an Iraq withdrawal flip-flop that he hadn't even made. And, so, these ads are running now, while Obama is off on his overseas adventure, and when McCain could safely gamble that the eye of the press would be following him everywhere.

And so, I read the headline currently running on the top of our site, "McCain Camp 'Frustrated' With Obama's Trip," and I have to laugh. After all, wasn't this the overseas trip that McCain insisted Obama make, certain that the overall effect, at the very least, would be to burnish McCain's own commander-in-chief credentials, perhaps even giving the candidate an Obama mistake to exploit? Instead, Obama's overseas foray has been a success. Iraqi officials are in alignment with his plans for military extrication and the worst, it seems, that McCain can do is spin a good reception by Europeans as a bad thing.

The whole thing is like an Ian McEwen novel. Oh, well, John. Be careful what you wish for.

Last night, Chris Matthews appeared on the Tonight Show, where he made an emotional appeal to American voters to remain racially open-minded at the polls and "think the way that" kids think.

[WATCH]

I hope for one thing when people go to vote: that they look at [Obama's] background, that they look at the age of the two candidates, that they look at their abilities and really open up their hearts and say "what's really good for my kids," who don't have any color awareness.

Kids don't think about race. Think like your kids for once. Think the way they think. It would be great if the older people in the country, the 70 year olds, the 80 year olds who are suspicious of change to say, "you know, why don't I think the way my kids are thinking and think about the future."

Whatever they decide, just open up your heart to this prospect of something different. That's what I hope we do.

Naturally, it's hard to fault the noble sentiments behind Matthews' message. At the same time, it's hard to fault anyone who interprets Matthew's message as an ambiguous endorsement of Barack Obama.

There are obviously many gray areas. Matthews is clearly a member of "the media," but he's not exactly a newsman. Matthews exists in the area between moderator and pundit, trafficking in a sort of news that's more based on pure opinion and open-ended analysis than fact. Moreover, the media landscape is dotted with personages whose biases are easily divined. And besides, it's hard to make an appeal for colorblindness at the polls without appearing to back Obama.

Still, Matthews' remarks also come at a time when the GOP is running ads that accuse the media of being "in love" with Obama - and that explicitly references Matthews' own famous "thrill up the leg" comment.

Lou Dobbs, the man who brings you the daily news on Marching Battalions of the Covert Reconquistadors, is of the fervent belief that one day, everyone will be a serious-minded, "independent" voter and that this will save America. "The independents are the fastest growing, as we know," Dobbs said, without identifying who the "we" was, "the fastest growing registrants on the rolls in this country. Faster than Democrats or Republicans. Praise the Lord."

And, heck, it may be true that we are just getting warmed up for the Great Wave of Independent Voters. But, if these voters' independence has any hope of being an informed one, let's hope they resist the urge to get their news from Lou Dobbs, because, as it turns out, he's not very good where facts are concerned.

DOBBS: I think there are plenty of doubts to go around between these two candidates, if I may suggest. But one of the things that I think that will start to show up in these polls and I'm sensing it when I talk to, the viewers of this broadcast or listeners of my radio broadcast, that is there are some serious questions about the Democratic party out of hand perfunctorily saying no drilling off shore. The sense is most Americans want to drill offshore. They want to drill on ANWR. They want relief from the exorbitantly high gasoline prices, fuel prices, home heating oil prices.

Now, it's true that a majority of Americans favor offshore drilling, and a there's a growing shift in support toward drilling in ANWR, but in both cases, it's fueled by a basic ignorance of the limited benefits of each proposal. Opening up the ANWR, as it turns out, would have little impact on prices or oil dependency, and even the leading advocate of off-shore drilling, John McCain, understands that it's effects on prices would be illusory and "psychological."

You'd think that Lou Dobbs, being a newsman, might be interested in kicking a little knowledge to an electorate he hopes will adopt his own disaffection with party politics. Like say, the fact that these initiatives would not, in fact, bring "relief" from "high gasoline prices" and the like. But, lest we forget, this is the guy who brought us the Great Pretend Leprosy Scare of 2007.

This fact-free freebasing came amid a panel discussion that included made-up-from-whole-cloth polling analysis, fever-dreamed conventional wisdom, and a serious contemplation of both parties "doing over" their nominating process - like either party would willingly endure those nightmares again. But the best part is, Dobbs introduces the panel by announcing that they are going to discuss "the pandering that's going on with ethnocentric interest groups." LIKE ALWAYS. To their credit, everyone on the panel studiously avoids that topic, and Dobbs himself never attempts to steer the conversation back to it, probably because he just ALWAYS thinks he's talking about "the pandering that's going on with ethnocentric interest groups." It's probably on his mind when he orders a plate of waffles.