Inaccurate campaign stories about Barack Obama have been really piling up over the last couple weeks. There was the bogus story of the kid Obama allegedly refused to give the terrorist fist jab, the correction Fox News anchor Brit Hume issued after claiming Obama's half brother had told The Jerusalem Post that Obama had a "Muslim background", and AP reporter Jennifer Loven's assertion that Obama shifted his Iraq position to "withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months" despite evidence that Obama has had a 16 month plan for withdrawal since 2007.

The worst of the stories may have been the Washington Post's expose that revealed the Obama's mortgage loan came at an interest rate that was "below the average" for 30-year fixed rate loans. Turns out this was because the Obama's have good credit.

FiveThirtyEight Blogger Nate Silver wrote, "It took more than four months, but something finally beat out the Vicki Iseman story for its sheer chutzpah and utter irresponsibility." Silver goes on to explain that according to the website myFICO.com "a borrower with very good credit can expect a mortgage rate about 30 basis points better than someone with pretty good credit, and a borrower with excellent credit can expect about a 50 basis point discount." The Obamas' mortgage rate was 30 points better than average.

Political Animal's Kevin Drum, with tongue-in-cheek, demands that the Obamas release their FICO score immediately. He calls this (non-)story "a complete non-scandal over the fact that people with high incomes generally qualify for slightly better mortgage rates than regular working stiffs. Is there something in the water back in DC, or what?"

On Thursday, as was reported here, Obama said he would continue to refine his policy on Iraq, which was widely seen as a softening of his promise to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Today, recognizing the furor that statement created, he tried to patch it up:

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

...

"The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not somebody - unlike George Bush - who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."

Which I take to mean that if the current troop levels are promoting stability and peace in Iraq and to withdraw them will destabilize Iraq, Obama would keep the troops in. But that's what I take it to mean. It could also mean that he'll do what he always said he would and withdraw the troops regardless of their effect on conditions on the ground and that it was pointless to keep them there.

And that's the real problem, isn't it? Obama revels in these vague rhetorically brilliant statements that can mean all things to all people. Built in is the ability to read any meaning into current or previous statements that he wishes people read into them. This is one real difference between the candidates. With McCain, there is some dissembling, especially on politically touchy issues like immigration, but in large part, you know where McCain stands and what he would do. With Obama? Not so much.

This could be interesting. Democrats know they have a good thing going with the whole Obama cult of personality and figure the bigger venue the better, and why not open it up to the general public:

Barack Obama's campaign is considering moving his nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention from the Pepsi Center to Invesco Field at Mile High to allow tens of thousands to witness the historic moment, sources say.

The move would mark a major departure from tradition, but would be in keeping with the candidate's desire to build a large grass-roots campaign focused on "change."

Should the Illinois Senator give his Aug. 28 speech - which occurs on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech - at Invesco, the move would leave behind the multi-million-dollar broadcast studios and high-tech podium and stage to be constructed at the Pepsi Center.

Possible downside? Well I suppose it's a possibility that he could tank the speech like Kerry in 2004 and come off as awkward in front of even more people, but given that it's Obama, that's not something I would count on happening. McCain could try the same thing I suppose, but could he fill a stadium? Would be embarrassing if he didn't.

President Bush celebrated his final Independence Day in office by leading a naturalization ceremony at Monticello, former home to Thomas Jefferson. The ceremony was marred, however, by protests. From The AP:(via NBC)

On his final U.S. Independence Day as president, Bush told an audience Friday at the home of the Declaration of Independence's author that he was honored to be present for the naturalization. Shouts from protesters were heard during Bush's remarks, and the president responded by saying he agrees that "we believe in free speech in the United States of America."

There are several videos of the incident that are getting heavy traffic on Youtube (MSNBC has the whole speech here). Here are two that I think best showcase the unprecedented impact of these activists.

Check these out, and then tell me if you think activism is dead. I saved the best one for last.

Over twelve hundred U.S. Army soldiers and Marines celebrated Independence Day by committing themselves to another four years of service to the country. Gen. David Petraeus was on hand at Camp Victory, U.S. headquarters in Baghdad, as the men and women took the oath, filling an atrium in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces to the bursting point. The troops sang "God Bless America" and heard a roll call of the states at the ceremony, and were treated to a traditional barbecue in honor of the Fourth afterwards.

Some of the troops told interviewers that the re-upped for the $15,000 bonus, but most expressed a dedication to duty and their comrades characteristic of the military. Many are on their second and third tours in Iraq, and it is a measure of their devotion that these soldiers would volunteer for more duty far from home and family.

The military has enjoyed very high re-enlistment rates throughout the war in Iraq. The large numbers of returning soldiers has helped to offset more sluggish recruitment numbers. As conditions in Iraq improve, and units are regularly rotated out of the country, the veteran troops will impart their war experience to relatively green units, helping to build an even more capable military.

Let's get to the meat of the controversy around the late great Senator No: Jesse Helms.

It's not because he was a racist bigot in his years as a Southern Democrat. Oh yes, you didn't realize that from Ken's diatribe did you? That when Senator Helms was saying those hateful things, he was a Democrat, as were nearly all of the racist segregationist dixiecrats of the era.

In fact, the person who led the filibuster against the civil rights bill of 1964 and was a full member of the KKK is still a Democrat and a lionized member of the Democratic party. I haven't seen Ken Layne write any screeds against Senator Roberty Byrd or threaten to kick him out of the party lately. So the problem with Jesse Helms can't be his segregationist past, or else the Democrats would be craven hypocrites on this issue.

From the WSJ today:

Indeed, the mainstream media rarely put Helms's career in context the way they did, for example, with Sam Ervin, a Democrat who served with Helms in the Senate from North Carolina before retiring in 1975. Ervin was the leading legal strategist against Civil Rights legislation, and he largely crafted the Southern Manifesto against Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled school segregation unconstitutional. But Ervin was the man who chaired the Watergate hearings that helped bring down Richard Nixon, and his views on civil rights were almost never mentioned. Both Helms and Ervin were courtly, principled conservatives. Only one became a cartoon media villain.

No their real problem and the root of their disgust with Jesse Helms was his success at stopping liberal policies, and even worse, he might just be responsible for giving us the Reagan revolution:

Two events early in his Senate career showcased Helms's unflinching nature and his political skills. In 1975, he engineered a visit to the U.S. by Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn over the objections of the State Department, which forbade its own employees from attending a major Solzhenitsyn speech in Washington. State also blocked a proposed visit to the White House, leading Helms to accuse President Gerald Ford of "cowering timidly for fear of offending Communists."

That incident helped spur Reagan to challenge Ford for the GOP nomination the next year. Reagan lost the first five primaries, and he entered the North Carolina contest broke and under pressure to pull out. But Helms and his chief strategist Tom Ellis refused to give up. They employed Helms's huge, direct-mail list to build a grass-roots army of volunteers and raise money to air 30-minute speeches by Reagan across the state.

Emphasizing the Panama Canal "giveaway" and smaller government, Reagan won an upset victory and was able to battle Ford all the way to the GOP convention. He showed such strength at the convention that Ford invited him to deliver off-the-cuff remarks to the delegates. Reagan was so inspiring that some of Ford's own delegates exclaimed, "We just nominated the wrong candidate." Reagan later acknowledged how Helms's intervention rescued his political career.

We're going to hear a lot of selective outrage about Jesse Helms and his racist past and whatever, but remember this, he was hated because he was a successful conservative warrior who stood up for what he believed in and got things done. He was the bane of liberals from the seventies on and he has not been forgiven for that sin. And even worse: He couldn't have cared less what the national media thought of him.

RIP Senator No.

They say that politics make strange bedfellows. Sometimes, however, the bedfellows are completely unsurprising. Politico has had some research leaked to them that links McCain chief strategist Charlie Black to very-recently deceased race-baiter Jesse Helms. From Ben Smith:

...here's a nice bit of quickly Neixised oppo. from the proverbial sources-who-have-requested-to-remain-nameless recalling McCain chief strategist's Charlie Black's work for Helms, and tying him to some of the former Senator's more racially charged, to put it nicely, campaign tactics. Here's the full memo, which was sent our way with the remark, "The connection is Charlie."

The piece goes on to explain that Black worked on several of Helms' re-election campaigns, and defended the infamous 1990 "Hands" ad.

There are some who would see a story like this as an attempt to paint Charlie Black, and by extension, John McCain, as racist. Indeed, I have written before about John McCain's complicated relationship with race issues. The fact is, many Republicans view the race-baiting wing of their party as an unavoidable, but shameful, corner of the Big Tent. Others stand a bit closer.

Here's a July 4 history lesson we should print on the back of the American Flag: If you hate long enough and hard enough, you can go to the very top of the Washington garbage heap.

Jesse Helms died today, 25 years too late, but the stench of his rotten career will always linger in the Senate, and over the South.

He was a hero to bigots and the cigarette corporations, a menace to the poor and downtrodden, and a mean little troll whose heart was so wrecked by wickedness that doctors had to patch it up with coronary valves from a pig.

Today is the day we, as Americans, celebrate our nation's Declaration of Independence from the British Empire. It's also a time for columnists to wax philosophical, or poetic, about patriotism. The subject certainly is ripe, given this election cycle's extra emphasis on it.

I'm not going to do that, because I think that patriotism is not usefully studied, professed, or criticized. It is something that I think is at its best when tested, and when celebrated.

The conscience of our nation is contained in the preamble to that Declaration, and it is the final arbiter to any such test.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The tides may rise and fall, the winds may shift, the ground may shake beneath your feet, but that beautiful idea does not shake, will not bend, will not ever fall. I will leave it to the individual American to look himself or herself in the eye and decide whether they meet that bar, or fall short. Today, as with every Independence Day, I prefer to celebrate the beating heart of our nation.

Here are some of my favorite love songs to America. What are yours?

On July 1, at the Mayor of Denver's annual state of the city address, a local singer named Rene Marie stood before the crowd, eager to hear "The Star Spangled Banner," the US' National Anthem.

Instead, she sang this: