Reports today indicate that John McCain has finally injected some negativity into the Presidential race, despite his much ballyhooed rhetoric about positive, dignified campaigning. The reason for this is simple. John McCain has finally figured out he doesn’t have a chance in hell of being President.

The old happy warrior side of Mr. McCain has been eclipsed a bit lately by a much more aggressive, and more negative, Mr. McCain who hammers Mr. Obama repeatedly on policy differences, experience and trustworthiness.

By doing so, Mr. McCain is clearly trying to sow doubts about his younger opponent, and bring him down a peg or two. But some Republicans worry that by going negative so early, and initiating so many of the attacks himself rather than leaving them to others, Mr. McCain risks coming across as angry or partisan in a way that could turn off some independents who have been attracted by his calls for respectful campaigning.

The drumbeat of attacks could also undermine his argument that he will champion a new brand of politics.

“The McCain campaign, I think, is being pulled in two directions,” said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist who worked for Mr. McCain in 2000. “On the one hand, this race is largely a referendum on Obama, and whether or not he’s going to pass the leadership threshold in the eyes of voters. So being aggressive against Obama on questions of leadership and trust and risk are important, but at the same time I think they need to be very careful because McCain is not at his best when he is being overly partisan and negative.”

Let’s be honest with each other, shall we? John McCain doesn’t represent hope for the parasite masses of helpless, hopeless Americans who need someone to manage their otherwise out of control lives. America is totally ready for a President who will promise us a big-screen TV in every living room. America needs a man at the helm who believes everyone is entitled to be equally mediocre. This nation believes in taking money away from producers and giving it to non-producers with very few strings attached. This nation believes that thick books filled with rules are more important than common sense. This union of states is perfectly comfortable with the idea of zero tolerance. Our huddled masses are focused on fake boobs and reality TV these days. That is why this nation wants and needs the cult of Barack Obama. That is why Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States of America.

That our next President will be a tall, black good-looking, cigarette smoking socialist specializing in speeches filled with powerful but ultimately empty rhetoric backed up by graft based on force of arms is as inevitable as the fall of Rome.

If I wanted to be President and I knew I was doomed to lose because of ignorance I had helped perpetuate during my career, I’d probably be negative too.

Time Magazine has some advice for Obama (who is planning a little trip):

Still, there are a few ways Obama can reach out to ordinary Iraqis and make his trip more meaningful.

First, he should invite a group of Baghdad journalists — mostly Iraqis, but also a few Westerners who’ve been in Iraq for several years — for a chat. This would not be a press conference; Obama would be asking all the questions. The majority of journalists live in the Red Zone and see much more of Iraqi life than anybody in the Iraqi government or the U.S. embassy. Iraqi journalists don’t need to “embed” with U.S. troops in order to get to dangerous districts like Sadr City or Amariyah — they live in those neighborhoods, and they could tell Obama a lot more about the Iraqi condition than he could glean from any number of official briefings.

The advice is good.

I still remember, and always will, the time George W. Bush visited the Green Zone briefly while I was there. I wasn’t allowed in the Palace because I didn’t want to give up my pistol to walk through and get to my hooch. And that was one little symptom of what’s wrong with our mentality in America.

I don’t think Obama is going to do much good for this country I adopted, but I’ll take what I can get. If he listens to Time Mr. Obama will visit with people who live in the Red Zone while he is in Iraq.

If there’s not enough time to organize such a meeting, there’s one surefire way Obama can meet Iraqis. At the main entrances to the Green Zone, there’s almost always a long queue of folks waiting to get in, usually to visit a government office or a member of Parliament. Once they get past the elaborate security checks, they’re usually made to wait on the lawns of the building that serves as Iraq’s Parliament. It would be relatively easy for Obama to send a member of his entourage, accompanied by an Iraqi translator, to invite a random selection of these Iraqis for an informal chat — few would turn down the chance to meet him.

If Obama is too scared or too controlled to go to one of the major checkpoints, then he should be able to get on the buses that run from point to point within the Green Zone. Those buses are populated by a mix of contractors, soldiers and Red Zone folks, and could provide our next President with a real viewpoint from someone who actually has to suffer the consequences of the occupation.

I’m expecting that this will be a typical political visit, however. My belief is that Obama represents business as usual.

Barack Obama has demonstrated a clear penchant for ignorance when it comes to American government and he seems to be ill informed on world history as well. There are not 57 American states at this juncture in history, and Americans did not liberate Auschwitz. Perhaps he meant his Kenyan uncle?

Barack Obama is either ignorant, lying, or doing what military people call “talking out of your ass.”

If you really pay attention to the many sound bites coming out of this man’s mouth, you begin to realize that he, like every Democratic player in the last 50 years, is just trying to say what he thinks you want to hear. He wants American to believe he is incredibly intelligent but he lacks a basic knowledge of world history. He wants you to elect him President of these States but he doesn’t even know how many of them there are.

Yes, I can understand a few gaffes - campaigning for President of the Socialist States of America is an exhausting process. Keeping track of who you are promising to help and who you are promising to steal from to provide that help is a very taxing process, particularly now that we have 100 million cyclone victims in Myanmar that we are responsible to care for. The federal government is just the agent that keeps us all honest. I’m not saying his main competitor Hillary is honest. Far from it. Hillary is just a more accomplished liar. She has more practice talking about nothing while making it sound vaguely messianic.

Unfortunately for Hillary, she sounds about as sincere as the Wicked Witch of the West. Barack can talk about visiting 57 states of America and sound honest, and that makes all the difference in the world when you are pandering to greedy, fat and dumb Americans who want a sugar daddy to take care of them.

Unfortunately for Obama, not all of us are looking for a messiah to save us from our own pathetic natural state of being. With that in mind, here are some more gaffes gathered from around the web:

• Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together “because of what happened in Selma.” Obama was born in 1961.
• The Tribune dug this up: Obama, in his memoir, Dreams of My Father, writes of a story in Life magazine that influenced him — about a black man trying to bleach his skin white. No such article could be found in Life or Ebony.
• “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” Um, dude, fallen heroes are six feet under, not in the audience.
• “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.
• Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.
• More recently, Obama as he traveled through Florida seemed to give some contradictory statements about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the Colombian terrorist group FARC. On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and “one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about.” OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on. But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated. “We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments,” he said in a speech in Miami. “This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand.” So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

What is the bottom line? Political leaders shouldn’t pretend to be experts in areas they know little to nothing about. Voters should expect Presidential candidates to have a good handle on international and domestic history and politics. Obama fails the litmus test. He is a classic demagogue. John McCain isn’t a guy I’d vote for, but in the areas of domestic and international politics as well as history, John McCain is much better informed, more knowledgeable and more savvy. I’m still going to cast my vote for Ron Paul.

In conclusion, have you ever tried sitting in an attic all day? They get pretty damn hot. I call bullshit.

I don’t mean that in the sense that he is a good guy, or a politician I support, or someone I admire because Barack Obama isn’t any of those things. He is the man in the sense that Barack Hussein Obama has locked the Democratic nomination. The writing is on the wall and the wrangling that is still going on is a pointless waste of time. Barack is the dude who will be running against John “2013″ McCain for leadership of this rudderless ship we all share called the United States of America. I am sure Hillary Clinton will play some sort of prominent role in the new administration should Obama find himself elected.

I once thought that the worst thing that could happen to the United States would be Hillary Clinton as President. I’m not really in that mindset any longer. A Barack Obama presidency won’t be significantly different from what we could have expected under the reign of Hillary Clinton. Although I have a strong personal dislike for Ms. Clinton and I cringe and feel like ranting every time I hear her grating, ego laden voice on my car radio, the broad goals of either individual are the same - a socialist nation where the common them is mediocrity. John McCain would lead us down the same path if given the opportunity.

I envision a time when the United States finds itself in the situation Mexico is in today. Instead of guarding our borders against those who want to come here for the myriad opportunities we will be guarding them against those who want to escape in order to be able to make their own choices.

And that is the only key point you need to know about all three of these powermongers: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain have one common theme - they want to make choices on your behalf. A life bereft of choices is a life without joy. Remember that on election day.

All you can count on if you vote Democrat or Republican is fewer choices in the coming four years.

A Marietta, Georgia man is stirring up controversy because he has printed up some t-shirts that say Obama in ‘08 with a monkey picture above the text.

I find it funny that none of the media furies are comparing this instance to the many images I’ve seen in past years of George W. Bush depicted as a monkey. I guess it is OK to show a white man in America as a monkey. When you do the same to a black man different standards are applied. Makes perfect sense if you are a mentally retarded person I suppose.

Typical Democratic whining. To be in their party you have to play the victim role throughout your entire life. Here are some photos of the double standard in action.

Why is it OK for one man to be shown as a monkey but not the other? Why is it racist to portray Barack Obama as a monkey but a matter of free speech when you do the same thing to George W. Bush? I Googled and could find only one incident of protests related to images of George W. Bush portrayed as a monkey. The protests, not surprisingly, were in favor of the artist who depicted the President in an image made entirely of smaller images of monkeys.

As the man in the middle caught between the two political gorillas that comprise American politics in 2008, I know why I tend to side with the less whiny of the two simians most of the time. Both of these large hairy beasts have bad breath. Both of them steal my bananas. Both of them are rude and smelly. But only one never quits whining about how unfair life is while it steals my bananas from me.

UPDATE: I am not alone. Scott thinks along similar lines when it comes to Barack Obama’s monkey factor. As he points out in his comments section many of the Obama supporters whining about having their candidate compared to a monkey are the same people who perpetrated comparisons of George W. Bush and various chimpanzees. You can’t have it both ways. If the white guy can be compared to a monkey, so can the black guy and any other candidate.