Inserting Race Into The Race.

John McCain isn't a racist. In the weeks to come, you might see McCain attacking Barack Obama for flip-flopping, being inexperienced, or being wrong on the issues. But there's one thing you absolutely won't see: McCain attacking Obama on the basis of his blackness.

When you turn on the TV, you're not going to see an ad with a narrator intoning, "Obama is a black man, and he wants your vote -- but aren't black people mainly criminals and rappers? John McCain: the white choice."

In fact, you'll see quite the opposite from the McCain camp. Republicans will go to ridiculous lengths to make sure that nothing they say can be possibly construed as racially insensitive. As Bill Clinton learned the hard way, race is a touchy subject. Even the slightest racial error on the part of any candidate -- or a candidate's surrogate -- has the power to create an instant media feeding-frenzy.

Of course, Barack Obama knows this. He just chooses to deceptively attack McCain on the race issue anyways. Speaking in Springfield MO, Obama made this regrettable comment:

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

In other words, Obama is politely accusing John McCain of running a blatantly racist and xenophobic campaign. Naturally, he has no evidence to back up this assertion. Obama has sunk to a brand new level of slimy politics: conjuring up the thought of an opponent's non-existent scare-tactics as a scare tactic. McCain wouldn't dream of attacking Obama on the basis of race, but Obama doesn't think twice about openly labeling McCain as a bigot.

This is a statement that the media needs to hold Obama accountable for. In a fair contest, the race card shouldn't just be off-limits for the white guy.

You Won't Like Me When I'm Indicted.

Incredible hulk tie?
Funny.

Infamous "the Internet is a series of tubes" comment?
Funny. And kind of disturbing.

$250,000 worth of corruption?
Eh, not so much.

Fortunately, the situation isn't a total disaster. We can still count on saintly Senators like Larry Craig and David Vitter to uphold the GOP's gold standard of ethics.

Double Take:

Der Messias kommt.

On Thursday, Obama gave a speech in Berlin, in front of an audience of swooning Berliners. The swooning was partially due to the fact that Obama-ism has now become the official religion of the EU, but to be perfectly honest, the speech was pretty good too. At least, pretty good for a major deity. It was full of grandiose, historic-ish imagery that drew upon America's enduring brotherhood with the German people, and little themes like world-wide peace and justice. Needless to say, there was a lot of clapping.

But does it matter?

We all know Obama's popularity is sky-high overseas. Clearly, if this were an international election, there would be no contest. However, this isn't an international election. In order to get elected, Obama only has to win over the populace of one country: the good ol' USA. Does anyone on this side of the Atlantic feel touched by Obama's highly publicized Euro-trip?

Speaking in Berlin was an obviously symbolic move, intended to conjure up images of Reagan and JFK. But almost two decades after the end of the cold war, Berlin seems like an oddly irrelevant backdrop. The typically eloquent speech was certainly far from a gaffe, but whether or not it resonates back home is yet to be seen.

The Avengers.

Even as Bat-mania sweeps across the nation, some residents of Gotham aren't waiting for a creepy guy in a rubber suit to bail them out. Depressed about the direction this country's heading in? Read this story, and let the healing begin.

The New Old Politics.

Americans have long had a love affair with contradictory goals.

We want to eat more, but weigh less.
We want to work less, but make more.
We want small taxes, but big government.
And so on.

Deep down inside, we probably know we can't have our cake and eat it too. But who cares? Reality tends to be a downer. It's more fun to dream.

Politicians have never been in the habit of waking people from their pleasant dreams. In business, the customer is always right. In politics, the voter is always right. Even when they're wrong.

So, it doesn't come as a surprise that two of the biggest items on Barack Obama's agenda are contradictory.

The first item? Combatting global warming. As anyone with a television knows, global warming is a big deal. The ice caps are melting. Adorable polar bears are drowning. Poor people are in poverty. Bad weather is happening. And according to leading scientists in the field of appearing in documentaries, our nasty habit of burning fossil fuels is to blame. In order to restore the north pole to a bear-friendly state, the good people of our land are told that they must stop driving their Hummers, and start walking, biking, taking the bus, and when necessary, driving tiny euro-cars.

In other words, they have to use less gas. The ultimate goal is to quit using it all together.

So what's wrong with rising gas prices? Isn't the high price of gas playing a valuable part in nudging people away from the diabolical liquid? Aren't people driving less, buying more fuel efficient cars, and taking mass transit when feasible? Isn't this the stuff we've been told that we must do in order to save our poor, ailing mother earth?

Yes, it is.

But it also happens to contradict the second big item on Obama's agenda: battling our current economic woes -- which have been largely caused by rising fuel prices. It appears that the majority of voters, despite the fact that they claim to be highly concerned about global warming, don't enjoy cutting back. They want cheap gas again. Which puts Mr. Obama in a pickle. Despite how fashionable the green movement is right now, "pocketbook issues" like this have almost always decided the fate of presidential elections in the past.

Logically, it would appear that there our nation is faced with a tough choice:

(1) We can choose to believe that global warming, caused by human carbon emissions, is a serious threat to humanity, and make drastic economic sacrifices (at least in the short term) by cutting into our consumption and production of fossil fuels -- not to mention our consumption and production of just about everything else.

(2) Or, we can choose to believe that man-made global warming is not a massive global threat, and try to lower our fuel costs by expanding oil production at home and abroad.

These choices are mutually exclusive. We can't move away from fossil fuels without feeling any sort of economic pinch. And we can't expand the supply -- and thus lower the price -- of fossil fuels and expect people to use less of them. A decision has to be made.

Not that you'd be able to tell that from listening to Barack Obama.

In the magical realm of Obamaland, the entire energy infrastructure of our country, as well as the energy sector of our economy, will be gutted and rebuilt without consumers feeling the slightest bump. In fact, by harnessing the power of change, and $150 billion taxpayer dollars, Obama hopes to raise the economy to new heights by creating "5 million new green jobs". This will actually happen. And what about the current economic problems caused by rising fuel prices? Obama believes strongly that they are indeed problematic, and bad. They are also Bush's fault. How will fuel prices go down if the country switches to sources of energy that must be heavily subsidized to even begin competing with fossil fuels? You just have to believe, and the enchanted pixie of clean energy will make it so.

An adoring article in TIME magazine once labeled Barack Obama "The Candor Candidate". But when it comes to the environment and the economy, there's not a scrap of straight-talk to be found. Obama won't dare ask the grouchy American people to make sacrifices for the planet's greater good. But he's not about to tell his poorly-groomed, eco-hippy supporters to take a hike either. Instead, Barack Obama has nobly chosen to travel down a third road: political, pragmatic pandering.

Clearly, this is change we can believe in.

Victory is Sweet, Slightly Tangy, With Just a Hint of Smokiness.

Feel free to stop paying attention to any of that tiresome news about our presidential election. The polls. The speeches. The sound-bites. None of it matters.

The race for president ended today, and Barack Obama is now officially our Dear Leader.

This is not speculation; I'm not jumping to conclusions. I have tangible, concrete proof, from an incredibly reliable source: the American public. The people -- through an Associated-Press/Yahoo News survey -- have spoken, and there can be no other interpretation of the hard data that is now shining forth from my laptop's crisp, perfectly-callibrated LCD monitor.

What sayeth the good people of our land?

On the most crucial issue of our time -- summer barbecues -- Obama holds a jaw-dropping seven-point lead:

(Associated Press)
People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John McCain.

While many are still deciding who should be president, by 52 percent to 45 percent they would prefer having Obama than McCain to their summer cookout, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Wednesday.

Having Obama to a barbecue would be like a relaxed family gathering, while inviting McCain "would be more like a retirement party than something fun," said Wesley Welbourne, 38, a systems engineer from Washington, D.C.

That's right. John McCain is simply incapable of bringing the kind of barbecue-related vibrance and zest that voters have come to expect from their elected leaders. America thirsts for a young, energetic President; a man with the ability to eat multiple burgers -- perhaps topped with bacon -- without showing signs of barbecue fatigue.

Time and again, McCain has failed to lead when it comes to eating delicious grilled foods. Our Nation can no longer tolerate this shortcoming. Obama may not have as many years under his belt, but his unique ability to create a positive change in the general atmosphere of outdoor cook-outs across the country is unquestionable.

We are at a crossroads in our nation's history. We can choose to go forward, and create a land full of perfectly cooked meats, rich sauces, and enjoyable conversation; or we can go backwards, and suffer through dull neighborhood gatherings, full of flavorless meat and overcooked vegetables.

In our hearts, I think we all know which choice to make in November.

Tim Russert (1950 - 2008)

In an era of increasing media fragmentation, with dozens of personalities jockeying for attention, there are few living journalists with the professionalism and integrity to rise above the fray. Today, our country has lost one of these rare individuals. I never knew Tim Russert. But I do know that he was one of the best political minds on television, with an unmatched gift for holding powerful men and women -- regardless of their political affiliation -- accountable for their words and actions. Tim Russert was not the first host of Meet the Press, and in short order, his vacant seat will be filled by someone else. But he will always be an irreplaceable figure in the realm of American politics.

Twilight.

For months, Hillary Clinton regularly disparaged the chorus of pundits who painted her failure as inevitable. While they proclaimed that the numbers just couldn't add up, she proclaimed with equal certainty that the will of the people (white, middle-class people) would defy all expectations and carry her to victory. Even when the last of the primaries came and went, still leaving her over 200 delegates behind Barack Obama, she confounded the nation by refusing to formally concede. Apparently, Hillary Clinton really wanted to be president. Who knew?

There's a fine line between hopeful and deranged; the Clinton campaign happened to cross it around a month ago. Fortunately, all bad things come to an end. Hillary finally found the inner strength to recover from her ambitious stupor last Saturday. But the damage has already been done.

Not damage to party unity. Despite what certain people say, I have a hunch that even the most ardent Hillary supporters will have enough sense to support their party after eight years of oval office exile. No, in the Clinton's desperate battle to get back to the white house, the biggest casualty was the Clinton's standing in the political power structure of America.

If you had compiled a who's who list of Democrats two years ago, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have been at the top of the pile. They may be easy targets for conservative commentators, but Democratic admiration for the power couple has remained strong for over 16 years. He was the charismatic president who presided over the prosperous '90s, and held the white house for two full terms -- something no Democratic president had accomplished in over forty years. She was his activist first lady, and afterwards, a high-profile senator representing one of the largest states in the country. The Clintons were winners.

When Hillary entered the fight for the Democratic nomination, she was the obvious favorite.

Then something happened. Bill and Hill, who once made "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" their refrain, began to look very yesterday. Barack Obama was fresh, new, and exciting. Young voters flocked to him in droves. People wanted change, and for some reason, giving a couple who had already spent eight years in the white-house a return trip didn't seem to fit the bill. The soap-opera baggage that came with the Clinton name alone looked like it could potentially stain the new leaf party activists wished to turn over. Hillary's pragmatic record, particularly her vote in favor of the Iraq war, remained a thorn in her side for the duration of the primary race.

All of this seemed to come as a surprise to the ridiculously confident Mrs. Clinton. On December 30, 2007, Hillary triumphantly boasted that the race would "be over on February 5th". February 5th passed; the race continued. Obama proved that he could face Hillary head on and manage to hold his ground.

At this point, Bill Clinton did what any loving husband would do in this sort of situation: he went nuts. Lashing out at reporters. Ranting about unfair treatment. Making racially charged remarks. Bill Clinton unwittingly became a sideshow freak in the biggest media circus on earth.

Unsurprisingly, right-leaning outlets such as the Drudge Report were quick to jump all over Bill's outrageous remarks. But the left-wing grassroots wasn't about to rush to defend his honor. Instead, key liberal hubs like the Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post began to rival Rush Limbaugh for sheer contempt of all things Clinton.

A new generation of internet-savvy Democrats had taken the reigns, and their message to Bill and Hillary was clear: t3h shun!

The Clinton image was rapidly falling apart. After years of being treated to largely positive coverage focusing on his philanthropic ventures, Bill submerged himself in the muddy waters of politics, and came out looking like a buffoon. Hillary just couldn't come to terms with the fact that she was losing -- and desperately tried to claw her way to the top once more. As things so often happen, she also came out looking like a buffoon.

Now, the fight is over. Most Democratic voters will try to forget about their differences with one another, and unite behind Barack Obama. There will be no Clinton dynasty. The times, as Bob Dylan once said, are a changin'. In these times, there may be a place for Hillary and Bill Clinton. But starring roles? Not a chance.