It’s probably no surprise that I tend to lean left, especially on social issues.

It might surprise you, however, to know that a few years ago I listed John McCain as one of a few current Republicans I could imagine myself voting for.

But as millions of Americans have discovered in the past few months, the McCain of 2008 bears little resemblance to the McCain of 2000 in either policy or attitude.

I’ve resisted posting about this, but the clip below put me over the edge (the real kicker is at about 1:20 into the speech):

I do think Cindy McCain is sincerely outraged by Obama’s vote, and I can understand why the mother of a soldier serving in Iraq would feel this way. I have great sympathy toward soldiers, and toward the family members and friends of anyone serving in our military.

But I wonder whether Cindy McCain might feel a deeper chill yet to learn that her husband also voted against funding the troops.

Here’s what happened: First, Obama voted against a bill for funding the troops because it didn’t contain a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Next, McCain voted against a different version of the bill , H.R. 1591, because it did contain such a timeline (and this is also why Bush vetoed the bill). Neither of them voted against funding troops on the merits of the idea, but because of the absence or presence of a timeline for war operations. Both Senators had previously voted for multiple funding bills.

Using Cindy McCain this way on the campaign trail is disgusting, and tugging America’s heartstrings with blatant half-truths is more disgusting.

It’s especially ugly in light of the rough treatment McCain has given to our veterans. One of the worst things McCain has done in the past year, in my opinion, was to vote against a large increase in the outdated GI college tuition benefit because it would adversely affect military retention rates.

That’s right: we can’t make college too attractive to these guys or they’ll stop fighting and go to school. (By the way, this was a bill passed 75-22, with 25 Republicans breaking with President Bush to vote for it - and McCain wasn’t one of them.)

From ABC news:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

McCain indicated he would offer some sort of alternative to the legislation to address concerns that expanding the GI Bill could lead more members of the military to get out of the service.

…

Pressure had mounted on McCain to support the bill — a veterans group, which backs the legislation, delivered a petition to McCain’s Senate office, signed by 30,000 veterans.

Officials in charge of Pentagon personnel worry that a more generous and expansive GI Bill would create an incentive for troops to get out of the military and go to college.

To be fair, he did propose his own, smaller increase to the GI Bill, but it’s the rationale behind him not supporting the Webb bill that I have a big issue with.

There are many other examples of McCain not supporting veterans, discussed here by Media Matters.

This strategy - using Mrs McCain to drive home an emotional point that Senator McCain himself probably could not believably deliver - could have been highly effective.

Instead, relying on misleading implications and presuming that Americans don’t know how to find publicly available information about their candidates’ voting records is insulting and offensive, and reeks of desperation.

Here we go again, folks. By tomorrow this time, the story I’m about to tell irresponsibly repeat ought to have hit the mainstream media in full force.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that McCain has been accused of being a hothead. After all, he told John Cornyn to (explicit) off last year and has been known to call his opponents - and even colleagues - rude names.

But Cliff Schecter, author of the soon-to-be-released book entitled “The Real McCain”, relates an episode back in 1992 in which McCain goes beyond rivalry by humiliating his wife with an insult in front of reporters and aides.

Here’s the bombshell (censoring is mine, not the book’s):

“Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c–t.” McCain’s excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.”

It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in which a “long” day” would make a man speak so disrespectfully to his wife if he didn’t really mean it.

If this story is true, it could cost McCain valuable independent votes, especially in a year where he might happen to be running against, say, a woman.

But I dug into the story a little bit, and have concluded that we can’t make any conclusions about its veracity just yet. Many, many websites referenced the story, but all of them use the same passage I quoted above. It’s not yet time to roundly criticize McCain for this story.

It should be an easy story to vet, since the author claims that the comment took place in front of reporters and aides in a public place. If it didn’t happen, I hope that it gets cleared up quickly.

If it did happen, should it matter?

On one hand, McCain allegedly uttered the phrase about 16 years ago - that’s almost a generation ago. Should he really be held accountable for something he said, in the heat of the moment, that long ago? Let’s get back to the policy issues and focus on what matters.

On the other hand: you don’t really know much about someone until they’re tested. If a flip, casual teasing from his wife elicits such a hateful response, what should we expect from his diplomatic efforts when he’s representing us abroad? And - if he’s willing to humiliate her publicly as punishment for light teasing - how does McCain treat his wife when no one’s looking?

What do you think?