More history has been made. We now have two black people running for president in the same year. Moonbat former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of suburban Atlanta has nabbed the coveted Green Party nomination for president.

McKinney, you might recall, is a favorite daughter of the 9/11 Truthers movement, which believes that the Bush/Cheney cabal let the attacks happen. Probably at the encouragement of THE JEWS! ... or some such, I really don't make it a point to keep up with that stuff.

She met her political waterloo when national attention came to bear on the hissy-fit she threw when a Capitol Police officer failed to recognize McKinney (because she was not wearing her Congressional pin) and asked her to go through a metal detector. She infamously punctuated her "don't you know who I am!" rampage by throwing her cell phone at the officer's chest. Oh, and she insisted that she was not recognized as an Important Person because she is black.

McKinney's record of moonbattery is extensive, and humorous — if not for the troubling fact that this nut-job actually held a position of high power in our government for years.

McKinney on Al Gore:

"Al Gore's Negro tolerance level has never been too high. I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time."

Nevermind that Gore's campaign manager was Donna Brazile, a black woman.

Of her congressional re-election defeat at the hands of another black politician.

"White, rich Democratic boys club wanted [her] to stay in the back of the bus."

On Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwean nightmare:

“To any honest observer, Zimbabwe's sin is that it has taken the position to right a wrong, whose resolution has been too long overdue--to return its land to its people.”

To Michael Chertoff during a Katrina hearing:

“Mr. Secretary, if the nursing home owners are arrested for negligent homicide, why shouldn't you also be arrested for negligent homicide?”

On the Bush cabal's possible (probable?) involvement in the 9/11 attacks.:

“I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.

On the overall government conspiracy against black people.

"Now, I did not write that; the U.S. Government wrote that. They were going to round up 21 million Negroes because they were afraid of freeing black people."

Yeah. Right. A question: When a party is so nutty that it dispatches Ralph Nader for McKinney, does it even warrant coverage on CNN?

UPDATE (JULY 18): I only now realized that I appear to be a bit of a Cynthia For President groupie. One of the first blog items I did when joining the monkeys in May of 2007 was on McKinney contemplating a Green Party run for president. And that old post has an even crazier picture.

Terrible news to awaken to this morning: Tony Snow, the Fox News host and former White House press secretary, has died, succumbing at last to colon cancer. He was 53.

The Corner, naturally, is gathering several tributes.

I only met Snow once, and then just briefly, at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles eight years ago. He was friendly enough. On stage at the Conservative Political Action Convention this February, Snow delivered the closing speech. He was buoyant, enthusiastic, and filled with life.

Snow had, I think, made peace with his illness and learned to discuss it an a truly life-affirming way. Few of us would be able to maintain such a positive outlook. Perhaps that example of relentless optimism in the face of death, more than anything he ever did on TV or radio or in the White House Press Room, is Tony Snow's legacy. RIP.

Monkey Ben was all over the story about Jesse Jackson wanting to cut Obama's nuts off a few days ago. But, of course, if you've watched nature shows, you know that monkeys are obsessed with such things.

Meanwhile, the LA Times is even more on top of the story, providing an update today. Of course, they are covering the inside skinny on Fox News' discovery and reporting tick-tock of the story. But, they do publish at least some of the ... er ... uncomfortable details.

Jackson made the comments to a guest before an interview on Sunday's "Fox & Friends," whispering that Obama was "talking down to black people" and that Jackson wanted to "cut his nuts off."

When Big Dog O'Reilly aired the scoop, he told viewers that the network had decided to air only portions of what Jackson had said, saying there was "more damaging" material. Heh. Here's more of the inside Fox News skinny.

The comments went unnoticed in the control room, Bill Shine, Fox News' senior vice president for programming, said Thursday.

The scathing remarks first came to the attention of an employee working the overnight shift Sunday, who transcribed the tape as part of training for the network's ongoing digital conversion. Otherwise, "it potentially would have not been discovered," Shine said.

Chalk up another victory for new media.

It's difficult now to recall when serious people took the U.N. seriously. But, honestly, one needn't be a Bircher to conclude that the United States should withdraw tomorrow. Not because there is any real danger of blue-helmets coming for Americans' guns, but because the organization is impotent farce. Utterly incorrigible. A corrupt joke. A waste of time and billions of taxpayer dollars. The U.N. can't even manage to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, for God's sake.

Waffling on Iran is at least explainable. Sure, the Islamic Republic is hell-bent on building a nuclear weapon, blackmailing its neighbors and wiping the Zionist entity off the map. But, after all, Russia, China, France and Germany have a lot of money tied up with the mullahs, so tepid sanctions and the criminal indifference to Mideast security remain the order of the day. But Zimbabwe? That one should have been easy -- the happy outcome of a three-Bordeaux working lunch. Except that Russia and China said no, as they're wont to do.

The BBC notes that sanctions have a mixed record of success. True -- when enforcement is lax, that is. But as Angelo Codevilla has observed, "Total economic sanctions can be deadlier than atom bombs." In lieu of U.N. sanctions, an ad hoc coalition of nations -- led by the United States, of course -- could bring the dessicated thug Mugabe to heel.

Here's Barack Obama, hectoring Americans the other day: "It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup, right?"

Here's Rasmussen last month (Via Mickey Kaus):

Which is more important, encouraging all Americans to learn at least two languages or encouraging all immigrants to speak English as their primary language?

• 13% Encouraging all Americans to learn at least two languages

• 83% Encouraging all immigrants to speak English as their primary language
• 4% Not sure

Here is Barack Obama, regretting amplifying his comments today: "I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing!"

Ed Morrissey quips: "Barack Obama has managed the impossible — he’s thrown himself under his own bus!"

Back to Obama: "You know, this is an example of some of the problems we get into when somebody attacks you for saying the truth," he said Friday, "which is we should want children with more knowledge." Funny thing: People weren't attacking Obama because he said "the truth." People -- conservatives mostly, it's true -- were attacking Obama because he is an obnoxious scold, because he was so dismissive of assimilation, and because Americans don't need a would-be president telling them what to do.

Here's what Obama said: "Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they'll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." He then went on to express his embarrassment at Americans' inability to speak French, but let that pass.

Learning another language is a good idea, but it's not the most important role or goal of American education. Obama seems to think English learning just happens. Not true. English proficiency -- let alone mastery -- is elusive, even among native born American kids.

Rather than touting his phony cosmopolitanism, Obama should have said "You need to make sure your child can speak, read and write English." Because Hope and Change can thrill and inspire, but they can't teach kids the American language.

"Barack Obama just may be the most regretful figure in American politics, no small feat for a freshman senator," writes Luke Boggs in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Obama said this week that he regretted letting his daughters give an interview to Access Hollywood. No kidding. (I don't watch Access Hollywood, but I got a kick out of this scolding column in the Boston Globe.)

"I think that we got carried away in the moment," the apologetic Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told Matt Lauer Wednesday. "We were having a birthday party, and everybody was laughing. And suddenly this thing cropped up. I didn’t catch it quickly enough. I was surprised by the attention it received."

Boggs picks up the Access Hollywood second-thought and runs with it. "(W)hat jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling 'Obama' and 'regrets' yields more than a million hits.)"

Wow. I wonder how many regrets we'll see come 2009. I'm willing to bet it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million. Any takers?

Oh, how I love a mystery. The Los Angeles Times reports that Jesse Jackson "apologized this afternoon for making crude remarks about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama that were picked up during an interview with Fox News on Sunday."

Sounds fascinating! What did the Reverend Jackson say that would have elicited an apology? Well, that's where the story gets a bit vague.

Jackson gave an interview to rival network CNN expressing regret for his comments, which he said he made as part of a discussion about Obama's calls for more personal responsibility during appearances before black churches.

"I said it can come off as speaking down to black people," Jackson said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"And then I said something I felt regret for -- it was crude," he added. "It was very private, and very much a sound bite -- and a live mike. And so I feel -- I find no comfort in it, I find no joy in it. So I immediately called the senator's campaign to send my statement of apology to repair the harm or hurt that this may have caused his campaign because I support it unequivocally."

Jackson, the story reports, "threatened to cut off a certain part of Obama's anatomy."

Yes, yes, but which part? And what came off as "speaking down to black people"? For God's sake, what's the point of ginning up another trivial controversy if the media can't report what the hell was said? What's the context?

The Washington Post is reporting that ex-wrestler turned ex-actor turned ex-governor turned conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura may or may not enter the Senate race in Minnesota. Ventura, who believes he would be assassinated if he came close to winning an independent bid for the presidency (Who asked him to run, anyway?), told NPR one thing, then told the Associated Press something else.

The Washington Post goes on to suggest that Ventura's entry into the Senate race with Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken would "complicate" the race. Maybe. (Here's James Lileks' take.) In any event, Ventura's long, strange ego trip is unending.

The only reason I mention any of this is that Joel and I "interviewed" Ventura for RedBlueAmerica back in February or March, when his preposterous book came out. I put interview in sneer quotes because we asked the questions via e-mail and didn't receive the answers until a couple of weeks after we were cashiered in May. The good folks at Scripps-Howard posted the resulting Q&A. I won't link to it -- if you really care, Google exists for a reason -- but I can assure you that Ventura's "answers" (assuming he, and not some flunky, actually replied) were as facile, non-responsive and devoid of original insight as any politician's.

I used to think Ventura was a demagogue. But then I figured out that for The Body, playing the political outsider is just another gig.

Chances are, the Republicans are going to lose big in November. Oh, I don't mean John McCain. Given Barack Obama's inexperience and youthful imprudence, his opportunisitic liberalism, his poor choice of friends, and most recently, Obama's tendency to alienate his base, McCain just might pull this thing off. But the Maverick will take office next January with fewer Republican allies in Congress and a monumental set of problems left over from the Bush administration.

Under the circumstances, McCain's people might want to read Steven Greenhut's column in Sunday's Orange County Register. I don't think they'll like what they read, but they should read it anyway. Perhaps a few of them will have the sense to adapt one or two of Greenhut's suggestions. Trouble is, Greenhut is in the "worse-is-better" camp that John Bolton admonished at CPAC in February. "Worse is not better," Bolton said. "Worse is worse." Indeed it is. But what if, despite their best efforts, Republicans lose anyway? What then? Greenhut has a few suggestions worth taking seriously, especially if McCain goes down.

"Republicans need to revive what I call the Politics of Aspiration," Greenhut argues. "Instead of promoting an agenda that a) echoes what Democrats offer, only not so much; or b) is based on negativity and fear (of illegal immigration, terrorists, Godless liberals, etc.), they need to tap into the entrepreneurial feelings and desire to get ahead that lies deep within us all -- rich, middle class and poor. Winning parties offer hopeful messages and sound ideas."

Greenhut goes on to outline a few policy prescriptions on regulation (roll back!), immigration (assimilation!), civil liberties and defense (humility!), infrastructure and economic growth (unleash the private sector!), education and health care (ditto!), entitlements (ditto again), and "other issues," which represent a rich field of social issues that will generate plenty of debate on the right and the left.

I'd quibble with a few points, but I think Greenhut is basically on the right track. The bottom line, though, is that a Republican defeat would force a conservative retrenchment and provide ample opportunities for the GOP to craft a real agenda along the lines of what Greenhut suggests. "Complete Democratic control is a troubling prospect," Greenhut writes, "but it might be the quickest way to turn a rotting corpse into a living organism."

Greenhut may understate his conclusion a little, but if Republicans find themselves kicked to the curb in a few months, they would do well to heed his advice.

The left side of the blogosphere is atwitter this holiday weekend about a YouTube video of John McCain from a town hall last December in which the Arizona senator says, "I hate the bloggers."

John Amato at the dispensable Crooks and Liars blog remarks, "Hey right wing bloggers. I think he’s talking about you too." Matter of fact, I'd wager he was talking about right-wing bloggers exclusively in that clip.

Go ahead and watch the video. Ordinary humans will instantly recognize that McCain, despite his well-known contempt for the First Amendment, was speaking tongue-in-cheek. McCain "hates" the bloggers because they give him a hard time on the vital issues of the day. Some bloggers might think they've touched a nerve with the old Maverick. A more reasonable conclusion is that he doesn't give a crap.

Whatever power the right side of the 'sphere may possess, it wasn't nearly enough to prevent McCain's nomination. Will it be enough to thwart Barack Obama?

Update: Matthew Yglesias is an extraordinary human being.

Still alive (more or less).

Sam Nunn: Still alive (more or less).
That's the gist of Jonathan Alter's essay in Newsweek, which argues for Sam Nunn as a sensible veep pick. As the subhead on the piece helpfully suggests, "The electrifying Obama can afford to share his ticket with a staid running mate."

Sam Nunn. Good Lord. Why not just reanimate Lloyd Bentsen, Pat Moynihan or Scoop Jackson? When Nunn's name first came up about a month ago, we didn't even bother to blog about it. But I did rant a little in a comment: "Every election year, Nunn's name comes up as a possible VP or a high cabinet official in the next Democratic administration. But then the Democrat loses or, in the case of Bill Clinton, decides to appoint a liberal Republican to defense secretary instead. The guy hasn't been a senator for, what? Fifteen years? Nobody knows who the hell he is anymore. Besides, would Obama, Bringer of Hope and Change, really pick an old-guard Democrat who hasn't been on the public stage since the 1990s? Doubtful."

Indeed, Alter recognizes all of this. Yet he sallies boldly forth: "General elections are fought in the middle, which is exactly where Sam Nunn sits. They are fought over independents and moderate swing voters, who would like Nunn. Above all, he would help lift his party's presidential nominee over the threshold of credibility that, for all the positive polls for Democrats, still stands between Barack Hussein Obama and the presidency."

(Note the subtle Rovian jab at the end -- just whose side is Alter on, I wonder?)

So the real case for Nunn is that he completes the resume of the inexperienced, untested and extremely liberal Obama. Undead or not, that sounds good to me.

That's the gist of Jonathan Alter's essay in Newsweek, which argues for Sam Nunn as a sensible veep pick. As the subhead on the piece helpfully suggests, "The electrifying Obama can afford to share his ticket with a staid running mate."

Sam Nunn. Good Lord. Why not just reanimate Lloyd Bentsen, Pat Moynihan or Scoop Jackson? When Nunn's name first came up about a month ago, we didn't even bother to blog about it. But I did rant a little in a comment: "Every election year, Nunn's name comes up as a possible VP or a high cabinet official in the next Democratic administration. But then the Democrat loses or, in the case of Bill Clinton, decides to appoint a liberal Republican to defense secretary instead. The guy hasn't been a senator for, what? Fifteen years? Nobody knows who the hell he is anymore. Besides, would Obama, Bringer of Hope and Change, really pick an old-guard Democrat who hasn't been on the public stage since the 1990s? Doubtful."

Indeed, Alter recognizes all of this. Yet he sallies boldly forth: "General elections are fought in the middle, which is exactly where Sam Nunn sits. They are fought over independents and moderate swing voters, who would like Nunn. Above all, he would help lift his party's presidential nominee over the threshold of credibility that, for all the positive polls for Democrats, still stands between Barack Hussein Obama and the presidency."

(Note the subtle Rovian jab at the end -- just whose side is Alter on, I wonder?)

So the real case for Nunn is that he completes the resume of the inexperienced, untested and extremely liberal Obama. Undead or not, that sounds good to me.

Barack Obama has a patriotism problem of his own making, over the most trivial of issues: an American flag lapel pin. Today the Los Angeles Times reports how after months of trying to stake out a nuanced position on patriotism -- "The pin became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism" -- Obama has embraced the stars-and-stripes without reservation.

Quite coincidentally, Joel and I spar over the patriotism question in this week's Scripps-Howard column. This was one of those times that I wish I had more than 200 words or so to develop my argument, and to rebut Joel. But thanks to the magic of the Internet, I do!

Joel writes: "The truth is that Barack Obama has a 'patriotism problem' because Republicans decided he did." With respect, Joel, that isn't entirely true. The patriotism issue came up last year, during the Democratic primary pre-season, when Hillary Clinton was still the "inevitable" nominee, Obama was still fighting for supremacy, and the Republicans had their own messy nomination contest to sort out. In other words, Obama has a patriotism problem because his fellow Democrats drew voters' attention to it.

And according to the aforementioned L.A. Times story, Obama's patriotism problem extends beyond the old Democratic-Republican divide. "A CNN poll released one day after the Illinois senator gave his patriotism speech showed that a quarter of registered voters surveyed questioned Obama's love of country. Nearly 30% of the respondents who described themselves as independents -- a coveted slice of the electorate -- believed he lacks patriotism, according to the survey."

I say the lapel pin is "trivial" and I think that's true. But I also happen to know that symbols carry a lot of weight with voters. Obama has expended a lot of time and verbiage trying to prove a negative -- that he's not unpatriotic -- when what he should have done was left the damned pin on his lapel. I concluded in the column that "Sometimes it's better to let the pin do the talking." Instead, Obama and his partisans (such as my friend Joel) find themselves engaged in contortions over how "Dissent really can be the highest form of patriotism." That's a sucker's game. The average voter, for whom patriotism is felt rather than thought, has no patience for such equivocation.

Are there more important issues to discuss this election than patriotism? Sure. I think a debate between John McCain and Barack Obama on national security, the economy, and energy policy would be well worth having. But the flag pin distraction is just another data point on an ever-lengthening list of doubts about Obama's fitness for higher office.

Poochucker was kind enough to give us a breakdown of the inevitable folly that will result from California's new "must have an ear-piece while driving" law. The ear-piece-device makers are quite happy with what amounts to a tax paid to the telecommunications industry.

But if things in the formerly Golden State aren't bad enough, wait until Barack Obama is president with Democratic control of both houses of Congress. According to The Wall Street Journal, Obama's schemes mean that the self-employed in California will face a tax rate that even the French have repealed.

How does giving 60 percent of what you earn over to the government grab ya, Mrs. and Mrs. self-employed entrepreneur? Mr. McCain. Call your office.