As I was researching another story today, I came across a series of stories that asked whether the McCain campaign was screening out less friendly reporters from their press conference calls. David Corn from Mother Jones asks, Gabriel Beltrone at HuffPo investigates, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey mocks, and TPM's Greg Sargent puts the question to the McCain campaign.

After all of that, none of them were able to answer that question. Of course, they didn't ask me, or I would have told them: Of course, they do! I have been planning to write about it, even requesting a comment from the McCain campaign for the story. I have hesitated, until now, not wanting it to seem too personal. After reading all of these stories, however, I had to set the record straight. As luck would have it, a little more proof appeared today.

The McCain campaign has been freezing me out since July 2nd, screening me out of asking questions on every call, failing to return calls for comment, and ignoring every email except one, a 1 word response issued yesterday.

Curiously enough, I was able to get a question in today. They introduced me as Ed Morrissey, though. That was strange. I corrected their error, and asked my 2 questions. You can listen below.

100,000 200,000+ attended today's speech by Barack Obama in Berlin. But US foreign service workers and diplomats were not among them.

The LA Times reported a little after noon eastern time today:

On orders from the State Department, the rally has been declared off-limits to Foreign Service personnel because it is a "partisan political activity." Under the Hatch Act, civil servants in the United States are allowed to attend such rallies as long as they do not make political contributions to work for candidates.

But State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy told the Washington Post's Karen DeYoung that the administration wanted to draw a line in the sand when it came to partisan stuff abroad. "We always maintain that no U.S. government Foreign Service person overseas should be seen to be advocating one side or the other," he said.

The diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Assn., is appealing the ruling as "an unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the rules.

Unnecessary, indeed. Is the Bush administration that worried about John McCain's prospects this fall???

My first reaction: Isn't this a little premature? Doesn't he have to win an election first?

Marc Ambinder:

With less than six months to go before he would be sworn in as the nation's 44th president, Sen. Barack Obama has directed his aides to begin planning for the transition.

"Barack is well aware of the complexity and the organizational challenge involved in the transition process and he has tasked s small group to begin thinking through the process," a senior campaign adviser said. "Barack has made his expectations clear about what he wants from such a process, how he wants it to move forward, and the establishment and execution of his timeline is proceeding apace."

...

An aide confirms that Podesta will probably be asked to head the transition team, which would take over from the campaign if Obama wins in November, and would be tasked with ensuring a smooth handover of power.

After thinking about it though, I will admit that it's probably a good idea to have a plan in place in either eventuality. The dumb here is not having a plan, it's in talking about a plan, especially when you're battling against a perception of arrogance. Well, maybe battling is not the right word, maybe it's more like underscoring.

At the end of the article, the McCain team said they wouldn't discuss their plans, which seems more appropriate at this point.

Barack Obama just finished delivering his speech in Berlin. Read the full text here. The takeaway image? A huge crowd of a few hundred thousand Berliners, a great many of them waving American flags.





As Chuck Todd noted on MSNBC, there was nothing in the text of the speech--which was neither here nor there, to my mind--that John McCain would necessarily disagree with. Still, it's hard to imagine McCain being able to deliver the same speech as convincingly as Obama just did.

Meanwhile, McCain ate sausage at a German restaurant someplace in Ohio.

From pedestrian to pompous.

From an unscheduled trip to a Pennsylvania supermarket and discussing counterinsurgency strategy (at least delights is not spelled de-lites):

And this one reminds me of a funeral Mass card:

Can this campaign hire some media-savvy people?

It was either that, or "Fasten Your Seatbelts! It's Dinner with Nader!" I'm open to suggestions.

Barack Obama is offering "All-Access" laminates to lucky donors, John McCain is offering lucky winners a ride on the "Straight Talk Express," and Ron Paul supporters can even buy their own blimps, but Ralph Nader will not be outdone: (via Tom Abrahams of ABC in Houston)

The person who brings in the most e-mail sign-ups by August 7 at midnight to votenader.org wins...

During the course of the contest, you can keep track of how you are doing on our "Win Dinner With Ralph E-mail Contest Leaderboard."

It's sort of like kicking back on a Sunday afternoon and watching the PGA leaderboard.

Except that this isn't golf. It's democracy.

I have some questions, but first, doesn't the name of his website sound like a futuristic cyborg, sent from the future to dimple chads?

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain took pains to redefine the meaning of what he means when he says "The Surge." In effect, McCain had made a silly gaffe when he declared that our infusion of troops into Iraq back in early 2007 facilitated the Sunni Awakening, which, as many were quick to point out, actually happened months before. As Political Machine's Dave reported earlier, candidates make mistakes on the campaign trail. But rather than correct the record and wipe the egg off his face, McCain decided to take another approach. Since historical revisionism could be easily exposed by even the most novice fact-checker, McCain decided to go after the English language itself.

In order to make it seem like he never made a gaffe in the first place, McCain employed some Clintonian linguistic deconstruction. You see, McCain didn't misspeak, it just depends on what the meaning of the word "surge" is. I have my problems with Keith Olbermann and his overly-dramatic impersonation of Edward R. Murrow, but on this story, he pretty much nailed why McCain's re-explanation of the surge is going to get him into much more trouble than if he'd simply admitted an error.



Of course, "the Surge" is the best card in McCain's hand, so he knows he can't afford to watch it be buried. Why on earth, then, does he insist on tossing more dirt upon it? Pretty soon, his chances of winning this election will be dead and buried.

Back in 1960, four University of Michigan professors published a landmark study that, to the nation's utter shock, found that Americans are nothing but lemmings when it comes to our most sacred Democratic rite, voting. Titled "The American Voter," the study revealed that, by and large, Democrats and Republicans voted for their respective parties for no better reason than that was what their parents had done before them. Independents, the study claimed, were even less informed than their partisan neighbors. In fact, if anything, they were less interested and involved in politics than the donkeys or the elephants.

Over the ensuing 48 years, a lot has changed in our country. We've seen great leaders assassinated, fought a disastrous war in Vietnam, seen a president resign in disgrace, helped dismantle the Soviet Union, learned interesting uses for Altoids, and invaded Iraq based on faulty intelligence. In short, we've been given every reason to start paying attention to the issues that face our country so that we can make an informed decision about who we elect to governmental office. What's that old saying? Something about learning from the mistakes of the past so that we're not doomed to repeat them in the present?

Well, consider us doomed. That's the gist of an update to "The American Voter," aptly titled, "The American Voter Revisited."

Via CNN, GOP rising star Bobby Jindal puts the breaks on all the vice-presidential speculation:

"I'm not going to be the vice presidential nominee or vice president," Jindal said. "I'm going to help Senator McCain get elected, as governor of Louisiana."

"Let me be clear: I have said in every private and public conversation, I've go the job I want," Jindal also said.

One thing Jindal might do is deliver the keynote address at the Republican Convention. Baring a McCain win in November, look for him to warm to the idea of being vice president (hey, maybe even president) in 2012.

Question: Did Mitt Romney's hopes just get that much brighter? How about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty?

And did Robert Novak run over that person in the crosswalk today because he was still fuming about potentially being duped by McCain's senior advisers over when John would announce his VP choice? Or does Novak simply have a thing against pedestrians in general? So many questions.

Righty blogs highlight this:

Lefty blogs highlight stuff like this:

Can we stipulate, just for the sake of argument, that both candidates, heck all candidates in all of history occasionally misspeak themselves? I mean fine, one can probably make a point that McCain at his age is probably not as quick thinking as he once was, one could also make a point that Obama isn't nearly as good off the cuff as he is brilliant with a prepared speech.

And so what? Do we really think it means anything about the judgements and the decisions they will make as president? Our president does not appear before the congress like the British Prime Minister where a quick thinking wit is a decided advantage. (click here, for a good typical exchange)

Sound off in the comments; Keep up on the gaffe coverage, or save it for the extreme and/or hilarious ones?