Everyone has been lambasting General Wesley Clark today over his comments about John McCain, including Barack Obama who rejected his comments. But has anyone watched the comments? Not only does General Clark not disparage John McCain's war record, he calls him his "hero" for how courageous he was in his service.

The only point General Clark is making is that this does not translate to having experience in executive responsibility. That point is not only uncontroversial, it is indisputable. Is everyone who got shot out of a plane or spent time in a POW camp qualified to be President of the United States? Of course, not.

Does that experience and how he handled it speak to John McCain's courage? Absolutely. His service to the country? No doubt. But does it speak to whether he has the national security or foreign policy experience necessary to be president? Absolutely not.

Watch General Clark's comments here and judge for yourself whether he said something outrageous or perfectly rational:




Watch The Young Turks on You Tube

One of McCain's campaign managers, Charlie Black, told Fortune magazine that an attack on the United States would be good for John McCain's campaign. As I explain in the video below, I'm not a big advocate of over-emphasizing these campaign gaffes but imagine if Obama's campaign had said this:




You know that if an Obama adviser said an attack on America would help their campaign, there would be a media riot over it. They would cover nothing else until that staffer was fired and Obama and denounced and rejected him and everyone he knows. This would be the largest news story for weeks. Now, let's see what happens to McCain and see how fair and balanced our media really is.

Young Turks on You Tube

The conventional wisdom holds that John McCain should lean to his right in making his choice for a vice presidential candidate. This wisdom is completely wrong. Most of the names being bandied about would make terrible choices for McCain. I don't claim to be a political expert in the manner of Dick Morris, but I think the best choice for McCain would be Colin Powell.

Yes, Colin Powell. And here are the reasons why. First, Powell has an independent mind. He is not a captive of the right, and consequently he reinforces the public perception that McCain is not a pawn of Bush. True, Powell served in the Bush administration, but his disagreements with Bush are well known. Obama is trying to portray McCain as a Bush clone. Powell will help McCain convince independent voters--the ones he needs most--that his administration would not constitute a third Bush term.

Second, Powell has experience. The man has served honorably and responsibly in more high positions than Obama and all the other Democratic candidates combined. Moreover, Powell has gravitas while Obama merely has the gift of the gab. So Powell helps to highlight how green and goofy Obama really is. The point is not to contrast one African American with another, or to show how Powell like Obama has immigrant roots. Rather, it is to dissolve the race issue by showing that capability and experience, not race and skin color, are the real issues here.

Finally, who apart from the Obamorons can doubt that Powell would make a capable president? This is especially important given the fact that McCain is over seventy. A Powell choice would also reinforce the big question about the man at the top of the Democratic ticket: Is he ready? I am not going to say that Obama can never be a good president, but I seriously doubt that he is mature enough to climb into the saddle. Who would you trust--Powell or Obama--to better handle a national emergency?

Now all of this could be idle speculation, because Powell may not want to be vice president. I keep hearing about how his wife is so completely against the idea. But this could be one of McCain's first tasks: to persuade Powell to do it. This wouldn't be the first time that this soldier has been asked to put personal considerations second and to take on a great challenge for the future of his country.

The title of this post sounds facetious, but in fact, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana says it is literal. He wrote an essay in 1994 claiming he took part in an exorcism where he battled Lucifer and won! That's bad ass. Now that's the kind of experience we need in the White House. If he can beat the Devil imagine what he can do Al Qaeda.

Just when you thought the Republicans couldn't get any more nuts, Governor Jindal is here to prove you wrong. Listen for the unbelievable details here:





This guys is being considered for the VP slot by McCain. Now, I'm not going to put this on McCain. I doubt he knew about the exorcism, or approves of battling Satan in your down time. And he hasn't even picked Jindal. This is part of the normal vetting process and I hope Jindal has now been effectively vetted out of consideration.

So, putting the McCain connection aside, how did this guy get to be governor? Atheists who believe in a rational world have no chance in politics in this country, but stark raving mad guys like this are considered legitimate and electable? What does that tell you about us? Now, that's the real scary thought.

Young Turks on You Tube or Enter Rebel Headquarters Here

When you look at the speeches of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama last night, one things becomes clear. There is one speech which lacked all energy, excitement and interest -- and that clearly was John McCain's.

We did a mashup of their speeches from Tuesday night, we picked some of McCain's best moments to be fair to him and it still looks pretty miserable by comparison:




More Young Turks on You Tube

The reviews are in for McCain's speech, and they are not good. We admire the man and respect his service, but has he ever looked more wooden and awkward than he did last night? That weird, gawky smile! That stilted, smug grin!

It reminded us of something, but what?

We couldn't put our finger on it for the longest time, but then we realized where we'd seen that look before . . .

Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination tonight, but you couldn't tell that if you were listening to Hillary Clinton's speech. I really thought she would have the good sense to know when the fight is over. But her refusal to concede tonight went from determination to derangement. Everybody likes a good tough fighter, but no one likes someone who keeps hitting after the bell has rung. It's ugly.

Watch her speech here (this is the part where she refuses to acknowledge that Obama has won) and then we explain how crazy this decision is:




Then Obama spoke and he was very gracious to her, even though he had already heard that she wouldn't concede. What more does he have to do? He passed the magic number. He has more pledged delegates, super delegates, overall delegates (and more popular votes too, despite Clinton's maniacal and completely unjustifiable claims to the contrary). The race was to get to a majority of the delegates -- and he got there. What is there not to concede?

There is one possible explanation for Hillary's actions tonight, I explain that in the clip below. First you'll see Obama's historic speech (the part where he claims victory) and then hear the possible reason Hillary is still hanging around in this race:




By the way, did you see McCain's speech tonight? Wow, that was embarrassing. It was anemic, lame and lacked even one percent of the energy of Clinton or Obama's speech. Unless some world changing event happens, McCain doesn't stand a chance. Anyone who saw Obama's speech and McCain's speech tonight can see that plain as day.

Young Turks on You Tube

This idea of not talking to your enemies is so silly I can't believe anyone is taking it seriously. Was Reagan appeasing the Soviet Union when he negotiated with them? How about Nixon going to China? Let alone when Reagan sold weapons to Iran (which actually comes pretty damn close to appeasement).

These neocons sound like they're in third grade. Sally won't talk to Suzy because she did something really mean to her. Adults should know better. It's so disappointing that McCain has gone down this neocon road and bought into the Bush idea of not talking to your enemies.

Speaking of responsible adults in the Republican Party, James Baker gives John McCain a lesson on diplomacy (these are the kind of serious professionals that attracted me to the Republican Party in the first place -- our progressive viewers hate it when I compliment James Baker, but whether you agreed or disagreed, you knew the man was smart and capable):




Well, it turns out John McCain agreed with James Baker -- at some point. Because as you can see from this clip, he went much further than Obama and wanted to talk to Hamas:




John McCain used to be a reasonable guy. What he's done to try to get elected is a really sad spectacle to watch. Did you see how uncomfortable he was on Ellen as he tried to maintain his craven position on gay marriage? The man is not comfortable in his own skin anymore. And he might not even be comfortable with his own positions anymore (whatever they happen to be today), because he then commits the mother of all flip-flops:




I'm not sure I've ever seen a politician flip-flop as many times John McCain has. He's breaking all the records. It's really sad and ironic because one of the things that attracted me to him in 2000 was how principled he was. Well, at least I thought he was principled. But that was a different McCain than this guy running for office now. I don't even recognize this guy. And even if I did, it looks like he'd just change tomorrow anyway.

Young Turks on You Tube and Check Out the Whole Young Turks Show Here

Today John McCain finally did what he should have done a long time ago -- he rejected Pastor John Hagee. We celebrate in the video below:




Putting the kidding about "strike back" aside, let me tell you why it's important that McCain denounce Hagee. As I explained later in the show, I don't believe that McCain agrees with Hagee's insane beliefs. But if McCain did not denounce him and he won the presidency, he would feel that he was indebted to Hagee for his endorsement. Hence, he would try to appease this nutjob -- as the Bush administration has been doing with all of these lunatic evangelical ministers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both of whom said the US had 9/11 coming).

A guy like Jeremiah Wright isn't going to influence a thing in the White House if Barack Obama wins. But the Christian Right is different because they are a well-organized political movement. They have real power. This is why the Bush administration had a weekly call with these prominent Christian Right figures and often tweaked their policies to appease them.

The problem isn't that John McCain agrees with Rev. Hagee or Rev. Parsley, it's that he has to try hold on to their political support by giving them something they want. That's what is dangerous.

That's why it's such good news that they are no longer with the campaign, because even if McCain wins now hopefully he won't feel like he owes them anything.

Young Turks on You Tube and Young Turks Headquarters

The title of this post might seem like an exaggeration, but in fact it is literal. Pastor John Hagee endorsed John McCain earlier this year and John McCain says to this day that he is proud of this endorsement. Pastor Hagee believes Hitler was sent to drive the Jews out from under the rocks they were living in and drive them to Israel through mass extermination. Furthermore, God gave the Jews a chance to go to Israel on their own and when they didn't, he sent Hitler to hunt them down.

You don't believe it? Listen for yourself:




How can McCain still be proud of this guy's endorsement? And how did Jeremiah Wright get all that coverage when this guy is a thousand times more offensive?

Young Turks on You Tube and Watch the Whole Show Here

Republican presidential candidate John McCain suspects the war in Iraq will be over by 2013.

"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won," said McCain.

Despite the fact that he predicts the war will "be won" in five years, McCain denies any claims that he has drawn up a timetable for full-scale troop withdrawal.

"It's not a timetable; it's victory. It's victory, which I have always predicted. I didn't know when we were going to win World War II; I just knew we were going to win," said McCain during his speech in Columbus, Ohio.

There you have it: John McCain JUST KNOWS the U.S is going to win the war in Iraq. He might not know how, but he just knows. One of the journalists who attended McCain's speech suggested he took listeners on a "magic carpet ride" to the future.

With the number of U.S casualties increasing, and the faltering economy in mind, occupying Iraq for an additional five years is a scary thought. But there are other underlying issues in McCain's statements.

First off, John McCain's response to reporters makes no sense at all. If he has not at least created a game plan for the Iraq War, what is the premise for him saying the war will end by 2013? Does he just assume things in the Middle East will smooth over by the end of his presidential term (if he gets elected)? Surely, he must have some sort of "timetable" set if he has the ability to announce a year as to when Americans can expect their sons and daughters to return from the war.

Denying that he has a game plan probably hurts him more than helps him. It's understandable that McCain likes to stick to his guns. In fact, he would be accused of hypocrisy if he didn't stand by his word. In his campaign during the primaries, McCain criticized former Republican rival Mitt Romney for hinting at a timetable for troop withdrawal. But since when is it a bad thing to have a timetable? Is the electorate keen on staying in Iraq for years to come?

The Republicans claim they are tough on national security, and that is precisely why they have kept U.S troops in Iraq. However, keeping troops in the Middle East has not secured the U.S at all. McCain's Democratic rival Barack Obama said the war has failed to secure America since it has made the U.S military weak and vulnerable to any potential attack made by other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran.

Cenk makes a good point about McCain's current comments in the following clip:



Nonetheless, it's comforting to know one of the candidates for presidency makes predictions with no real premise or plan.

Just about every four years, we hear about how this election is going to be a transformational election and how the direction of the country is going to be permanently changed and how our children and grand-children will be affected by what we decide now. In reality, transformational elections are rare and this election doesn't look like it's going to change much no matter who is elected.

History shows that America is a one-party state. What I mean by this is that one party tends to dominate and the other party tends to be a "me too" party. In the early nineteenth century, the Democratic Party established itself as the majority party in the era of Andrew Jackson. That lasted about forty years until the Civil War, when the Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln seized majority status. The GOP dominated American politics from 1865 until 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt inaugurated an era of Democratic hegemony. For most of the twentieth century, from the thirties until 1980, the Democrats controlled the government. Reagan's election in 1980 began our current epoch of Republican and conservative domination.

How do we know that this has been a conservative era? Not just by the number of Republicans who have occupied the White house. We also know by looking at the behavior of Democrats who have managed to get elected. Today Bill Clinton goes around boasting, "We won the Cold War." "We fixed welfare." "We signed the free trade agreements." "We put the lid on spending." Remarkably all Clinton's accomplishments are conservative accomplishments. At least one of them, welfare reform, was signed reluctantly because of GOP pressure. None would have been possible without conservative support. Clinton's liberal ideas, such as gays in the military and national health care, went down in flames. In sum, Clinton was dragged by the conservative tide and basically governed as a moderate Republican.

Is the conservative era now finished? Many of the pundits say it is, but I see no sign of it from the actions of the three presidential candidates. McCain of course has largely pleged to "stay the course." His independence is genuine but it does not constitute a departure from Reagan principles. Mostly McCain is a temperamental departure from Bush. Interestingly Hillary seems to have tempered her erstwhile radicalism. As a senator she has generally occupied the right flank of the Democratic party, voting for example to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Even in the campaign Hillary has sounded cautious notes, warning of the danger of negotiating with Iran, promising a staged rather than precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, an so on.

That leaves Obama, who sounds transformational in his rhetoric. But where is the actual change that Obama is proposing? Basically Obama's argument is that he is different because he grew up in many different places, has a black father and a white mother, and because his grandmother lives in an African village. Obama claims to be different because of his name and his background. So is Obama going to radically overhaul the tax system? No. Is he going to change America's longtime alliance with Israel or our special friendship with Great Britain? No. Does he have any new ideas for reshaping race relations in this country? If so he has kept them entirely to himself. Even Obama's tiresome repetition of the need to change the way Washington does business is unaccompanied by any concrete strategies for changing the modus operandi in the nation's capital.

One of these days we will have a transformational election, as we did in 1932 or 1980. But so far this doesn't look like one at all. The long shadow of Reagan still hangs over American politics, shaping the way the presidential candidates see themselves and the world.

There are two interesting things that came out of John McCain's last appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. One, he clearly lied about voting for Bush in 2000. Arianna Huffington said earlier this week that he told a table full of guests at a dinner they had together that he did not vote for Bush in the 2000 general election. Since then, there have been four other witnesses that corroborated Huffington's story to The Washington Post, New York Times and LA Times.

That's part of the reason why McCain looks and sounds so nervous below, which leads to the second interesting point. He has entered the maniacal laughter competition with Hillary Clinton. His laugh below is so forced and awkward that it's a little painful to look at. So, check out the video below and then tell us who has the weirder laugh, McCain or Hillary:




So, who gets your vote?

Young Turks on You Tube or Watch the Whole Show Here

This video is an awareness test. See if you can get the right answer to the question they ask:





Young Turks on You Tube and Young Turks on Young Turks

The title of this post might seem like an exaggeration. How could Saint John McCain have a friend and supporter who is a criminal, a thug and far more un-American than Reverend Wright? This man we're talking about even worked actively to undermine the American system of government -- and was convicted for it. And John McCain calls him a dear friend. You don't believe it, watch and hear the quotes for yourself:




Here is the story that has all this information and the links that link to the original stories. Now, I know a lot of people will think, "This doesn't count." But think about that. Why don't you think it counts?

There are three reasons: 1. You already know this guy so you feel like it's old news. But that doesn't make his actions or his words any less despicable. 2. He is white. Admit it; it sounds a lot more dangerous to you if it's a black radical calling for people to shoot the heads off of federal agents 3. He's a Republican, so we know they don't play fair and he was just trying to give his party an advantage. Now imagine how you and the media would react if you heard Obama's staff broke into McCain's headquarters (or Hillary's) in the middle of the night and stole his most important campaign information. And Obama later said the people who did that are his dear friends and he is proud to be associated with them.

Look, you know the answers to these questions. You know that it would be different if it was a black Obama supporter who had done any of these things. I don't think everything is about racism, not by a long shot; but aren't some things? And if that's not the right explanation here (and it might not be), what is the reason behind this incredible double standard that is applied to Obama and McCain backers?

Young Turks on You Tube

Young Turks on Young Turks