Democrats didn’t give President Bush an ounce of credit for the more than 8.3 million jobs created since August 2003, but are now jumping to blame him for the no-so-great jobs report that came out today, which said that while the unemployment rate went down to 4.8%, payroll employment declined by 63,000 jobs last month. The news is by no means good, but not nearly as bad as Democrats are making it out to be. For starters, the unemployment rate is still historically low. In fact, because it is as low as it is, naturally, economic growth is going to slow down. Even as we were in the middle of a record 52 consecutive months of job growth (thanks to Bush’s economic policies) Democrats bashed the economy like we were in the middle of another Great Depression.

What this report should tell the Democrats is that we need more economic stimulus… which would include making the Bush tax cuts permanent and cutting spending… Unfortunately, congressional Democrats are proposing the exact opposite, a $683 billion tax increase and an increase in wasteful spending.

In response to the jobs report, Barack Obama attempted to turn the news into campaign fodder by saying Americans “can’t afford John McCain’s promise of four more years of the very same failed Bush economic policies that have failed us for the last eight, and they can’t afford another politician who promises solutions but won’t change the divisive, lobbyist-driven politics in Washington.”

I’m sorry Barack, but more than 8.3 million new jobs, a record 52 consecutive months of job growth, and historically low unemployment are not the results of a failed economic policy… they’re the results of commonsense economic policies that have been proven to work.

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation urges Congress not to increase taxes, extend unemployment insurance, or restrict trade. They also note the following:

The economy is clearly weakening. Private-sector employment has fallen for the past three months, driven by job losses in the construction and manufacturing sectors. However, wages have grown at a strong pace, and the unemployment rate is still historically low. The economy is clearly sluggish, but America is hardly in an economic emergency.

Feel free to talk about what you’d like.

And be sure to check out Blogs For John McCain’s Victory…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Here’s you chance, Diana, et al…have at it…bring up anything you want.

According to Bob Novak, “a showdown in Denver may be unavoidable.”

Such a showdown would reveal the consequences of eight years of Democratic procedural decisions that made no sense save for the premise that Hillary Clinton, as she expected, would be handed the nomination on Super Tuesday. That the convention will be held unusually late raises the prospect of not knowing the identity of the Democratic nominee until shortly before Labor Day. The decision to deprive Michigan and Florida of delegates because their primaries were scheduled too early cannot stand in a contested convention. That Hillary Clinton’s candidacy still lives forces Democrats to cope with their mistakes.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Charles Hurt: Only Gore Can Stop A Meltdown.

I don’t see it happening, but Hillary probably sees political advantage in keeping it open as a possibility.

Interestingly enough, Obama says it’s premature to talk about a joint ticket… Of course, as the one leading in delegates right now, and the essential front runner, he doesn’t need to use the joint ticket as a gimmick to help his campaign the way Hillary does.

The Chicago Tribune has an excellent piece explaining how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s rhetoric against NAFTA is just plain wrong.

Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate, allegedly “hopes” to appoint Republicans to his cabinet, if God forbid, he won the presidency. We shouldn’t be surprised at these claims… Anyone running for president will tout any efforts they’ve made in their career of reaching out across the aisle. Even the divisive Hillary Clinton has touted her past efforts working with a select few Republicans.

This sounds more like a story that should be coming out during the general election, but obviously Camp Obama, recognizing John McCain’s broad support that includes Republicans, Independents and Democrats, he sees the need to increase his support among independent voters now.

But, the thing is, I remember a while back Barack Obama making another one of his empty promises about not appointing only “yes-men” into his own inner circle. It’s probably safe rhetoric for him, since his supporters will naturally recognize those words as campaign rhetoric meant to broaden his appeal. And what could Hillary Clinton possibly say to make it hurt Obama, the same man who generates thunderous applause for blowing his nose.

Still, it’s hard to take anything Obama says seriously. We know his rhetoric on NAFTA is merely rhetoric that cannot be taken seriously, are we supposed to believe that Barack Obama, who is even more liberal than Hillary Clinton, would seriously pick Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) as his running mate? Hagel may oppose the Iraq war, but he’s otherwise very socially conservative. Would the pro-partial-birth abortion Barack Obama really pick Hagel for anything? Would Hagel even consider it?

Such talks of any bipartisan ticket shouldn’t be taken seriously, and neither should claims of bipartisan cabinets.. and certainly not from Barack Obama. I could see John McCain with a bipartisan cabinet before I could see Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton with one. Some have suggested that Joe Lieberman could even be McCain’s running mate, or even serve on his cabinet. I can’t see either happening, but Lieberman, who has already been thrown under the bus by his former party, would be far more likely to be John McCain’s VP or Secretary of Defense than Chuck Hagel would be likely to be Barack Obama’s VP or Secretary of Defense. But, again… both circumstances seem highly unlikely.

CTV (Canada) reports that Obama’s rhetoric against NAFTA is only rhetoric, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

“Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.

Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers’ jobs.

Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.”

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4JuU%5D

Greg McIsaac of CTV stands by the story, despite denials by the Obama campaign, and has said on record,”The facts of our story are accurate.”

HAT TIP: The Flyover Report.

UPDATE: Camp Obama denies… gee, ya think? More from NRO’s Jim Geraughty… Still more…

The New York Times, which already declared its intent to thwart John McCain’s candidacy, is now following up its previous smear with another ridiculous story questioning whether John McCain is even eligible to be President of the United States, because of his place of birth.

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of Senator John McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

Obviously since this has been vetted before, the New York Times really has no reason to try to inject new life to the claim. This seems quite typical of the Left smear tactics. When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, his Democrat opponents called his residency into question because he had been temporarily living in Utah to manage the Olympics. When Tom DeLay has retired from the House and moved to Virginia, Democrats challenged his residency (by saying he was still a resident of Texas) in order to keep him on the ballot.

It’ll be interesting to see how the Democrats pursue this. If they make any attempt to challenge McCain’s eligibility, then they will do so out of fear.

The Los Angeles Times has the story…

As he emerges from a sometimes- bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain poses a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending America’s involvement in the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. And even though a clear majority of those polled said the war was not worth waging, about half of registered voters said McCain — a Vietnam vet who has supported the Bush administration’s military strategy — was better able to deal with Iraq.

In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats

So, not only does McCain beat both Hillary and Obama in head-to-head match ups, but when it comes to dealing with the most important issues facing our country, McCain clearly has an edge as well.

This is good news, but we shouldn’t give too much weight to these polls. For starters, various other polls have shown different results, and a poll — even a scientific one — isn’t going be able to account for voter turnout factors, particularly the potential effect an Obama candidacy in the general election on the youth and minority votes, both of which lean Democrat.

But, liberals should stop pretending they have a landslide victory coming for them.

Earlier today, John McCain said of Obama, “I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It’s called al Qaeda in Iraq.” Obama, in response said, “I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

While that may have gotten his supporters riled up, the fact of the matter is that Obama’s not telling the truth. All you have to do is do a search in the official 9/11 Commission report to find plenty of references to Iraq and al Qaeda — while there’s nothing that proves any collaboration in attacks, there’s quite a bit that indicates plenty of contacts and various forms of cooperation. Thankfully, QandO already ran through all the references back in 2004 and posted relevent excerpts which you can see here.

Unfortunately, Obama can lie through his teeth and it doesn’t matter. His supporters want to believe him and everything he says so badly they’ll just swallow everything up… Obama sounds more like the popular high school jock running for class president (promising shorter classes, longer lunch periods, and banning homework) than he sounds like a real leader who actually has the knowledge and experience it takes to be the President.