In Obama’s campaign ad:

Even under the most generous reading imaginable could any of that count as passing legislation that extended health care for wounded troops? The Chicago Tribune noted the problem on its blog last week but defended Obama by pointing out that John McCain didn’t vote for the bill either. That would be an interesting piece of information if John McCain had cited this bill as among his chief legislative accomplishments.

The Obama team’s desire to pad the resume is understandable — it’s awfully slim after all. But this kind of dishonesty will catch up with them…or at least it should.

Yes, it should, but maybe it won’t. Bill Clinton’s supporters didn’t seem to mind that he was an inveterate liar. But Obama’s supporters (which includes much of the media) not only don’t mind, but actually hope he is.

[Afternoon update]

Is he finally losing his teflon?

Lileks has more thoughts on the subject:

It is amusing, really – after sticking people’s heads in the muck every day for years, promoting every faddish scare, fluffing the pillow beneath every yuppie worry, swapping the straight-forward adult approach to news with presenters who emote the copy with the sad face of a day-care worker telling the children that Barney is dead – in short, after decades of presenting the world through the peculiar prism that finds in every day more evidence of our rot and our failures, they wonder why people are depressed. Hang the banner, guys: Mission Accomplished.

Of course, not everyone feels this way; I’d guess that people who watch television news are more inclined to pessimism. But there’s another side to this: the pessimism among some may not stem from some impotent feeling that one is a cork toss’d in a sea of cruel destiny, that you can’t do anything, that nothing will get better – no, the pessimism may arise from the suspicion that there’s something abroad in the land that’s had a good hardy larf about “Horatio Alger” and all the other manifestations of individual initiative for 30 years. The cool kids and the clever set have always smirked at that sort of stuff. You can get them going if you make a speech about our ability to solve things, but you’d better phrase it in the form of a government initiative, or brows furrow: well, then, how do you propose to do it?

Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama apparently will lie to us.

Of course, I’m not aware that Obama has ever made a Carter-like pledge.

By the way, I don’t mean to imply that Carter doesn’t speak falsehoods. I just think that he’s delusional enough to believe them.

[Update in the early afternoon]

Here’s more on Obama’s campaign-finance hypocrisy.

…public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue — Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

[Update a few minutes later]

Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Obama for declining public financing per se. I think that public financing is an ugly chancre on the body politic, and I cheer when it’s foregone. I wish that McCain would do the same thing. Unfortunately, he’d look even more hypocritical if he did so, due to his having become the point man for all of these idiotic and unconstitutional campaign finance laws. He could use this as an excuse to follow suit, saying that he had no choice, given Obama’s going back on his word, but we all know that if he did, the howls from the media would be deafening.

Well, according to the BBC, he didn’t lie. He just “reversed his promise.”

Well, that’s all right then.

It’s only fair to note that technically, they’re correct. If Obama said it while having no intention of doing it at the time, it would be a lie, but we can’t get into his mind. Sometimes promises aren’t kept, but that doesn’t mean that they were a lie at the time they were made. I was always annoyed when people told me that George H. W. Bush lied when he said “read my lips, no new taxes.” A broken promise is, in fact, not the same as a lie. But it’s a reason to not consider voting for someone.

Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama apparently will lie to us.

Of course, I’m not aware that Obama has ever made a Carter-like pledge.

By the way, I don’t mean to imply that Carter doesn’t speak falsehoods. I just think that he’s delusional enough to believe them.

[Update in the early afternoon]

Here’s more on Obama’s campaign-finance hypocrisy.

…public financing and lobbyist money are yet additional examples of how Obama is on both sides of every issue — Iraq, the Cuban embargo, a divided Jerusalem, NAFTA et al. Is the press at all interested in pointing this out?

That was a rhetorical question, right?

[Update a few minutes later]

Just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Obama for declining public financing per se. I think that public financing is an ugly chancre on the body politic, and I cheer when it’s foregone. I wish that McCain would do the same thing. Unfortunately, he’d look even more hypocritical if he did so, due to his having become the point man for all of these idiotic and unconstitutional campaign finance laws. He could use this as an excuse to follow suit, saying that he had no choice, given Obama’s going back on his word, but we all know that if he did, the howls from the media would be deafening.

Well, according to the BBC, he didn’t lie. He just “reversed his promise.”

Well, that’s all right then.

It’s only fair to note that technically, they’re correct. If Obama said it while having no intention of doing it at the time, it would be a lie, but we can’t get into his mind. Sometimes promises aren’t kept, but that doesn’t mean that they were a lie at the time they were made. I was always annoyed when people told me that George H. W. Bush lied when he said “read my lips, no new taxes.” A broken promise is, in fact, not the same as a lie. But it’s a reason to not consider voting for someone.

RIchard Fernandez connects some dots that may account for Senator Obama’s shifts in Iraq policy:

The shifts in Barack Obama’s policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko’s business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, “this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know.”

For some reason, the MSM doesn’t seem interested in this kind of stuff.

RIchard Fernandez connects some dots that may account for Senator Obama’s shifts in Iraq policy:

The shifts in Barack Obama’s policy toward Iraq show a remarkable correlation with the rise and fall of Tony Rezko’s business prospects in the Chamchamal Power Plant. As the story of the Rezko syndicate is exposed in his Chicago trial, the subject of its Iraqi commercial interests will come under a brighter light. Barack Obama has already said of his convicted ex-fundraiser, “this is not the Tony Rezko I used to know.”

For some reason, the MSM doesn’t seem interested in this kind of stuff.