When I did a story about John McCain's release of his tax returns a few weeks ago, I somehow missed out on the glaring fact that Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain has a prenuptial agreement with second wife Cindy McCain. Well, at least she let him keep his maiden name.

From Tfitz on DailyKos:

It seems that when his totally hot, totally rich, second wife Cindy said yes to his 'big question', she also let him know that his job wasn't finished until the paperwork was done. This tough bride, whose financials are none of your damn business thank you very much, made Big John sign a prenuptial agreement. How's that again? A possible POTUS with a pre-nup?

The article goes on to talk about the implications of the pre-nup:

If marriage is sanctioned by God and valid until death does part you cute kids, why go into it with a financial escape clause; a 'golden parachute' of love? Well, the reasons for doing so are obvious and can be fully expressed in two points. Point A: 'This thing may not last and I'll be damned if I'm going to be broken hearted and broke' and Point B: 'I don't really trust this son of a bitch'. In other words, it is all about trust. In other, other words; Cindy McCain doesn't.

When I saw this story, aside from the usual guy-talk ribbing, I couldn't really see much of a point to it. I've never cared much for stories of an embarrassing, personal nature. I almost felt a little bad for McCain. But, then, while researching yesterday's story, I realized that McCain had it coming.

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

That line is what we in the biz call a logical fallacy. As logical fallacies go, it's pretty innocuous, even comical. I picture an apoplectic bureaucrat somewhere screaming into the face of the 987th person to come to the window and ask, "What's wrong with my Driver's Manual?"

A far more dangerous logical fallacy is all the rage now, and it has a lot to do with intentionally blank pages. The press has given John McCain a free ride for years now, and as a result, 45% of Hillary Clinton's supporters have something like this to say:

If Hillary Clinton doesn't win, I will vote for McCain in November.

It is a happy accident that David Knowles wrote about this phenomenon earlier today, unbeknownst to me. This serves as an excellent companion to that story.

Now, I understand disappointment, and a certain amount of bitterness toward an opponent in a hard-fought contest, but this makes about as much sense as rooting for the Red Sox if the Yankees lose, unless you're Rudy Giuliani, or saying that if you can't have your favorite flavor of ice cream, you'll take cyanide instead.

My theory is that many of these voters have the same general idea about McCain that the rest of America does, that he's a free-thinking, maverick moderate who even leans to the left here and there, a great down-the-middle choice. Let's test that theory out. This poll is for Hillary Clinton supporters only. Take it, and then read on.

From a strict policy perspective, this formulation is, of course, absurd. As Clinton, McCain, and Obama will all tell you, the differences between Clinton and Obama pale in comparison to those between Clinton and McCain. Really, it isn't even close. Virtually every single substantive issue that Clinton and Obama support, McCain does not, and vice-versa. McCain offers huge corporate tax breaks, Clinton and Obama do not. Clinton and Obama want to make sure that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, McCain does not. McCain has even voted to ban funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest. On the Iraq war, McCain will not hasten a pullout. Clinton and Obama will. Clinton and Obama have health-care proposals whose goal is Universal care, McCain does not. And on and on.

So why the cognitive dissonance? Well, most of the people who employ the "Hillary or McCain" retort do so for far less sensible reasons than actual policy distinctions.

Having unintentionally evolved into a New York Times bias watch-dog, I diligently attempt to remain on top of the mountainous heap of slanted news which is issued forth from that venerable institution. However, Powerline has beaten me to the punch this time, noting the Times' outright misrepresentations of the McCain/Obama/Hamas issue (which would cause a lesser instrument of journalism to slink away in shame).

The Times' story, "On McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link.," covers the issue of Obama's embarrassing endorsement by the terrorist organization Hamas. However, instead of contemplating why the thugs and murderers of Hamas have taken a liking to Obama, the Times' denounces McCain for untruthfully stating that Obama would pursue "unconditional" talks with Iran.

This shift in focus is distracting and fictitious, simply a means of covering for Obama and smearing McCain. In fact, Obama's Web site states: "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." Watch Obama discuss the issue here. As Jim Geraghty notes over at NRO, an Obama adviser has held meetings with Hamas.

I repeat and repeat again: a news organization which misrepresents the truth in order to deceive and mislead the public in critical issues of national import has betrayed its nation with a boldness and effectiveness beyond the scope of nearly any other institution. These are institutions imbued, by their very nature, with the public trust - their sedition is a matter of unparalleled shame.

Following Friday's resignation by Obama Middle East advisor Rob Malley over his many meetings with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, the Obama-Hamas controversy is bubbling up once more. Over the last few weeks the controversy has been a particular point of discussion between the McCain and Obama campaigns. In an interview last week, Senator Obama said that McCain was "losing his bearings" and suggested that the Hamas issue was nothing more than a "smear" tactic. In a subsequent appearance, Senator McCain said he believed the endorsement of Senator Obama by Hamas was "a legitimate point of discussion." Conservative and liberal blogs have been abuzz, albeit to a lesser extent than the "When Will She Get Out" speculation.

Senator Obama's position with regard to rogue states and terrorist groups has been a point of contention for months, starting with his statement during a CNN Debate in July of last year that he would meet with such states without precondition. The Clinton campaign made much use of this, with Senator Clinton herself calling Obama's answer "irresponsible and frankly naive," in an interview with an Iowa newspaper that same month.

Note From AOL: Our weekly Straw Poll was restarted again on Monday, May 12 at 2:00PM ET. After voting, check back again next Monday for a chance to recast your ballot.

Former Republican Representative from Georgia, Bob Barr, officially announced his run for president today. Barr will first have to secure the Libertarian Party's nomination. If Barr does get on the ballot in November, he is perceived as a potential drain on John McCain's support among reluctant conservatives.

Barr helped lead the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. He has since broke with the Republican party over a variety of issues, including the Patriot Act and the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which Barr fervently opposes. He has consistently railed against the politics of fear, a theme he hit on again in his statement today, "We believe in an America that is not and should not be and should never be driven by fear as current policies on behalf of both parties are in this country," Barr said.

Barr believes his campaign has the potential to pick up where Ron Paul's primary campaign left off. In March, he told The Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Ron Paul tapped into a great deal of that dissatisfaction and that awareness. Unfortunately, working through the Republican party structure, it became impossible for him to really move forward with his movement. But we have to have a rallying point out there to harness that energy, that freedom in this election cycle."

John McCain's campaign has a new ad out on the economy running in Iowa. The :30 second spot is titled "Accountable."

John McCain today is launching a climate change video entitled, "A Better Way." Although it does little by way of letting viewers know what McCain would do to fix the problem, it does refer to how "one extreme" thinks "high taxes, and crippling regulation" is the solution, while another "denies the problem even exists."

"I believe climate change is real," a casually-dressed McCain on a mountain says. "It's not just a greenhouse gas issue, it's a national security issue."

The ad comes as McCain travels to the Pacific Northwest to talk about the generally oft-neglected topic. In Portland today, he will deliver what his campaign is calling "a major speech" outlining his plans to combat the threat of global climate change and "re-establish America's environmental leadership in the world."

He's going to propose a domestic cap-and-trade system his campaign says will mobilize market forces to develop and commercialize alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Tomorrow, he will participate in a discussion in Seattle with environmentalists, conservationists and the business community on how to combat climate change.



After the jump, the new pro-Hillary video featuring the White House-scorned duo of Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson.

Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton's campaign confirmed that it is now $20 million dollars in debt. Some have speculated that any deal that lays the groundwork for her exit from the Democratic race will have Barack Obama picking up Clinton's trail of unpaid bills. While many Clinton supporters scoff at this notion, and cheer their candidate to soldier on until the convention in August, there may be a more compelling reason to settle up before then. Actually, make that 11 million reasons. From US News and World Report:

Experts disagree on whether or not Clinton will actually stick in the fight until the Democratic National Convention in August. But the date looms large for another reason--at least, if she hopes to recoup any of the million s she has sunk into the campaign. Thanks to a little-known provision in 2002's McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, a campaign must repay the loan to a candidate before Election Day. In this case, that's the nominating convention. After the election has passed, a bankrupt campaign is limited to gathering just $250,000 from contributors, which means that modes sum is all it can give back to a candidate. In short, Clinton stands to lose $11,150,000. "If she wants to be repaid, she'd have to move on that between now and the national convention," says former Federal Election Commission chairman Michael Toner."

Each time the Clintons have dipped into their personal fortune to help fund the campaign, they've termed the infusion a "loan," which, one assumes, is meant to be re-paid. The irony that John McCain's legislation (so reviled by conservatives) might be the final nudge that pushes Clinton from the race is all a bit Twilight Zone. But the rub here is that if Clinton exits the race now, her fundraising opportunities go away while, baring an Obama bailout, the debt remains. That means she may opt to stay in, try to spend a tiny amount in the remaining contests, raise cash, and then quit at the last possible moment, right before the convention so as to avoid the campaign finance restrictions.

No word yet on how much of the $42.3 million Mitt Romney lent his own campaign that Mitt has bee able to recoup.