At ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_106 ) McCain says "It's another example that [Obama will] say anything to get elected."

I have known for months that a central rule for John McCain in this campaign is that he will say and do anything to get elected.

This lame attempt to accuse Obama of the same lack of ethics has finally clarified two corollaries for me:

1) If John McCain says something about his own campaign you can be sure that it's not true; and

2) If John McCain accuses Obama of something nefarious, you can be darn sure that McCain is either already doing it or planning to do it soon.

So, like we used to say when we were kids, when John McCain points a finger at Obama, there are always three fingers pointing back at McCain. Not to mention "Obama's rubber, McCain is glue...." 

Barack Obama's recent reference to McCain's policies isn't the first time the "lipstick on a pig" cliche has surfaced in this election cycle.  "'I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig,' [ McCain] said of [Clinton's health care] proposal." ( http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/mccain_rolls_out_health_plan_a.html )

It certainly feels as though Senator McCain and his campaign just say whatever they think sounds good on any particular day. 

I see only two reasons for this:
--He honestly believes these constantly contradicting themes.
--He thinks the American people are all stupid or we don't care or aren't paying attention.

Whichever is true, I certainly don't want him leading this country.

In the TPM article entitled "It's Come to This," David Kurtz wrote:

      What do Michelle Malkin, Rachael Ray, Dunkin
      Donuts, and terrorism have in common?

referring to: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/doughnuts-the-third-rail-of-american-politics/index.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Briefly: in a Dunkin Donuts ad, Rachel Ray wore a scarf that Michelle Malkin thought was a khaffiyeh (which MM equates with "Islamic jihadism"). MM raised a huge stink and forced DD to drop the ad.

The only good news that I can see in this is that Michelle Malkin should no longer be able to play the "political correctness" card, since that is exactly what she has done in this situation. But, does anyone actually think that she'll bother to be self-consistent? I certainly don't.

Oh, one other minor bit of good news...the Oregon State Capitol building (over Rachel's left shoulder) is no longer publicly associated with the crypto-terrorist Rachel Ray. (This last was just a bit of gratuitous snark--no need to respond.)

The only good news that I can see in this is that Michelle Malkin can no longer play the "political correctness" card, since that is exactly what she has done in this situation.

Oh, one other minor bit of good news...the Oregon State Capitol building (over Rachel's left shoulder) is no longer publicly associated with the crypto-terrorist Rachel Ray.

I've railed against sexism for years.  Although male, I'm about as strong a feminist as you'll find.

But I was a little put off when I saw a NOWPAC ad for Senator Clinton today above the TPM banner.  All it says is "A Natural Choice for Women."  With a picture of the candidate.

I understand the subtext:  Senator Clinton has been a strong advocate for women's rights for years.  But still...it left me with the impression that the other candidates are unnatural choices for women.  Not necessarily because of their stand on the issues.  Simply because they are not women.

In this case, I guess a little nuance would go a long way toward making sure that the point is not lost.

The gas tax holiday is a ridiculous idea.  I agree that it will only result in gas companies raising the price of gas to make up the difference.  It occurs to me, though, that if this is true, doesn't the same logic say that we could increase the gas tax and gas companies will have to lower the price of gas to keep the total price the same?

Unfortunately, Senator Clinton is proving that the vast majority of consumers won't see it that way.  They'll assume that any tax hike will come directly out of the consumers' pockets, not the gas companies.

Just a thought, but I'd appreciate feedback from those more knowledgeable in the ways of the economy than I.