As ThinkProgress just reported, CNN earlier today showed a deceptive chart which wrongly suggests that John McCain's tax plan provides more Americans with greater savings than that offered by Barack Obama. But CNN's upper-crust income brackets starting at $161,000 conceal the inescapable truth that Barack Obama's proposals offer working and middle class Americans steeper tax benefits at every income level up to $110,000. And according to a new Gallup poll released today, that truth isn't lost on American voters.

By 48% to 43%, Americans surveyed by Gallup say Obama would better handle the issue of taxes than John McCain. And with good reason. As the Washington Post detailed, an analysis by the Tax Policy Center showed:

"Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy."

Those whose income is under $67,000 - 60% of all American taxpayers - would see substantially larger tax cuts under the Obama plan. While McCain's plan concentrates 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, Obama's rollback of the Bush tax cuts above $250,000 produces tax increases for that group.

Sadly, Obama's story is not getting through. In the face of the TPC's analysis showing that 95% of American taxpayers would see savings under the Obama tax plan, 53% of the Gallup respondents wrongly believe their tax burden would increase under President Obama. Meanwhile, despite the same analysis showing McCain's plan to make permanent and expand the Bush tax cuts would produce a staggering $2.8 trillion in red ink for the federal budget, the Republican still claims the mantle of fiscal discipline.

And to be sure, CNN did American voters no favors today.

In Denver, an estimated crowd of 75,000 people will fill Invesco Field on Thursday to hear Obama accept the Democratic presidential nomination. The symbolism of Obama, the first African-American nominee of a major American political party, harkening back to Dr. King's "fierce urgency of now" won't be lost on the convention delegates, some of whom saw King deliver his speech in Washington, DC on August 28th, 1963. (No doubt, that symbolism is lost on the National Review, which proclaimed "quite probable that King, were he alive today, would not vote for Barack Obama." John McCain's country club economics, dismal record on civil rights and consistent opposition to the creation of the Martin Luther King holiday itself suggest otherwise.)

That debate aside, McCain's image management problems begin in earnest the next day with his scheduled VP announcement in Dayton. McCain's decision to highlight his birth in 1936 can only resurrect the age issue, one which he has tried to laugh off by joking, "I am older than dirt, with more scars than Frankenstein." Whoever McCain picks - Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Tom Ridge, Joe Lieberman or even Colin Powell - the timing is not without risks, to say the least.

And it only gets worse.

Three years ago, as Hurricane Katrina barreled ashore the Gulf Coast, McCain joined President Bush on the tarmac at Luke Air Force base near Phoenix. Even as New Orleans was being inundated, McCain and Bush were all smiles as the President helped his former foe celebrate his 69th birthday. Their literal "let them eat cake" moment is one of the indelible images of the Bush administration's disastrous handling of the catastrophe.

To be sure, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina didn't redound to John McCain's benefit, either. During a June 4th, 2008 town hall meeting in Baton Rouge, McCain turned revisionist historian about his own role in the reconstruction:

"I've supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I've been here to New Orleans. I've met with people on the ground. I've met with the Governor...I've been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city."

As it turns out, not so much. McCain's rewriting of the record neglects to mention that in 2005 and 2006 he twice voted against a commission to study the government's response to Katrina. He also opposed three separate emergency funding measures providing relief to Katrina victims, including the extension of Medicaid benefits. And as ThinkProgress pointed out in June, "until traveling there one month ago, McCain had made just one public tour of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina touched down in August 2005."

For John McCain and the American people alike, August 29th is a day of great symbolic import. He would do well to postpone his Friday running mate choice by a day. Instead, he and his family could quietly share his birthday cake at one of his homes.

(This piece originally appeared at Crooks and Liars.)

UPDATE: Fox News, among others, is reporting that McCain might move up his VP announcement to Thursday. It's a tough choice: trying to rain on Barack Obams'a parade or reminding voters that McCain stood with President Bush as the rain fell on New Orleans.

Monday was a miserable day for the Dow, with the market suffering a 242 point drop. But rather than joining "so-called market analysts" in attributing the sell-off to credit market woes, higher oil prices and a fluctuating dollar, the National Review's resident class warrior Larry Kudlow found a predictable villain. Despite the inescapable history that the stock market does better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones, Kudlow blamed the market steep slide on the opening of the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Unsurprisingly, the reliably Republican Kudlow faithfully regurgitated every GOP talking point in laying the Wall Street's woes at the door of the DNC:

"Are the Denver Dems downing the stock market today? The Dow is off 230 points, starting right from the get-go. So-called market analysts are blaming financials and the credit crunch as they always do. But there’s more.

Obama and Biden gave us plenty of class warfare in their Springfield, Ill., get together on Saturday. Tax the rich. Redistribute income and wealth. Go after all those corporate meanies. Trade protection...

...With the Denver Dems strutting their stuff, this could be a bumpy week for stocks. Did anyone say free-market capitalism is the best path to prosperity?"

Of course, as the record shows, the best path to prosperity is to elect Democratic presidents.

The superior performance of Democratic presidents covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic indicators. As Elliott Parker of the University of Nevada, Reno detailed in a 2006 paper, since 1949 Democratic administrations have done better than Republican ones when it comes to unemployment (5.2% to 6.0%), job creation (-.0.4% decrease in unemployment, compared to 0.3% increase), GDP growth rate (4.2% to 2.9%), and even corporate profits as a share of GDP. And to be sure, he found the Dow benefits from Democrats in the White House.

There's no shortage of studies to show that stock market returns are higher under Democratic leadership. (As it turns out, Wall Street's performance is also better when Democrats control Congress.) In 2000, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov of UCLA's Anderson School of Business concluded that "that the average excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidents - a difference of 9 percent per year for the value-weighted portfolio and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio." As the New York Times noted of UCLA study in 2003:

"It's not even close. The stock market does far better under Democrats...

...Professors Santa-Clara and Valkanov look at the excess market return - the difference between a broad index of stock prices (basically the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index) and the three-month Treasury bill rate - between 1927 and 1998. The excess return measures how attractive stock investments are compared with completely safe investments like short-term T-bills.

Using this measure, they find that during those 72 years the stock market returned about 11 percent more a year under Democratic presidents and 2 percent more under Republicans - a striking difference."

In 2002, Slate similarly concluded that "Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans":

Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)

According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, the presidential party figures are among the most significant he's found. If the stock market were random, we'd expect such a result only one-quarter of the time. "I don't know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market," Hirsch says.

Why? Because Republican water carriers like Larry Kudlow continue - with great success - to perpetuate the myth that the regulation-free policies of the GOP that so benefit them personally somehow help the American people overall.

Back in April, CNBC's Kudlow compared the economic downturn to an enema, declaring, "Recessions are therapeutic." Needless to say, Kudlow's "let them eat cake" pronouncement is not true. Then again, neither is his myth that Republicans are better than Democrats for the stock market.

Almost three years after his indictment on conspiracy and money laundering charges, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay may escape prosecution. Thanks to a technicality in Texas' money laundering statute, the man who once compared himself to Jesus may walk out of court, if not on water.

The Austin Statesman reported this morning that the charges against Delay and his two co-conspirators John Colyandro and Jim Ellis "may be dismissed because the 2002 campaign finance case involved checks and not cash." Delay's possible get-out-of-jail free card, the paper reported, may be found in the fine print of the state's 1993 law:

The state's 3rd Court of Appeals on Friday actually upheld the money-laundering indictments against DeLay's two campaign associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington.

But the ruling contained a silver lining for the trio's lawyers because it concluded that the state's money-laundering statute - written in 1993 to combat illicit drug activity by focusing on the cash in the criminal transactions - did not apply to checks at the time DeLay is accused of laundering corporate money into campaign donations

Should the Texas' courts ultimately rule in his favor, it would mark the second time Delay would be beneficiary of legal technicalities. In December 2005, a Texas judge threw out a charge of conspiracy to violate the election code by making an illegal corporate contribution. That ruling was upheld by an appeals court panel which concluded that timing is indeed everything:

Last summer the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals confirmed the dismissal of a separate indictment against DeLay and his associates on a charge of conspiring to violate the state election code. The court ruled that conspiracy did not apply to election code violations until 2003 - a year after the $190,000 exchange - when the Legislature changed the law.

Delay's indictment arose from his unprecedented - and successful - 2002 scheme to redesign Texas state legislative districts to ensure a Republican majority in the state. Since Texas law forbids corporate contributions to candidates, Delay's co-defendant Colyandro sent $190,000 in checks collected by Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) to the Republican National Committee. Days later, the RNC then funneled the $190,000 directly back to seven GOP candidates. Ultimately, the gambit worked perfectly, as Delay's new map produced a 21-11 Republican majority in 2004, a sweeping change from the 17-15 Democratic edge previously. (In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Delay's redistricting dirty work by a 7-2 vote.)

Once again, it's looking like Tom Delay will get away with it. Having left the House of Representatives in disgrace, the pioneer of the Republican "criminalization of politics" defense may yet enjoy a political resurrection. Given his past comparisons to Christ and his insistence that God speaks to him, Tom Delay will no doubt consider that altogether fitting.

No doubt, history will not be kind to George W Bush. And to be sure, Bush is already returning the favor. Apparently stunned by the Russian assault on Georgia, President Bush forgot his invasion of "sovereign" Iraq and declared, "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century". As it turns out, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice and Mitt Romney all failed the same test on 21st century history.

While unwilling to acknowledge that he had misread Vladimir Putin's soul back in 2001, President Bush on August 11th issued a tough statement about Moscow's massive retaliation against Tbilisi:

"It now appears that an effort may be underway to depose Russia's duly elected government. Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century."

While Bush misspoke in describing "Russia's duly elected government," his point about a nation threatening a democracy was a none-too-thinly veiled effort to distinguish Moscow's invasion of Georgia from his own in Iraq.

For her part, Secretary of State Condi Rice didn't even bother with that feeble distinction. Rice, who in a replay of her pre-9/11 failure apparently missed the memo "Putin Determined to Strike in Georgia," also selectively edited the Iraq war out of the 21st century. On August 18th, she said:

"But I just want to emphasize again, Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used, that will make it - that - when it wishes to deliver a message, and that's its military power. That's not the way to deal in the 21st century."

Bush's would-be successor John McCain, too, got it wrong. On August 13th, McCain as part of his effort to capitalize on the Georgia crisis pronounced:

"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

That's McCain's selective amnesia would extend to the Iraq war is unsurprising. He wasn't merely wrong at almost every turn in the run-up to and the occupation of Iraq, he also happened to be one the war's biggest cheerleaders. Quick to cite the September 2001 anthrax attacks as a potential pretext to attack Saddam, in January 2002 McCain simply exhorted Americans, "next up, Baghdad!"

Then there's Mitt Romney. Rumored to top John McCain's list of potential running mates, Romney told right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt that Russia's assault on Georgia should cost it the 2014 Olympic Games:

"Well, Hugh, my own view is as the Caucuses are a hot spot, and as Russians have shown their willingness to act militarily against a sovereign nation, that the International Olympic Committee ought to revisit locating the Games elsewhere."

(Romney's willingness to parrot John McCain's talking points as part of his transparent effort to join the ticket borders on the comic. When Romney endorsed the Arizona Senator in February, he signaled his desire to follow John McCain follow Osama Bin Laden to the "gates of hell.")

With the leading lights of the Republican Party having failed 21st Century History 101, the task was left to the ever-excreable Dick Morris to explain it away on Fox News. Appearing on Hannity and Colmes, Morris comically argued that the American invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq came at the request of a democratically-elected government in Baghdad. Attacking Barack Obama's self-evident message to the Russians that "it helps if we are leading by example," Morris argued:

"Where he's wrong is that we went into Iraq at the invitation of the government, not as an invasion."

"We're in Iraq as the result of a democracy asking for us to come in there. It's not an invasion."

And so it goes. The best and brightest of the GOP fundamentally misrepresent recent history, yet theirs is labeled the party of national security. And John McCain, the man who repeatedly failed the commander-in-chief test on Iraq, gets glowing grades from the media just the same.

By the time it was revealed late Friday night, Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate came as no surprise. Even more predictable is the response of Ron Fournier, the AP's Washington Bureau Chief, Bush cheerleader and almost McCain aide, that Biden is the "ultimate insider" who represents a rejection of Barack Obama's own campaign of "change." But as it turns out, once upon a time Joe Biden was himself the Democratic candidate of change and a new generation of leadership.

Back in 1983, then Democratic pollster (and sadly, current Fox News shill) Pat Caddell polled voters about match-ups between a hypothetical younger, new generation Democrat and front-runner Walter Mondale on the one hand and Republican President Ronald Reagan on the other. As Time recounted, the data suggested such a "generational" figure would present a compelling candidate in 1984:

One was dedicated to traditional politics and special interests; the other, young and imaginative, stressed new ideas and called for a new generation of leadership. Caddell professed surprise at how many people chose the Hart-like candidate in his loaded formulation.

And the man Caddell wanted to embody his new generation of leadership was Delaware Senator Joe Biden. But despite Caddell's entreaties, Biden opted to sit out that campaign. And as The Atlantic reported, "Biden's decision not to run in 1984 cleared the way for Hart to use the generational theme."

The rest, as they say, is history. After a surprising second place showing in Iowa, the candidate of "new ideas" and a "new generation of leadership" Gary Hart shocked Walter Mondale in New Hampshire. But for a few thousand votes in Georgia on Super Tuesday and subsequent slip-ups in Illinois, New York and New Jersey, Hart's change campaign might have won the Democratic nomination in San Francisco that July.

As for Biden, he picked up the change baton during his ill-fated 1988 presidential run. As the Atlantic noted, after Hart's implosion over the Donna Rice affair, the generational torch was passed to Biden:

On many issues Biden sounds a lot like Hart, particularly when he criticizes the role of special interests in the Democratic Party. But there is a lot more feeling in Biden's critique. Biden has become something of a contrarian in the party. He goes before labor groups and women's groups and peace groups and Democratic Party groups and says, "I want to say some things to you today and some of it you may not like"...

...Biden aims his pitch at the Baby Boom generation. His appeal, repeated in almost every major speech, is moving and evocative: "The cynics believe that my generation--having reached the conservative age of mortgage payments, pediatricians' bills, and saving for our children's education--are ripe for Republican picking. These experts believe that, like the Democratic Party itself, the less-than-forty-year-old voters are prepared to sell their souls for some security, real or illusory. They have misjudged us. Just because our political heroes were murdered does not mean that the dream does not still live, buried deep within the broken hearts of tens of millions of Americans." At more than one Democratic forum that passage has brought down the house.

Ultimately, of course, Biden's own undisciplined 1988 campaign foundered over the Kinnock flap, in which Biden delivered a speech featuring unattributed passages from the British Labor Party leader.

Despite the failures of its past messengers, the message of change is alive and well in the Democratic Party. While an embittered, contrarian Pat Caddell sold his soul to corporate masters from Coke to Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, Gary Hart was an early and enthusiastic endorser of Barack Obama. As for Joe Biden, he isn't merely now a more seasoned complement to Obama's insurgent candidacy. Joe Biden was, and is, a kindred spirit.

Mitt's Mansions. To be sure, Mitt Romney may not have as many houses as John McCain, but he does have more money. The son of auto magnate George Romney, the former Massachusetts governor is worth an estimated $500 million. His stable of homes includes his tony Belmont, Massachusetts estate in addition to "two vacation homes, a lake house in New Hampshire and a ski house outside Park City, Utah." (Mitt's declaration of his Utah property as his primary residence almost disqualified him from his 2002 gubernatorial run in Massachusetts; the crisis was resolved when he paid Utah back the $54,000 his earlier claim had saved him.)

Mitt's Illegal Immigrant Workers. During the Republican primaries, Romney's tough talk on immigration was undermined by the presence of illegal aliens working at his home. As the Boston Globe reported in December 2006, Romney hired a landscaping firm that routinely utilized illegal alien workers to tend to his 2-1/2 acre family residence just outside of Boston. The firm also tended to the grounds of his one of his five sons, Taggart. The Globe team interviewed four undocumented workers in Guatemala who confirmed that Romney never asked for them or their employer to produce immigration papers. Confronted by Globe reporters at the Republican Governors Association conference in Miami, Romney simply said, "aw geez," and walked away. Given John McCain's own confused position on illegal immigration, the addition of Romney to the ticket would only further cloud the issue.

His Sons Serve America By Serving Mitt. The image of the Romney clan doesn't merely communicate "idle rich," it represents incarnate a rejection of John McCain's supposed "Country First" campaign theme. In Iowa in August 2007, Romney answered a question about why none of his five sons were serving in Iraq by responding that they served America by serving him:

"My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

As for Mitt's own military service, he avoided duty in the rice fields of Vietnam while performing his Mormon mission outside Paris.

Swallowing $45 Million in Campaign Loans. Speaking of Mitt's sons, a large part of their massive inheritance has already been spent. In a sign of both his immense wealth and his desperation to be John McCain's running mate, Mitt Romney in July decided against recouping the staggering $45 million he personally loaned his own campaign. While that frees Mitt to raise money for McCain and McCain alone, voters can only wonder in amazement what they might have with that $45 million.

Downsizing Workers in Indiana. Romney would also be a liability for John McCain in the hard-fought but usually Republican state to Indiana. Romney's ostentatious wealth is one thing, but his 1990's business deals that drove layoffs in the Hoosier State is something else. The tale of SCM, a northern Indiana-based stationery company purchased by Ampad, a firm owned by Romney and a group of investors, came to dominate his failed 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy:

Management has shed 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs, cut wages, tripled some workers' health insurance payments, abolished most of their seniority rights and junked the prior management's union contract, which had two years to run.

Losing the Dog Vote. There are roughly 60 million dogs in the United States and their owners will be none too happy with Mitt Romney. Even Fox News' Chris Wallace took Mitt to task for taking family vacations with his Irish Setter Seamus in a kennel tied to the roof of his car. After an incredulous Wallace said of his own Yellow Lab, "I would no sooner put him in a kennel on the roof of my car than I would one of my children," Romney claimed ignorance of the Massachusetts law he had violated with his penchant for rooftop canine waterboarding.

Romney's Mac Attack. During the GOP primaries, the man who would be John McCain's running mate decried "the McCain way" of uncontrolled fury towards friends and foes alike. As his make-or-break Florida primary contest against John McCain approached in late January, Mitt Romney abandoned his pledge that "I'm not going to talk about the character of the people I'm running against." Instead, the Romney campaign produced a video and an accompanying memo titled, "The McCain Way: Attack Republicans - A Top 10 List." Echoing many of the episodes detailed in an April Washington Post piece, Mitt Romney refuted John McCain's past claims of serenity ("Do I insult anybody or fly off the handle or anything like that? No, I don't.") going back to 1999.

Still, the buzz continues around the choice of Mitt Romney as John McCain's #2. But more than the fact that the two men hate each other, Romney's own gin-and-tonic sipping lifestyle is exactly what John McCain doesn't need right now. With his pledge to expand the GOP to "Sam's Club, not just the country club," Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty must be looking pretty good right now.

Sometimes, a single gaffe - real or imagined - comes to symbolize an entire presidential campaign. With Americans struggling as unemployment topped 7% in 1992, President George H.W. Bush saw his reelection prospects dimmed by his reported amazement at a simple grocery store checkout scanner. But while Bush 41's defining out-of-touch moment may be the stuff of political mythology, John McCain's stunning ignorance about how many homes he owns may soon come to define his run for the White House.

To be sure, the $100 million man did not endear himself this week to Americans under siege from high gas prices, skyrocketing home foreclosures and rising unemployment. Having defined Saturday the line between middle class and rich at $5 million, John McCain then declared Wednesday "I define rich in other ways besides income." But in the course of that same interview with the Politico, McCain made what could be a momentum-stopping misstep:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think - I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where - I'll have them get to you."

The impact of idle rich presidential candidates appearing oblivious to the hardships of working Americans can't be understated. On February 5th, 1992, the New York Times reported on George H.W. Bush's scanner snafu in a piece titled, "Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed." Attending the National Grocer's Association convention in Orlando, Bush was impressed:

"If some guy came in and spelled George Bush differently, could you catch it?" the President asked. "Yes," he was told, and he shook his head in wonder.

Then he grabbed a quart of milk, a light bulb and a bag of candy and ran them over an electronic scanner. The look of wonder flickered across his face again as he saw the item and price registered on the cash register screen.

"This is for checking out?" asked Mr. Bush. "I just took a tour through the exhibits here," he told the grocers later. "Amazed by some of the technology."

For days, the White House protested that President Bush has seen such scanners "many times" and, as the Times reported on February 13th, 1992, "that he was impressed by a new generation of high-technology devices and not the type most people see every time they go to the supermarket." But the damage was already done. Reviewing the videotape, the Times concluded "Mr. Bush seemed unfamiliar with even basic scanner technology." And the image of the aloof, gin-and-tonic sipping, anyone-for-tennis Bush 41 came to define his failed reelection effort.

Two weeks ago, blogger Brendan Nyhan criticized the Los Angeles Time and the New York Times for perpetuating a myth about Bush the Elder and the dreaded scanner. "The Times," he argued, "had not been at the event in question but instead based its story on a pool report, which indicated that Bush was impressed by new scanner technology that could weigh groceries and read damaged bar codes." So when the New York Times on August 3, 2008 mocked the computer illiterate John McCain as "the analog candidate," Nyhan insists its comparison below to Poppy was unfair:

"Mr. McCain's sense of wonder evoked the episode in the early 1990s when George H. W. Bush became overly impressed upon seeing a price scanner at a supermarket check-out counter. It suggested to some people that the president, who had spent four years in the White House after spending eight years as vice president, was out of touch with the lives of average Americans."

But whatever happened in 1992, there can be no question about John McCain's shocking disconnect from the lives of real Americans. While he can't keep track of the 7, 8 or even 10 homes he owns, millions of Americans are struggling to hold onto the one they know they have - for now.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder asks the question, "McCain Is To Houses What GWBH Was To Grocery Store Scanners?"

John McCain has finally and definitively answered the question, how do you define "rich?" After first joking that "$5 million" marked the line between middle class and rich and then arguing, "I define rich in other ways besides income," John McCain provided the real answer Thursday. A rich man doesn't even know how many houses he owns.

That moment of clarity for American voters - if not for McCain himself - came in an interview with the Politico:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think - I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where - I'll have them get to you."

As Matthew Yglesias points out, with McCain in some cases owning many homes on a single massive estate, it's hard to keep count. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine came to McCain's defense, noting the $100 million man "couldn't count high enough." For its part, the Obama campaign was only too happy to help out, producing a devastating ad today that tells John McCain the answer is "seven."

Back in March, John McCain lectured desperate Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time."

That's easy to say when you don't know how many homes you have.

For the gold-plated details of the detached lives of John and Cindy McCain, see:
"The Haves, The Have Mores and the McCains."

UPDATE: The Politico now claims McCain has 8 homes, while Progressive Accountability counts 10.

The announcement today that the United States will deploy up to 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan is just the latest signal of the Pentagon's seeming support for Barack Obama's strategy to fight Al Qaeda in the region. Following by just weeks Obama's latest call to send at least two more brigades of American troops there, the request by U.S. commanders again confirmed Obama's assertion, one denied by John McCain, that Iraq represents a "zero sum game" for scarce American military resources.

That request by General David McKiernan, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, comes on the heels of Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen's agreement with Senator Obama that the situation along the Pakistan frontier is "precarious and urgent." The need is urgent indeed: in July, 9 American troops were killed in an insurgent raid that overran a U.S. border outpost; yesterday, 10 French soldiers were killed in a Taliban attack. In response, General McKiernan hopes to bolster the 101st Airborne Division with up to three brigades.

But as U.S. News reported this morning, the challenge for McKiernan and his staff is finding the needed troops. While their ask has been approved, a defense official noted, "Now that means we just need to figure out a way to get them there." As McKiernan himself made clear, the only "way" is to get the troops from Iraq:

Finding those particular troops to supplement the 101st, however, depends on conditions and troop levels in Iraq, adds McKiernan, who took over the NATO command in June. "That's really a zero-sum decision."

In early July, Admiral Mullen admitted as much. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen told reporters that the United States could only deploy more forces there by first drawing down from Iraq:

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

And on that point, Barack Obama and John McCain part company. From almost the inception of his campaign, Obama has argued that the diversion of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq meant that "the people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice." In a June speech, Obama highlighted McCain's denial of this inescapable point:

"We had al Qaeda and the Taliban on the run back in 2002. But then we diverted military, intelligence, financial, and diplomatic resources to Iraq. And yet Senator McCain has said as recently as this April that, 'Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.' I think that just shows a dangerous misjudgment of the facts, and a stubborn determination to ignore the need to finish the fight in Afghanistan."

McCain's denial - and disagreement with the Pentagon - over the trade-offs in sending more U.S. forces to the Afghan-Pakistan frontier doesn't end there. While McCain reversed course and mimicked Obama's call for more troops in Afghanistan, he fudged as to whether they should come from the United States or its NATO allies. Cornered on the question of where he intends to come up with the needed reinforcements, McCain feebly responded:

"We need to work that out. We need to have greater participation on the part of our NATO allies, as I said in my opening remarks today, and we need a lot more help."

Still, McCain's confused and contradictory statements didn't stop him from calling for "surge for Afghanistan" on July 15. (As Steve Benen rightly noted, a "surge" is now John McCain's prescription for all ills, foreign and domestic.) But as General McKiernan reiterated today, the United States doesn't need a surge in the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but a long-term commitment:

He disputes the notion that the three brigades on the way represent a troop "surge" for Afghanistan, predicting the need for an extended involvement of a larger force. "I've certainly said that we need more security capabilities," he says. "But I would not use the term 'surge,' because I think we need a sustained presence."

At every turn, the Pentagon has backed Barack Obama's approach to defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions. While John McCain in February ridiculed Barack Obama's call for unilateral American strikes against Al Qaeda targets within Pakistan, the Bush administration and the Pentagon soon adopted Obama's thinking. (Just today, an apparent U.S. missile strike killed 18 militants in South Waziristan.)

Earlier this week, the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy released their annual "Terrorism Index." Their survey of 100 bipartisan foreign policy analysts found that 51% believe Pakistan will be the next Al Qaeda stronghold; exactly zero said "Iraq." 80% said the U.S. had not dedicated enough resources to Afghanistan, while 69% called for redeploying the majority of American troops from Iraq over the next 18 months.

All of which sounds like it could have come from Barack Obama. Or, as was made clear again today, from the Pentagon.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being happily rich and utterly detached. Nothing, that is, unless you make criticizing your political opponent as "elitist" and "out of touch" a centerpiece of your campaign. Rick Davis, speaking on behalf of his $100 million man John McCain, earlier this month offered the latest formulation of Barack Obama as an effete, aloof denizen of the upper class:

"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew - Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."

Of course, Davis' "arugula war" is just another attempt at misdirection. After all, John McCain's $5 million threshold where "you move from middle class to rich" is just the latest episode of his enduring disconnect from the real lives of the American people.

For starters, McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.

In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.

The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership. While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.

The Anheuser-Busch Windfall. As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.

McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break. Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.

Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt - Priceless. That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.

Charity Begins at Home. As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:

Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.

Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.

Private Jet Setters. As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."

Help on the Homefront. In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."

Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes. If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."

And so it goes. John McCain proclaims $5 million finally makes you rich. Meanwhile, ABC's Charlie Gibson thinks a $200,000 income makes you middle class. And his colleague Cokie Roberts claims Barack Obama's vacation to his home state of Hawaii was "exotic."

(For video details of John McCain lifestyle of the rich and famous, visit here and here.)

UPDATE: In an interview with the Politico Wednesday, John McCain refused to name a dollar figure marking the line between middle class and rich. "I define rich in other ways besides income," he said. More amazing, McCain was unsure how many homes he and wife Cindy actually own:

"I think - I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where - I'll have them get to you."

But on one point, there is no dispute. Despite CNN's assurances to the contrary, Rick Warren simply asked Barack Obama and John McCain different questions.

From the very first question, Warren treated McCain with biblical kid gloves, editing out scriptural references that might have proven uncomfortable for the religiously reticent Republican:

QUESTION TO OBAMA: These first set of questions deal with your personal life as a leader and I'm not going to do this with any other segment, but as pastor I've got some verses that have to do with leadership. The first issue is the area of listening. There is a verse in Proverbs that says fools think they need no advice but the wise listen to other people. Who are the wisest three people you know in your life and who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?

QUESTION TO MCCAIN: This first question deals with leadership and the personal life of leadership. First question, who were the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?

Chuck Todd of MSNBC was quick to note the strikingly different answers Obama and McCain offered, but not the clearly different questions they were asked:

"Take the VERY first question Warren posed to both candidates: who are three people you'll depend on for wisdom in the presidency. Obama seemed to answer this in a very personal way, talking about his wife and grandmother. McCain went right to this message, checking boxes on Iraq (Patraeus) and the economy (Whitman) for instance. Now, I'm betting Obama's answer came across as more authentic but McCain's was probably more effective with undecided swing voters."

Given the very different framing of the question Warren posed, it's no surprise that Barack Obama and John McCain produced strikingly different responses in both substance and style. Obama took Warren's personal question personally, and cited his wife and grandmother as both "wise and honest'' before moving on to a litany of political figures on both sides of the aisle. (Obama's mention of the radical social conservative Tom Coburn (R-OK) was transparent pandering to his audience.) For his part, McCain responded to Warren's political question and pointed to General David Petraeus, Obama supporter Congressman John Lewis and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. (McCain was quick to return to his stump speech and extol the glories of eBay as America's economic future.)

But Warren's divergent paths for Obama and McCain split further with the very next question on leadership and moral weakness. Again, Warren turned to the Bible for Barack Obama, but to Dr. Phil for John McCain:

QUESTION TO OBAMA: Let's talk about personal life. The Bible says that integrity and love are the basis for leadership. This is a tough question. What would be looking over your life, everybody's got wings [sic], would be the greatest moral failure in your life and what would be the greatest moral failure in America?

QUESTION TO MCCAIN: We had a lot leaders because of their weaknesses, character flaws, stumbled, become ineffective [and] are not serving anymore, serving our country. What's been your greatest moral failure and what has been the - what do you think is the greatest moral failure of America?

Again, the different framing of the question put Obama at a distinct disadvantage. After admitting his own troubled, selfish youth as his personal failing, Obama turned to scripture to highlight America's failure to live up to its own ideals:

"I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't live by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you for the least of my brothers, you do for me."

In contrast, McCain killed two birds with one stone. He dispensed with his own marital infidelity in a single sentence, "my greatest moral failing, and I have been an imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage." (The issue never surfaced again, and Warren's admission Friday that he "absolutely" would have compunctions about voting for an adulterer never became an issue for McCain.) More important, McCain highlighted America's greatest shortcoming as a failure to "serve cause greater than yourself." That theme - "country first" - is the rhetorical cornerstone of the McCain campaign. And the contrast of his response with Obama's discussion of his own battle with what Warren termed "fundamental selfishness" couldn't have been more strategic for McCain.

Warren's different framing of the inquiries he posed and the tailored, selective follow-ups continued in his discussion of marriage. Warren asked Obama and McCain alike to "define marriage." But while Obama was then asked, "Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition," Warren instead offered John McCain an opportunity to weigh in on a hotly contested ballot measure being pushed by the religious right in California:

"Let me just ask a related question to that. We got a bill right here in California, Proposition 8, that's going on because the Court overturned this definition of marriage. Was the Supreme Court of California wrong?"

It's no secret that the foes of same-sex marriage see Proposition 8 as essential to fueling Republican turn-out in November.

And so it went all night. Thanks in no small part to Pastor Warren's biblical guidance, Barack Obama spoke in a personal, conversational style, making a point throughout to refer to the principles of his Christian faith in the misguided attempt to please an audience indifferent to him at best, downright hostile at worst. So while Barack Obama talked of "trying to do God's work," John McCain did the work of his campaign advisers. Despite Warren's feeble requests not to do so, McCain just repackaged his stump speech and made purely political appeals. In so doing, John McCain probably had the best night of the campaign.

(This piece originally appeared at Crooks and Liars.)

In ways large and small, Barack Obama's visit to the Pastor Rick Warren Saddleback Church resembled a Christian taking on the lions. The audience, after all, was overwhelmingly predisposed to the Republican John McCain. To be sure, the questions posed by Warren had a purpose-driven life for the conservative agenda. And making matters even more difficult for Obama, Reverend Warren edited out scriptural references for McCain, a man notoriously uncomfortable speaking about matters of religious faith.

In theory, Warren was to pose the same questions to each candidate during their separate appearances on stage. But starting with the very first question to each man, Rick Warren made sure John McCain was treated with biblical kid gloves:

In Ohio, Bob Ney was released after serving 18 months of his two and a half year term for public corruption. (Ney's time was trimmed by a year after he pulled a "full Foley" and entered an alcohol rehabilitation program.) In November 2006, Ney pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements after receiving gifts and golf trips in exchange for favors for Abramoff clients. In February of this year, Ney was moved to the halfway house to serve out the rest of his time.

But while John McCain certainly had no role in Ney's wrongdoing, his attendance at the Reed fundraiser on August 18th is a self-inflicted wound. In June 2006, Indian Affairs Committee then chaired by Senator McCain issued a report detailing $5.3 million in payments Reed garnered from Abramoff's Indian casino clients. Amazingly, McCain never called Reed to testify, despite the Committee's conclusions that Reed had in essence laundered money for Abramoff while working both sides of the casino issue. As the New York Times noted:

In many cases, the report found, payments to Mr. Reed were handled through third parties in what appeared to be an effort to disguise the fact that the money was from tribes with large casino operations.

The report quoted a tribe leader from Louisiana as saying he was told to keep quiet about Mr. Reed because "he's Christian Coalition - it wouldn't look good if they're receiving money from a casino-operating tribe to oppose gambling."

Ultimately, that appearance of impropriety doomed Ralph Reed's political career among the very Christian conservatives he once championed. Reed's defeat in the 2006 race for Georgia's Lt. Governor can be explained by Phil Dacosta, a Georgia Christian Coalition member and former Reed backer:

"After reading the e-mail, it became pretty obvious he was putting money before God. We are righteously casting him out."

Far from casting him out, John McCain is joining Ralph Reed and the moneychangers in Atlanta on Monday. But while McCain has boasted of leading the Abramoff investigation, on the 18th he'll stand with Reed, a man who once asked Jack Abramoff to help him start "humping in corporate accounts."

While the anti-gay Warren and his co-sponsor the multi-denominational group Faith in Public Life will apparently be the arbiters of presidential compassion, Reverend Warren insists Saturday's event is not about "gotcha" questions for the candidates:

"This is a critical time for our nation and the American people deserve to hear both candidates speak from the heart -- without interruption -- in a civil and thoughtful format absent the partisan 'gotcha' questions that typically produce heat instead of light."

But for the good people at the Red State blog, that's simply not good enough. Declaring that "abortion on demand is non-negotiable," Red State's open letter to Reverend Warren insists he promise to confront Obama on the issue. Failing to do so at the event, "it would be better to cancel it."

No doubt, Rick Warren will ask Barack Obama about his views on abortion and women's reproductive rights. But among the questions on AIDS, poverty, climate change and the candidates' personal faith, the notoriously reserved on religion John McCain can rest assured he won't face tough questions about his own.

Here, then, are 10 questions Rick Warren won't ask John McCain.

1. In 2006, you recanted your claim six years earlier that Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell were "agents of intolerance." What changed your mind?
During the 2000 campaign, you famously claimed that the late Jerry Falwell was an "agent of intolerance." But when Meet the Press' Tim Russert on April 2, 2006 asked whether you "still believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?" you reversed yourself and said, "no, I don't." The next month, you gave the commencement address at Reverend Falwell's Liberty University. Just weeks earlier, the Daily Show's Jon Stewart asked you, "Are you going into crazy base world?" to which you replied, "I'm afraid so." Why did you change your position on Falwell and Robertson being agents of intolerance? Were you pandering to the "crazy base world" of Republican primary voters?

2. You've said, "The most important thing is that I am a Christian." Why is that the most important thing?
Campaigning in South Carolina last fall, you responded to questions about whether you were a Baptist or an Episcopalian by proclaiming, "the most important thing is that I am a Christian." What did you mean by that? Was your Christian faith the most important thing for you personally, or just for the heavily evangelical voters of South Carolina?

3. Speaking of which, are you an Episcopalian or a Baptist?
You were raised as an Episcopalian and during your "Service to America" tour in April made a point of visiting your old prep school, Episcopal High. A Congressional directory lists your religion as Episcopalian, as did a questionnaire your campaign staffers completed in August for a debate in South Carolina. Yet you've attended the 7,000 member North Phoenix Baptist Church for 15 years. Despite never having been baptized, you said of your faith in September, "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist." So just to clear up any lingering confusion, are you an Episcopalian or a Baptist?

4. Will you ask your supporters to respect Barack Obama's Christian faith?
On more than one occasion, you pledged to run a "respectful" campaign. Yet despite Barack Obama's repeated and heartfelt proclamations of his Christian faith, many in the conservative movement accuse Obama of being a Muslim. Polling data show that the percentage of American who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim increased to 12% in July. Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian? Will you ask your supporters to stop promulgating the myth that his is a Muslim? Will you ask them to respect Obama's Christian faith? For that matter, will you ask them to respect the faith of Muslim Americans?

5. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
Back in February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were "very proud" to have his endorsement. Then in May, you announced that you "must reject his endorsement, given "deeply offensive and indefensible" remarks he had made about the Holocaust. But given your own tough talk and past jokes about "bomb bomb Iran" and killing Iranians with cigarettes, do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed?

6. Why did you change your position on overturning Roe v. Wade?
In 1999, you announced your opposition to overturning Roe v Wade, "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." But in November 2006, you answered "yes" when ABC's George Stephanapolous asked if "you'd be for that?" Why did your change your mind on overturning Roe? Was it so your campaign could claim in a February press release during the Republican primaries that "John McCain is far and away the most consistently anti-abortion of all the top contenders?"

7. Do you support the Bush administration's attempt to redefine many forms of birth control as abortion?
A draft proposal by President Bush's Department of Health and Human Services would "withhold government funds from health-care providers and organizations that don't hire people who refuse to perform abortions or provide certain types of birth control." Senator Hillary Clinton wrote HHS Secretary Leavitt that "this definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception - including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs - 'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it." Do you agree with the Bush administration's proposal to redefine these contraception methods as "abortion?" While you're at it, have you decided whether or not you believe insurance companies covering Viagra for men should also be required to cover birth control for women?

8. Do you believe, as you said last September, that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation?"
In an interview with BeliefNet last September, you said that:

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith."

"I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

After withering criticism from Jewish and Islamic groups, you backtracked the next day and claimed, "Yes, I believe a Muslim could be president." Do you still believe that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation?" Do you agree with Mike Huckabee that "what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards?"

9. Do you believe Americans should pray for rain to end droughts - or to wash out Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention?
Last November, Georgia Republican Governor Sonny Perdue held a public vigil at the state house to "pray up a storm" to end the drought in the Southeast. His plea followed on the heels of Alabama Governor Bob Riley's week-long "Days of Prayer for Rain" that June. Just days ago, Focus on the Family, led by James Dobson (who recently announced "the possibility is there that I might" endorse you) posted a video calling on its supporters to pray for "rain of biblical proportions" during Obama's DNC speech in Denver. Should your supporters pray for rain on Obama's parade? Should elected officials lead public prayers for rain to end droughts? Do you believe those prayers work?

10. Do you know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims?
You've long touted your commander-in-chief credentials in the struggle against Islamic extremism. Yet on four occasions in under a month, you confused Sunni and Shiite, friend and foe in Iraq. Given you repeated - and mistaken - statements about a non-existent Al Qaeda alliance with Iran, can you tell the American people: what are the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims?

Of course, those are just some of the uncomfortable questions John McCain could - but won't - face from Pastor Rick Warren Saturday. McCain's endless reversals on teaching intelligent design in public schools and his dependence on PEPFAR opponent Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for his AIDS policy are just two. And then there's issue of McCain's past adultery. When asked by ABC's Jake Tapper during a discussion about John Edwards if he would have "compunctions about voting for someone who had cheated on his wife," Rick Warren answered, "Absolutely I would."

(This piece originally appeared at Crooks and Liars.)

UPDATE: Despite the fact that the first joint appearance by Obama and McCain is being hosted by an evangelical minister at his megachurch, Red State whines that Pastor Warren sold out to the "pro-abortion and anti-Israel crowd."

Back in July, an envious McCain campaign blasted Barack Obama for being "presumptuous" during his tour of European capitals. That charge was not only echoed in the right-wing media, but amplified by the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. But with conflict now raging between Russia and Georgia, it is the presumptuous John McCain who is pretending to be president of the United States.

On Friday, the Washington Post highlighted McCain's hypocrisy in aggressively inserting himself into the crisis in the Caucusus from its inception:

The extent of McCain's involvement in the military conflict in Georgia appears remarkable among presidential candidates, who traditionally have kept some distance from unfolding crises out of deference to whoever is occupying the White House. The episode also follows months of sustained GOP criticism of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who was accused of acting too presidential for, among other things, briefly adopting a campaign seal and taking a trip abroad that included a huge rally in Berlin.

No doubt, almost as soon as Russian forces began swarming into Georgia, a bellicose John McCain began substituting himself for the more circumspect President Bush. On Tuesday, McCain grabbed the bully-pulpit, declaring that despite Tbilisi's gamble in reoccupying South Ossetia, "Today, we are all Georgians." (Given McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann's extensive lobbying on behalf of the Saakashvili government, Americans could be forgiven for wondering if McCain's was a paid commercial announcement.)

The McCain shadow government hardly ends at presuming to speak for the American people. On Wednesday, McCain dispatched virtual ambassadors to Georgia, announcing that his water-carriers Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham would travel to Tbilisi under the feeble guise of their Armed Forces committee memberships. Then on Thursday, McCain penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled, "We Are All Georgians." It's no wonder that former Reagan defense official and Obama adviser Lawrence Korb concluded with astonishment:

"We talk about how there's only one president at a time, so the idea that you would send your own emissaries and really interfere with the process is remarkable. It's very risky and can send mixed messages to foreign governments...They accused Obama of being presumptuous, but he didn't do anything close to this."

Those mixed messages are especially dangerous when they are as confused at those coming from McCain. In the past, his tough talk has included on-again/off-again promises to expel Russia from the G8, while still counting on Moscow's cooperation in nuclear nonproliferation initiatives. And just yesterday, McCain amazingly declared:

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War."

(McCain's butchery of history should come as no surprise. After all, McCain in July erased the American war in Afghanistan when he labeled Iraq "the first major conflict since 9/11." And on Wednesday, McCain then edited out the war in Iraq, announcing, " In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.")

McCain's grand posturing on the fighting between Russia and Georgia is just his latest effort to play up his supposed commander-in-chief credentials. But John McCain isn't President of the United States; he just plays one on TV.

One of the most enduring moments of the 9/11 Commission hearings came when Condoleezza Rice casually recalled the now infamous August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief (PDB). "I believe," she said, "th