The man who wasn't there

by Capt. Fogg

John McCain is at it again. Just a short while ago this evening he was whining to Wolf Blitzer and pleading to voters on CNN about how he's been tested. He did the same thing yesterday in Moon Township Pennsylvania. He took part in the Cuban Missile Crisis, says he. He was there, he said proudly. He sat in an airplane and waited for orders. He was 26 years old. 45 Year old John F. Kennedy was 27 years younger than McCain is today and had never faced anything like that in his life.

Of course the possibility of any superpower attempting to set up missile bases on our borders without being detected, is one of the least likely things the next president will have to face. The experience John McCain had in the military has nothing to do with the kind of situation the younger than Obama JFK managed to pull off without a shot being fired. The virtues that guided Kennedy had little to do with piloting a PT Boat or sitting in a cockpit or even the bombing of cities McCain was involved in several years afterward. Indeed, John McCain never had a leadership position that involved strategic or tactical decision making. In fact relative to all such things, he was never there.

Was a shooting war avoided because JFK had the kind of wild, uncontrollable temper McCain is noted for? No it wasn't. Did Kennedy employ the bluster, the whining, begging pleading and wheedling we see in McCain day after day? Calm, steady nerves and even perhaps luck played a bigger part and that's something McCain doesn't have and Barak Obama has. Who wouldn't rather play poker with twitching, grimacing, mumbling and blinking McCain than with the ice man?

But McCain is losing. We can see him sweat and we can hear him beg and plead and whine to us "his friends" about how a younger, vastly smarter and more unflappable man will invite a "test" from a Soviet Union that for John McCain will always be the enemy. For him, the answers to the questions of today will always be found in the ever less relevant struggles between the gigantic military forces of the 1960's. Those were the days before a global economy and before all kinds of things John never troubled himself to learn about. Not only was he never there, his "there" doesn't even exist any more.

Cross posted from Human Voices

When the boom is over, what happens then?

By Carol Gee

(image: Wordle)

Many big things have been happening that make the news. We shake our heads and say, "Not again." These headlines, for example, signify big deals, big "booms," so to speak: Russia test fired a old missile. India sent a rocket towards the moon. A U.S. air strike went awry in Afghanistan, killing Afghan soldiers by mistake. Stock markets are crashing all around the world signifying the end of a financial boom. And the McCain presidential campaign is not expected to explode victoriously into the headlines on election day. And still we worry. Roger Simon was able to capture our mood perfectly in his column for Politico today, "Democrats' Gloom Deepens." We are superstitiously afraid that Barack Obama's meteoric track will not bring him the presidency, that there is still a booming October surprise waiting to happen to spoil it. But there is often a bit of good news to counter the bad, if we look for it hard enough:

Space remains mostly peaceful -- "India launched its first unmanned moon mission on Wednesday following in the footsteps of rival China, as the emerging Asian power celebrated its space ambitions and scientific prowess," according to The Financial Times story. This is good news we hope, in step with the recent promulgation of "Keep Space For Peace Week*," celebrated internationally by activists around the globe.

Military might is not the only force with power -- "Russia test-fired an intercontinental Stilet missile on Wednesday as part of the checks needed to extend the service of the weapon until 2010, the strategic missile forces said. The missile, which belongs to a type commissioned in 1979 . . ," reports Yahoo! News. At the same time there was this positive news from the BBC News: "Western donors have pledged $4.55bn (£2.7bn;3.5bn euros) to help rebuild Georgia, two months after its conflict with Russia."

Some plans go terribly wrong, others work unexpectedly -- "Nine Afghan soldiers have been killed and three others wounded in an air raid by US-led forces in eastern Afghanistan," as reported by Aljazeera. In the meantime, the BBC reports that many of al tQaeda's websites have been down for weeks, fueling speculation that hackers or counterintelligence targeted the key websites.

The way out of the economic crisis depends on the individual efforts of all of us, doing what we can to help. "A fresh batch of downbeat earnings and gloomy outlooks pushed US stocks sharply lower on Wednesday as concerns grew over the difficulties facing corporate America in the wake of banking sector turmoil," The Financial Times writes. In the midst of the turmoil, it seems to me that Barack Obama's brand of "Communitarian Populism" could be just the sort of governance needed. We are going to need all the help we can get to right the listing the ship of state, and we are much of the help we need.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo*" and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Pennsylvania dreamin'

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Speaking of Pennsylvania:

Like I said, focusing on Pennsylvania (while also having to win Ohio and Florida and Bush's other 2004 states), is yet another Hail Mary from a McCain campaign that's full of them, and it.

(Hat tip: Chris Orr at The Plank. Originally at Pollster.)

A sucka-punch is when you punch a sucka!

By Dan Tobin

From: Prexy43 [Bush]
To: LiberalJerkwad [Tobin]
Subject: how to fight

Let's say you're fightin' a guy. Maybe he made you spill your O'Doul's. Maybe he said Tom Landry was overrated. Maybe he vowed to concede defeat to the terrorists. Whatever the reason, you're out in the parking lot, trading jabs and calling his mother a whore. Then he gets a cell-phone call and says, "Hold up a sec, it's my wife." Do you wait for him to finish his call? Maybe a Pussycrat does, but the Grand Ol' Party? Naw, man, you wait until he takes his eye off the ball, then punch that sucka with a patented sucka-punch, the one you've been saving the whole time. Then when he's on the ground, kick him in the ribs and step on his neck. That's how we roll, bro.

And guess what? Obama's taking a cell phone call for the next two days, going to visit his sick Grandma. Oldest trick in the book! So I say, is there a better time for the Mac Attack to let loose with The Wright Stuff? Hell's no!

He's basically got two whole news cycles to get in some good solid sucka punches with no defense. Between all that pacifist "new politics" stuff and the quiet sobriety of tending to an ailing relative, Black Osama's going to sit there like those Amish guys in Witness. McCain can steal his hat and put ice cream on their nose and everything. He'll just have to sit there and take it!

And sure, the mainstream media will probably play the Harrison Ford role and beat down Macko for it. But when you're in living the gutter, what's another bucket of sewage? If you're already covered in slime, it's not like you're gonna get any dirtier. He's already down there, his reputation's already shot to hell. Might as well throw in some Rev. Wright while Obama can't hit back, see if it makes him fold. We're not going win this thing in a knockout, I know that. So maybe we score enough cheap shots after the bell rings, chip away, hope for a split decision that goes to the Supreme Court. And we all know how that shit ends!

- W

(Cross-posted at Surgical Strikes.)

I am a real American

By Carl

I was born in this great nation. I was born to two people, one of whom was born here, and moved abroad as a young girl, the other born abroad and moved here after the war to find his opportunity, to two people who loved this nation.

My father was awarded one of the most prestigious civilian awards for his service to both this nation and his homeland, a value he made certain to instill in all of us from a young age.

I won't get into the myriad of accolades I've received as a citizen of the United States, but they started as a young child, and have continued into adulthood. I shouldn't have to wear my various medals and post my various certificates on the wall of my house.

But according to some in this nation, I am not a real American. Indeed, according to some, I am anti-American.

Sarah Palin:

Speaking at a fund-raiser in North Carolina, the Alaska governor said: "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

Michelle Bachmann:

"Absolutely. I'm very concerned that he [Obama] may have anti-American views," she said.

It seems to me that some small-time hoodlum Congresscritter from a flyover state once ran this scam on America. Lemme think... Joe... McDonald? McCasey? McCain?

I can't recall.

In Palin's defense, she offers up an apology:

Democrats and others immediately criticized Palin, alleging she was saying that some part of the country are more patriotic than others.

Palin denied that was her intention in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

"I don't want that misunderstood," Palin said. "If that's the way it came across, I apologize."

To put this weak-kneed response in perspective, say Sarah Palin ran over your dog:

If indeed it was my car, it was not my intent to run over your dog and if I did happen to squash Fluffy under the wheels of my Hummer, and there's no proof of that despite the word "Hummer" tattooed on his ass, if that's the case, I apologize for your misperception

What is it with Republicans and responsibility that they simply can't take any?

If this meme was limited to these two rather desperately moronic Republicans, then I'd be tempted to say "justice will be served on November 4," and ignore it.

But it's pretty clear that the Republicans have decided to declare class warfare on America:

On MSNBC this morning, McCain adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer asserted that "real Virginia" does not include Northern Virginia:

I certainly agree that Northern Virginia has gone more Democratic. … But the rest of the state — real Virginia if you will — I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain’s message.

MSNBC host Kevin Corke gave Pfotenhauer a chance to revise her answer, telling her: "Nancy, I'm going to give you a chance to climb back off that ledge — Did you say 'real Virginia'?"

But Pfotenhauer didn't budge, and instead dug a deeper hole.

Real Virginia, I take to be, this part of the state that's more Southern in nature, if you will.

Corke ended the segment noting that Pfotenhauer was appearing via satellite from Northern Virginia. "Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior policy adviser for the McCain campaign, joining us from Arlington, not really Virginia." "Alright, I'm just gonna let ya– you'll wear that one," Corke responded.

So this was not a slip of the tongue. This was not a tossed off insult in the heat of the moment, when one might get worked up and exaggerate one's point.

No, all three of these have been a coordinated attack on anyone who is Democratic or lives in a blue state, which means this is a campaign tactic. I'd say "strategy" but it's clear McCain has none.

You know what? After six years of "real Americans" running the Congress, the Presidency and the courts, and after eight years of "real Americans" running two thirds of this government, maybe "real America" just ought to take a hint from Jon Stewart's reaction and shut the fuck up already.

Real Americans, you know, the ones who built and shaped this nation into the greatest economic power that the world has ever known, into the most innovative and progressive knowledge base in the history of the frikkin' universe, who created and destroyed and rebuilt this nation over and over again, are getting a little tired of listening to people decide who is American and who is not.

Real Americans, who own your gas stations, and teach your kids, yes, right through college, who fight your wars, who do your plumbing, who hope for that one shot at the brass ring that is the American Dream, are tired of being pitted one against the other to determine who is a patriot and who is not, as if America was some horribly tragic reality show, "Survivor America".

Real Americans live in cities and suburbs and small towns, and on farms and in mansions.

Real Americans drive jalopies and bicycles and ride in limos.

Real Americans don't criticize their fellow Americans because real Americans understand that as great as this nation is, we each of us still have to survive day to day, all the time watching our money get stolen and off-shored by the cronies of the Palins and Pfotenhauers and Bachmanns, who let it go without protest, because their money is safely invested with those folks who take our money and deposit it on Bermuda or the Cayman Islands.

Real Americans are us. Not you, Sarah Palin, not you, Michelle Bachmann, and not you, Nancy Pfotenhauer.

And me. I am a real American.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

For McCain, it may all come down to Pennsylvania

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't all that long ago -- actually, about two and a half weeks ago -- that the McCain campaign pulled out of Michigan and set its sights on three key battleground states: Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. (Although he was behind quite decisively in all three.)

Well, it now looks like it's all about Pennsylvania. As Jim Rutenberg of NYT's The Caucus is reporting, McCain is reducing his advertising in five heretofore battleground states: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota. The expectation is that he will "use the savings to increase his advertising in Pennsylvania and, possibly, Ohio and Florida, all of which have become that much more vital should Mr. McCain have to concede states like Colorado and Wisconsin."

It is not clear if he is actually giving up on these states, but it does seem that his new "path to victory" requires a win in Pennsylvania (where Hillary did well and where Gov. Rendell is "still a little nervous"). Nate Silver explains (drawing on Al Giordano). Basically, it's yet another Hail Mary, with McCain, who may soon bring up Jeremiah Wright as a racially-charged last-ditch smear of Obama, focusing on Appalachia and the South in hopes of winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

There are other ways for McCain to win, or for Obama to lose, as Noam Scheiber suggests, but it's pretty clear the McCain campaign has run out of ideas.

Biggest. Lead. Yet.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A new NBC/WSJ poll has Obama up by 10 over McCain, up from just 6 a couple of week ago. It's his largest lead to date.

This gain can be attributed in part to "voters’ increased confidence in his ability to serve as commander in chief... [His] current lead is also fueled by his strength among independent voters (topping McCain 49 to 37 percent), suburban voters (53 to 41), Catholics (50 to 44) and white women (49 to 45)."

All good signs.

**********

Meanwhile: "Palin's qualifications to be president [or lack thereof] rank as voters' top concern about McCain's candidacy -- ahead of continuing President Bush's policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq."

As for Palin herself, "[i]n the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light."

In my view, the only reason her negatives are so low, relatively speaking, is that many Americans still don't know much about her. As more and more of the truth has come out, her positives have plummeted.

**********

Pew has Obama up by a whopping 14 points, 52-38. It seems to be an outlier, but the internals mirror what's in the NBC/WSJ poll:

Obama's strong showing in the current poll reflects greater confidence in the Democratic candidate personally. More voters see him as "well-qualified" and "down-to-earth" than did so a month ago. Obama also is inspiring more confidence on several key issues, including Iraq and terrorism, than he did before the debates. Most important, Obama now leads McCain as the candidate best able to improve economic conditions by a wider margin (53% to 32%).

There has also been "a widespread loss of confidence in McCain," perhaps "the most significant factor in the race at this point."

The wardrobe of a hockey mom

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Look who's all dolled up:

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.

Yeah, she's so real America. (Just like Cindy McCain.) I'm sure the beer-swilling, Walmart-frequenting hockey moms back home in Wasilla can sooooo relate.

**********

UPDATE: Ambinder notes that the McCain people are, predictably, blaming the media even for bringing this up. However, Republicans are not amused with the dolling up: "The Democrats are going to have a lot more fun with this than is prudent, but the heat for this story will come from Republicans who cannot understand how their party would do something this stupid... particularly (and, it must be said, viewed retroactively) during the collapse of the financial system and the probable beginning of a recession.

Not as smart as a third grader

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I realize it's been mostly Palin most of the time for me today -- see here and here -- but I just can't pass this one up.

**********

Yesterday, in Colorado, during an interview with NBC affiliate KUSA, Palin was asked a question submitted by a third grader: "What does the vice president do?"

In response, Palin said it was a question her daughter Piper, a second grader, would ask her. And then proceeded to get it wrong: "They're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."

Actually... no. As Think Progress points out, the Constitution -- you know, the Constitution (not that she knows much about it) -- "establishes an exceptionally limited role for the vice president -- giving the office holder a vote only when the Senate is 'equally divided.'" As well, "the U.S. Senate website explains that the modern role of vice presidents has been to preside over the Senate 'only on ceremonial occasions.'"

Apparently, Palin still has no clue what she's even running for.

(Even Cheney hasn't sought to expand his powers that much.)

**********

UPDATE: C&L has Olbermann: "The Sarah Palin material -- as Tina Fey might be able to say -- just writes itself."

Of course, it's a must-watch. Go check it out.

UPDATE 2: Okay, here it is:

Do as I do, and sometimes as I say, just make sure you smear Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sarah Palin is against robocalls... while doing them herself.

She is also against the "atrocious and unacceptable things" some of her supporters have been yelling out at her rallies, vicious and violent slurs directed at Obama, calling them "unacceptable" (though claiming that she hasn't actually heard any of them, which hardly seems possible)... while stating, in a friendly interview with CBN, that she would make the "palling around with terrorists" smear again.

Charming, as usual.

(Hat tip: My friend Shaun Mullen at TMV.)

Everybody should have one

By Mustang Bobby

It turns out that the way to win a congressional race -- or at the least score a lot of cash for your campaign -- is to have an unhinged lunatic as your opponent:

The campaign of Elwyn Tinklenberg, the Democratic challenger against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), tells Election Central that they've raised $650,000 online since her now-infamous McCarthyite appearance on Hardball. This is an astonishing number for a House race by any measure, and even more special in light of the fact that this is nearly twice his cash-on-hand at the end of September.

Is Michele Bachman available for other campaigns? Or kids' parties?

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

John McCain's robot army

By Dan Tobin

From: Prexy43 [Bush]
To: LiberalJerkwad [Tobin]
Subject: obey your master

So many surprises in the last days of this awesome campaign. Like, the geezer who tries to use a letter opener to check his email turns out to be a tech monster! Dude's built himself a whole robot army to stop Black Obama. For reals, bitch! I'm telling you, John McCain has smear-bots making calls for him. I asked around a bit and I'm pretty sure these are cyborgs constructed out of seriously injured campaign workers and outdated cell-phones, reassembled as RoboCall. Dude may claim not to be me in debates, but he's not afraid to steal my best material! Carry on, brother!

Seriously, Mac Attack is brilliant here. These RoboCalls don't need sleep, just baby food and a steady diet of Ayers, Wright, radical Islam, and hypocrisy! The only danger I see is if he overloads their logic boards. Like, you can't let the RoboCall who bashes Obama for being a socialist also make the call hyping the give-aways in Mac's mortgage plan, bailouts, health care tax credit, etc. Don't want no robo-heads exploding: DOES NOT COMPUTE! DANGER! DANGER!

The best part about robots, though is that they're 100% loyal. As opposed to, say, negroid secretaries of state. WTF, Semi-Colon? Dude was National Security Advisor to Reagan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs for my pops, Secretary of State for the Dubya... and it turns out all that was just a 70-year plan to lure us into believing he wasn't just a commie Democrap affirmative action assmunch jerkface. I can't believe I ever trusted that guy with my Doobie Brothers box set.

But all punctuational betrayals aside, I'm proud of Mac for shaking up his campaign and letting the robots run the show. The only downside I see is if they start to fight back like in the Terminator movies. I see some of that starting, with that pair of tits he's got for a running mate lashing out at RoboCall, probably because he remembers their lines better than her. Be careful, baby. These robots are stone cold GOP: they'll hit a woman, they'll hit someone with glasses, and they don't care how many snowbiles your husband's friends with. They'll knock you back to the evening gown competition.

Hey, sorry about your Red Sox. Maybe you shoulda held onto Hinske after all...

- W

(Cross-posted at Surgical Strikes.)

Can I get an "Amen," brothers and sisters?

By Carl

One could only hope for this:

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

It's funny. I never really noticed how much I missed the disclaimer that my local television stations had to broadcast.

See, when some moron, say, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, would wrangle a moment of air time from the local television outlet, a) he was forced to keep his comments factual and polite, and b) the station was forced to "provide free air time for responsible spokespeople of opposing views."

In 1980, sensing an opening, the broadcast media, owned and operated in many instances by stridently right wing corporatists with an agenda (think Richard Mellon Scaife) prevailed upon Ronald Reagan's FCC to do away with the Fairness Doctrine, thus eliminating reasoned discourse presented for the public enlightenment.

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 by the FCC, but until 1969 was usually applied on a case-by-case basis.

In 1969, journalist Fred Cook was torn to shreds on the radio program of the Rev. Billy James Hargis. Attacked personally for writing a book about Barry Goldwater, Cook argued before the Supreme Court that the FCC doctrine implied the right to free and equal time to respond to the scandalous (and nearly slanderous) charges levelled.

At first blush, it may seem that this was not a matter for the Courts to decide, free enterprise, First Amendment and all, but the SCOTUS took note of the fact that the airwaves were a public trust overseen by the Congress and therefore were actually public domain. As a public trust, there was no reason the government couldn't require such a doctrine and upheld Cook's complaint.

(The other thing the Fairness Doctrine required was programming "in the public interest" which is why your rock or hip-hop station broadcasts those bizarre programs really early on Sunday morning, like herbal medicine shows or community affairs programming.)

When the Reagan administration effectively eviscerated the Fairness Doctrine, it created Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Monica Crowley, Michael Savage and any number of right wing knuckleheads whose only claim to fame is being potty-mouthed and willing to be paid for it.

It also created Stephanie Miller, Air America Radio, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann.

I apply the Fairness Doctrine to my columns, you see... ;-)

This deregulation of the broadcast market, along with the consolidation of power amongst five mammoth content distributors, created the hugely right wing media goliath that we have today.

It is no secret the agenda that General Electric, Disney, and the others have established: entertain at the expense of informing. Don't tell the truth, tell a masking of truth. Put lipstick on a pig and trot it out as a beauty queen. Tout American Idol rather than America's failures in Iraq.

In short, cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war on the people of the United States. Beat us into submission until we no longer care, and never EVER let a responsible spokesperson with an opposing point of view have any air time whatsoever, except in a context where he can be edited and mocked into submission.

Mr. Anderson's article, as panicked as it is (after all, he works for Rupert Murdoch, who made his life's fortune on being a strident partisan and suppressing rational discussion), points out the enormous success lying on the radio has had.

It's about time it stopped. He cites the First Amendment, but as anyone with a speck of understanding can see, the First Amendment is under more savage attacks without the Fairness Doctrine than with.

What Anderson is more concerned with (and his article amply demonstrates) is comfort. The comfort of not having one's views challenged substantively. The comfort of being truly elitist because one is truly ignorant. The comfort of being, in short, an idiot.

So "amen" to the Fairness Doctrine, and long may she oversee the dialogue of this great nation.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Sarah Palin's college daze

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For those of you who can't get enough Palin -- I've pretty much had enough, though, obviously, I'm still paying attention -- the L.A. Times has an interesting feature today on Palin's five-year, four-school, three-state college career. In short, she is "barely remembered at all," having "left behind few traces."

I don't think you need to have attended, say, Harvard Law School to be president -- and consider that Bush is both a Harvard and a Yale grad -- but, obviously, one should hope for more than Palin's meager achievements. It's not so much that she isn't remembered, or that her college career was so erratic, or that the several colleges she attended aren't all that great, it's that she seems to lack -- and here she is like Bush -- that certain seriousness, and sense of purpose, and engagement, that comes from a genuine interest in academic learning, as well as curiosity, both intellectual and about the world in general. For Palin, the world is pretty much just Wasilla and its immediate environs.

She wanted to get of Wasilla, understandably, but she just went briefly to Hawaii, then on to Idaho. Even at the University of Idaho, where she majored in journalism, "her name appears nowhere in the archives of the campus newspaper." She went to Matanuska-Susitna College, near Anchorage, for a semester, where "[g]enerous educational loans from the state of Alaska [along with beauty pageants] helped her pay her way," before returning to Idaho and graduating with a bachelor's degree in communications, launching her brief career as a sports reporter. In other words, she didn't really distinguish herself in any way during her time in college. And, after a few years as a reporter, she became a career politician.

Does any of this matter? Yes: that her college career was so erratic and unfocused, and so shallow; that some of her education was government-supported (given her libertarian views on government); that she became a career politician backed by the extremist Alaska Independence Party; that she has never demonstrated much of an interest in anything outside the narrow context of her small-town Alaska upbringing other than the oil industry; and that she seems to be an utterly shallow, unserious, uncurious, anti-intellectual person propped up by outsized ambition and an ego to match.

And all this look back over her college career reminds us is that she's utterly unqualified to be anywhere near the White House.

(Photo from the LAT. That's Palin (then Heath) on the left, with friend Stacia Crocker, at a dorm party at the Univ. of Idaho.)

Wright around the corner

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As HuffPo is reporting, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis -- he of Fannie and Freddie lobbying infamy -- told Hugh Hewitt yesterday, in what was surely a meeting of minds for the ages, that "he is reconsidering using Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue during the election's closing weeks."

It is apparently McCain himself, taking the high road (or so goes the spin), who has rejected attacking Obama over Wright, given both the religious and racial implications, but you just knew this was coming. In desperation, and with just two weeks left, what's to stop it?

It's what McCain's people want, it's what Palin wants, it's what hardcore McCain boosters like Krazy Kristol want, and it's probably, deep down, what McCain himself wants.

And it's likely coming soon to the McCain smear campaign near you.

Has McCain given up on Colorado?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He gave up on Michigan, and now it looks like McCain's giving up on Colorado, too. As CNN's John "Magic Board" King is reporting, the McCain campaign is "looking for a way to win without Colorado."

And also without Iowa and New Mexico.

According to a "top McCain insider," these three states are "gone." (New Mexico and especially Iowa are solidly for Obama at this point. Colorado is much more of a battleground state.)

The official McCain response, of course, tells a different story: "We see the race tightening both internally and in public polling. We are within striking distance in the key battleground states we need to win."

Well, maybe. The spin just isn't all that convincing. The current RCP Average for Colorado, after all, is Obama +5.5. (But who knows? The race does seem to be tightening somewhat overall.)

Ken Adelman, conservative Republican for Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Colin Powell's recent endorsement of Obama may not have come as much of a surprise -- and I'm generally not surprised that Obama has found supporters among Republicans, given the pathetic state of McCain's vicious and dirty campaign and the extremist state of the GOP these days -- but Ken Adelman... well, that's a different story altogether.

If you don't know him, and not many do, Adelman is a long-time stalwart of the neoconservative foreign policy movement, a member of both the Committee on the Present Danger in the '70s and the Kristol/Kagan-founded Project for the New American Century in the '90s, the latter the think tank that pushed for war with Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam -- long before 9/11 gave the warmongers in the Bush Administration, some of whom were PNACers (Wolfowitz was both a CPDer and a PNACer), all the excuse they needed. He was a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, until he turned against it. He is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board, the right-wing committee that advises the Pentagon.

Given his current views on the Iraq War, it may actually not be much of a surprise that Adelman has endorsed Obama. However, other than this break with his friends on the right, and his critique of the Bush Administration warmongers as "among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional," he has been a loyal Republican. During the Ford Administration, for example, he was Rumsfeld's assistant at the Pentagon. Later, under Reagan, he was the deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., then the director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and an advisor to the president.

And now? As George Packer notes in The New Yorker, Adelman is a still a conservative -- a "con-con," not a "neo-con." As he himself puts it, his views "align a lot more with McCain's than with Obama's." Yet he says he'll be voting for Obama on November 4. Why?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

Adelman may not share Powell's disgust with the GOP, and he may not share Powell's enthusiasm for Obama, but like Powell he is now willing to break with his party, and his friend McCain, to support a Democrat -- one who has shown himself over the course of this long campaign to be a man of exceptional intelligence, judgment, curiosity, and wisdom. It's not like either Powell or Adelman was looking to break with the GOP and McCain. They both probably wanted to support McCain. And yet both are now with Obama.

And, in Adelman's case, notice why: McCain's "weird" and erratic response to the financial crisis, including the phony suspension of his campaign, and, as is the case with quite a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, whose very pick speaks to McCain's irresponsibility and lack of judgment.

To be sure, many conservatives, including Krazy Bill Kristol, remain on McCain's side. And many of them just love Sarah Palin. But there are those -- the courageous few who are putting country before party -- who have simply had enough.

Adelman's endorsement won't mean nearly as much as Powell's, but it's a stunning reflection of Obama's broad appeal and the collapse of McCain's integrity and credibility.

Bizarro Palin, robocall critic

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You know things are a bit wacky when it's Palin objecting to the McCain-Palin robocall efforts. (TNR's Jason Zengerle thinks she may be "posing for posterity.")

For his part, McCain, a Bush robocall target in 2000, has been defending them. But, then, the McCain campaign looks a lot like the Bush campaign of that year, at least in terms of slime.

For example, as ABC's Jake Tapper reported on Saturday, "Warren Tompkins, one of the strategists of then-Gov. George W. Bush's South Carolina campaign in 2000 -- which [McCain] blamed for his family being slimed," has been sent to "North Carolina to assess the state for the McCain-Palin campaign." Tompkins isn't with the campaign in any official capacity, but, well, he's with the campaign.

As for the robocalls themselves, they focus, as you might expect, on the (insignificant) Obama-Ayers association. During the debate last week, McCain claimed that he doesn't "care about an old washed-up terrorist" like Ayers, before stating that "we need to know the full extent of that relationship." Obviously, though, he does care, enough to make him, along with Joe the Unlicensed Right-Wing Plumber, one of the centerpieces of his campaign, that is, to allow for him to turn his campaign into an Obama-Ayers smearfest.

Palin can hardly object to McCain going negative, considering how negative she herself has been, including going after Obama on Ayers. Whatever her motives, though, she's right about robocalls.

**********

UPDATE: In comments, Mustang Bobby notes that Palin's opposition to robocalls isn't preventing her from making them. TPM's Greg Sargent has more here.

The rationalization express

By Creature

John McCain, stop looking for excuses to justify your slime. First, you go negative and blame it on Obama because he did not agree to your town-hall ruse. Now, you are contemplating putting Reverend Wright back on the table because Congressman Lewis' dared to call you out on your incendiary campaign. This rationalizing is ridiculous. Just admit that you're running a negative campaign because you must, because it's the Republican way, not because your hand was forced or your feelings were hurt. It's really unbecoming.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Insane McCain

By Capt. Fogg

If you've ever been to a turkey farm, you will have seen how one lone animal will begin gobbling and the rest will follow suit until the whole flock begins to sound like the American news media commenting on an election.

"Spread the wealth" seems to be the latest gobble ever since John McCain, in his desperation, attempted to conflate the Obama tax policy, which hardly differs from what we've had since the beginning of income taxes in America, with socialism. It's not much more of an idiotic redefinition than is typical of the 2008 campaign rhetoric which has it that a hundred year occupation of a foreign country is a "victory" and accomplishing the goal of regime change and democracy is "surrender." Indeed the trickle down theory is little more than a scenario in which people the government helps to get rich then redistribute a small part of it by spending.

In St. Charles Missouri this weekend, John McCain attempted to show the show me state that lifting some of the burden from the struggling classes is Socialism. Senator Martinez from Florida compared Obama's tax plan to that of Fidel Castro and the chorus of boos from their gobbling audiences is not directed at the dishonest and sometimes demented charges or the turkeys who make them, but at anyone outside the circle of the tribe by virtue of sanity, education, honesty or intelligence: particularly intelligence. The is no idea too stupid, too false, to demented that the tribe will not dance around the fire and scream "kill him!"

It there any charge quite as incredible as insisting that presidents like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan must have been socialists who wanted to redistribute the wealth by not giving the kind of tax breaks to the top 5% that George Bush did and that John McCain wants to continue and extend? We have never had a bigger and bigger spending government than we have now and McCain has no plan to change that that could pass a second grade arithmetic teacher's scrutiny. He has hot button topics like earmarks, and socialism and spreading the wealth, but the rest is only "trust me my friends":

"Our opponent's plan is just more big government, and John and I think that that is the problem, not the solution," said the gobbler in the glasses "Instead of taking your hard-earned money and spreading your wealth, we want to spread opportunity so people like you and Joe the plumber can create new wealth."

Of course, it's not more big government by any measure. It's a return to the time before George Bush's borrow, bloat, and spend policies.

What's the Palin plan? Give it to the rich and let it trickle down. Gobble, gobble, gobble. What's the plan? borrow and spend and put the burden of all that debt on people like you and me and Joe the Plumber and our children and grandchildren, and how do we sell it? We lie about palling around with terrorists, we call Obama an elitist Arab Muslim Terrorist, who conspires with Vietnam War protesters, who is a Chicago Machine politician with no experience, whose house was paid for by gangsters, who reads books by terrorists and whose education was paid for by Pakistani Fundamentalists and who isn't even an American. Did I mention that he's black?

At this point and regardless of who wins, I'm ashamed to be part of this. If Obama wins, the country has been so damaged already and will be filled with a large minority who think he's the devil, the future is so dim my old eyes can't see anything but gloom.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Judy Miller and Fox News, made for each other

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Want another reason not to watch Fox News? And another reason not to take it seriously?

It has hired Judy Miller as an analyst.

That would be Judith Miller, former New York Times reporter, Scooter Libby buddy, Ahmed Chalabi confidante, and Iraq War cheerleader. As the WaPo's Howard Kurtz puts it, nicely, "she is nothing if not controversial":

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Miller reported stories on the search for Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be untrue, some of which were cited in a Times editor's note acknowledging the flawed coverage. Miller, now with the conservative Manhattan Institute, wrote when she left the paper that she had "become a lightning rod for public fury over the intelligence failures that helped lead our country to war."

Right, because (of course) she had nothing to do with any of it. She was just getting it all wrong, reporting in the NYT, as fact, willingly and eagerly, what she was being spoon-fed by Chalabi and the propagandists at the Iraqi National Congress. She wasn't a "lightning rod," she was part of the problem, a reporter who made up the news to suit her political positions and career ambitions. (For more on Miller's active role in spreading the lies, see the fantastic book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn.)

Sure, she went to jail for a time for refusing to divulge her Plame leak sources -- and for playing along with Libby -- but she's hardly the First Amendment martyr she's making herself out to be. It's always been about her, not her supposed principles.

Basically, there's no reason to trust anything she has to say. Which makes her a perfect fit for Fox News.

What part of "comedy" do you not understand?

By Carl

Here is the Jon Stewart piece from Boston:

Here is the reaction of Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard (click at your own risk):

The media has devoted hundreds of stories of late to the tenor of audience comments at McCain-Palin rallies, fretting about "rage" and "incitement" by the campaign, but the only account of Stewart's appearance is a one-sentence mention in the Boston Globe, and his abusive Palin comments are not included.

Now, admittedly, this is not Stewart's funniest bit. I think the network censors force his comedic stylings to focus on delivery, more than content.

But to equate a stand-up comedian to these folks:

Or these folks:



Hammie, that kinda smacks of desperation, dontcha think? I would like to believe that the "wing" that has both Rush Limbaugh AND Glenn Beck, two avowed "comedians", would understand that sometimes humour gets angry, humour gets ugly, and humour makes a point.

Sorry your skirts are ruffled, Hammie, but Stewart's points are spot on: the cities and suburbs ARE where most of the people in America live and you know what? Maybe those folks in small town America have some wisdom that we SOphisticated city folk don't, but I'd like to see one walk from Wall Street to Harlem, just once, without a frikkin' map and GPS system.

And understand that running a country is a LOT HARDER than negotiating a simple grid formation (north is higher street numbers, east is lower avenue numbers, etc.)

Perhaps your fainting couch is in dire need of a visit, Hammie?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Kristol's cry for help

By Mustang Bobby

I am not one who believes in interventions for people who are obviously delusional. If they're not a danger to themselves or others, I let them go on their merry way, leaving them to be happy in their own little world of pink skies and talking rainbows or whatever it is that populates their reality. But in the case of William Kristol, I truly believe it is time that he got some help.

Today he devotes his column to the analysis of the "common man" and how, in spite of all sorts of evidence to the contrary, the vast population of America isn't really angry or concerned about the future of the country or their own personal well-being:

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released its latest national survey, taken from Oct. 9 to 12. Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country and of course concerned about the economy. But, as Pew summarized, “there is little indication that the nation’s financial crisis has triggered public panic or despair.”

In fact, “There is a broad public consensus regarding the causes of the current problems with financial institutions and markets: 79 percent say people taking on too much debt has contributed a lot to the crisis, while 72 percent say the same about banks making risky loans.”

This seems sensible. Indeed, as Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia, so the market crash has resulted in remarkably little popular hysteria or scapegoating.

I added the emphasis, and it's that line that should set off the alarms: "Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia..."

WTF??

That right there should tell you that Mr. Kristol has obviously taken leave of his senses. The anti-Islamic rhetoric, demagoguery, and hysteria that took over this country after September 11, 2001 is not only well-documented in case after case of vandalism, threats, physical assaults, terror alerts, and other acts of mindless hysteria, it has never stopped. It is still going on today and is playing a major role in the presidential campaign -- Obama is a Muslim! His middle name is Hussein! For Mr. Kristol to say that there was no "Islamophoba or xenophobia" is pretty much the same as saying that there was no popular hysteria or scapegoating of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

As for the reaction by the public to the collapse of Wall Street, all he has to do is look at the poll numbers for the McCain-Palin ticket and see exactly who the public blames for their dwindling fortunes. People don't riot in the streets when they open their mail and read their 401(k) quarterly statements, but they know who's been in charge of the economy for the last eight years and they know who let the banks get away with it. There isn't hysteria in the streets, but there may well be panic in Phoenix on November 4 when the scapegoating shows up in the election booths.

Mr. Kristol concludes his paean to the common man by praising Joe the Plumber: "He seems like a sensible man to me." If his idea of "sensible" is a guy whose entire "Joe the Plumber" persona is a fiction dreamed up by the McCain campaign and Fox News but who is in reality nothing more than a shill who is not really a plumber, owes back taxes, and thinks that Barack Obama tap dances better than Sammy Davis, Jr., then I think intervention is his only hope.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

On Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama for president

By Carol Gee

(See clips of Powell's endorsement here. See also our post "Powell for Obama," including an assessment of right-wing reaction to the endorsement, as well as what the endorsement means for Obama, here.)

No surprise, this endorsement -- "Colin Powell endorses Obama on Meet the Press this morning," writes Steve Benen, and Matthew Yglesias. Though the announcement did not surprise many people, it remains as an item of big news. It seems to me that it is very significant because Powell still calls himself Republican. He, like many others in the same situation, did not leave the party; the party left him.

Retired General Powell will help with the centrist Republican vote, and with the military vote, though he will not actively campaign. Colin Powell would not rule out helping out in an Obama administration, however. His endorsement was unequivocal and fulsome, and gave no hint of any reservation. He mentioned (I paraphrase here) Obama's steadiness in difficult situations, talent for speaking, willingness to dive deep into issues to learn more, commitment to surrounding himself with the brightest people, and admirable intelligence.

Senator John McCain's decision-making lost Colin Powell's confidence two months ago. Powell cited a "narrowing" that the choice of Sarah Palin signified for the Republican Party. McCain also lost Powell's confidence with his inability to demonstrate effective handling of the economic crisis. And Senator Barack Obama gained his confidence during what he called the candidates' "final exam" of these recent weeks.

General Powell may be passing his own re-examination by skeptics and critics, who have remained mad at him for his inability to stop the invasion of Iraq. He took a good bit of time to explain the history as he lived it, citing bad intelligence as the precipitating factor. He conspicuously took no pains to defend George W. Bush's conduct of the war, which McCain has also criticized. In several contexts Colin Powell mentioned how important United States leadership is in the world and how much it has eroded.

Colin Powell made his judgment, in my opinion, about his choice based on merit. It was not based on McCain's association with Bush. At the same time he dismissed Obama's limited association with William Ayers, pointing to the campaign charges as further "narrowing" of the Republican party. He also explained that it was not based on race, as he could have made the endorsement much earlier, if that has been the case.

In the end Colin Powell's endorsement was about leadership capacity, now about tenure or loyalty. He has known and admired Senator McCain for decades, and Senator Obama for two years. He looked at the two men's attributes to be the leader of the free world in perilous times, and made his choice based on that much more expansive judgment.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Words of warning

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From Josh Marshall:

If you're thinking to yourself that there's little more than two weeks before election day and Obama has a solid lead in the polls, don't be so sure.

Yes, it looks good for the Democrats. But you need to play close attention to the McCain campaign's final weeks' strategy under and just above the radar. McCain's final strategy relies on two pillars. The first is aggressively playing to voters' fears of electing a black president. Make no mistake: not just his campaign in a general sense, but McCain himself and his top handful of advisers, are banking on the residual racism in a changing America to get them over the finish line. The second is an aggressive use of innuendo to convince casual voters that Obama is in league with Islamic terrorists bent on killing Americans.

**********

Stripped down to its components McCain's message to voters is this: "Don't forget. He's definitely black. And he may be a terrorist." That's the message. The nuts and bolts is a concerted effort to keep Democrats from voting -- through intimidation, by striking new voters from the rolls, which is going to happen to lots of them, clogging polling stations to create delays that keep late day (predominantly) Obama voters from voting altogether. Smears in the air and voter suppression on the ground.

Fearmongering paranoia, Republicans will say. In actual fact, it's happening already -- just as it always does, not least when the Republicans are down in the polls and overcome with desperation.

Given that they clearly can't win the election on substance, that is, on the issues, all they can do, and it is precisely what they are doing, is try to turn the race into a culture war in microcosm, focusing on character and values, and more specifically on race, religion, terrorism, and whatever other wedges they can drive in.

If you haven't yet seen this, you clearly haven't been paying attention.

The smearing of Obama, the attempt to define him as the Other, as the enemy, has been a central component of the Republican election effort for a long time now, even if McCain and Palin have only turned to it more recently. And, with just over two weeks left, it will only get worse.

The Reaction in Review (Oct. 19, 2008)

A weekend's Reactions that deserve a second look:

Sunday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Powell for Obama" -- Michael's very insightful post, on Colin Powell's unambiguous endorsement of Barack Obama for president, includes good critique of the Republican right-wing's upset over the news.

By Creature: "A people-powered campaign" -- Creature's short and sweet comment on Obama's fantastic fundraising.

Saturday

By Mustang Bobby: "The Palin factor" -- Bobby's great post explores the recent Obama endorsements by several major newspapers, noting that McCain's Veep choice was the "loser" factor with all the editorial boards.

By Libby Spencer: "The return of McCarthyism," & "Beating the press" -- Your reviewer was unable to choose between these two equally great posts commenting on these scary "reactionary" (I use the word in it's most negative political meaning) times in presidential politics.

 

By J. Thomas Duffy: "Yes, Virginia, there is a real Virginia" -- Duffy has this wonderful way of dissecting Republican ridiculousness -- this time the recent incrediblly divisive comments of three Republican women about who represents the "real America," with Nancy Pfotenhauer as the star.

Powell for Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Needless to say, the political world is all abuzz today over Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama this morning on Meet the Press.

Mustang Bobby posted the clips -- Powell on MTP, then outside the studio.

For coverage in the MSM, see CNN and MSNBC.

**********

Needless to say, conservatives are going nuts -- or, rather, getting even nuttier -- in response:

Take Michelle Malkin, for example -- or don't take her, it's up to you, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't -- who calls Powell's endorsement "a triumph of hope over reality." Of course, "reality" for Malkin is a fantasyland for the rest of us. She blames Powell for not taking the Obama-Ayers association seriously enough, for blaming the GOP for spreading smears and slurs about Obama, and for finding the GOP too "narrow." As inhabitants of real reality know, the Obama-Ayers assocation is insignificant, the Republican smear machine, including McCain and Palin themselves, has been operating at full throttle to try to bring down Obama, and the Republican Party is, and has been for a long time, a party populated by theocrats, neocons, and neo-liberals, with a mob-like base of extremists.

It gets even more amusing when Malkin declares that "[t]he orgy of Obamedia attention Powell will receive the next 24 hours is disproportionate to its importance." It should come as no surprise that she doesn't mention the fact that the mainstream press, the supposedly liberal media she so loathes, has spent the better part of the past decade or so in bed with McCain, happily pumping up and stroking the phony McCain myth. Indeed, what McCain has experienced over the course of this campaign is nothing compared to what Obama has endured, with seemingly every detail of Obama's past dredged up for prolonged examination.

**********

Malkin predicts that "people outside the Beltway bubble" will respond to Powell's endorsement with a yawn. I disagree. Here's how I put it on Friday:

I don't want to overstate the case -- endorsements don't usually mean that much, after all -- but I think a Powell endorsement at this point, with the three debates behind us and with Obama having opened up solid leads in the polls and with time running out, would be a significant coup for Obama. It would give him a high-profile boost to his own foreign policy credibility (that is, it would act as a major vote of confidence -- even though polls show he already has the confidence of voters even in what was thought to be one of McCain's strongest areas) and there would likely be overwhelmingly positive media coverage next week (certainly the establishment press still likes Powell a lot). As well, it could be just what Obama needs to win over remaining independents and "undecideds," those voters seemingly waiting for something, anything, to compel them to vote one way or the other.

I stand by that today.

**********

At the very least, Malkin doesn't accuse Powell of racism. In her view, it's not Obama's race that attracted his endorsement, it's Obama's "social liberalism."

I don't agree with that either.

Powell may be more socially liberal than most Republicans, but he's not one to base his vote on such concerns (other than to note that the Republican Party is too "narrow" for him).

Here's how Powell himself put it: "I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama."

In addition, he praised Obama specifically on the economy and foreign policy.

Malkin and her ilk simply don't get Obama's appeal, in terms of both style and substance, and it should come as no surprise that they don't get why he would appeal to Powell, and why Powell's endorsement matters.

**********

Other conservatives are displaying overt racism, however.

For example, George Will, on ABC's This Week this morning, suggested that what is at play here is race: "[I]t seems to me if we had the tools to measure we'd find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he's black for every one he loses because he's black because so much of this country is so eager, a, to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric."

In other words, Obama's appeal is racial, and hence ultimately racist: People are supporting him largely (perhaps even mostly) because he's black. Given that he said this in response to a question about the Powell endorsement, it would seem that, to Will, Powell's endorsement is racist: one black man supporting another.

Rush Limbaugh was characteristically even more direct: "Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race. OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

As usual, Limbaugh will come up with whatever he wants to come up with. For him, as for Will, this is all about race.

You want racism? It's right there, as usual, on the right.

**********

Finally, a word from Steve Benen on the impact of the endorsement:

[A]s a purely political matter, Powell's endorsement of Obama strikes me as a fairly significant political development. Powell is arguably the nation's most popular and most respected Republican. He has been a friend of McCain's for a quarter of a century, has seen up close what kind of leader McCain would be, and even contributed to McCain's campaign.

And yet, as of this morning, Powell is officially an Obama supporter -- and is officially dejected about what's become of McCain's campaign and the Republican Party.

*****

I'd just add that Powell didn't just tacitly offer a vague endorsement, he offered his unapologetic support to Obama, while blasting what's become of his old friend, John McCain. He sounded like a man who barely recognizes what's become of today's GOP. For self-described moderates and independents, Powell remains a widely admired figure. What's more, few if any Americans enjoy the media adulation that Powell has, which means coverage of this morning's announcement is likely to be very strong.

With that in mind, Powell's endorsement this morning may very well have a significant impact.

I think it will.

Powell endorses Obama

By Mustang Bobby

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Meet the Press this morning:


That's going to leave a mark.

UPDATE: Secretary Powell adds to his thoughts outside the studio after his chat with Tom Brokaw.



(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A people-powered campaign

By Creature

Obama raised $150 million in September with 632,000 new donors added to the rolls. This brings the total number of Americans who support terrorism to over 3 million.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Truth in Comics

By Creature


If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Yes, Virginia, there is a real Virginia

By J. Thomas Duffy

Uhhh... what did she just say? Miss Teen South Carolina 2007



Oh! ... I'm sorry, I meant to post this video:

McCain advisor on the "real Virginia"



What is with these people?

Is it in the water they drink? ... The air quality at the Dead Campaign Express HQ? ... Are they working from a "How-To-Run-A-Presidential-Campaign-for-Dummies"?

I happened to be watching MSNBC when this interview occurred, and it was a jaw-dropper.

McKKKain flak Nancy Puss'n'Boots actually dismissed Northern Virginia, pointed to the "southern part" as the "real Virginia," and then, when given the opportunity to correct herself, reiterated it!

From Joe Sudbay, over at AMERICAblog:

Here's the transcript:

KEVIN CORKE: Okay. You’re talking about winning this year, but that's going to require that you win states like – well, like Virginia, for example. And as someone who is now in northern Virginia, we're both right here, we get it. Northern Virginia is increasingly strong in the state. They have more political clout. Democrats have won the statehouse; Jim Webb’s surprising victory in the Senate. It would seem to me that there could be a tipping of the balance there. Would you agree with that? And that maybe be – you know, maybe that's where he has to focus his energy now.

NANCY PFOTENHAUER: Well, Kevin, I certainly agree that northern Virginia has gone more Democratic. You know, as a proud resident of Oakton, Virginia, I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into northern Virginia. And that's really what you see there. But the rest of the state, real Virginia, if you will, I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain’s message. And remember that, you know, you’ve got places in other states like northern Wisconsin, the iron range of Minnesota, south-central and southeastern Pennsylvania, the St. Louis suburbs and the rural areas of Missouri that are very responsive to our message. And again we're taking it to them in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. He’s having to fight to defend there, as you can tell because he's deployed people like the Clintons out in Pennsylvania. And every speech Joe Biden gives, he says, “I’m from Scranton.” You don't know what else he's going to say, but he sure gets that line in.

CORKE: Hey Nancy, I’m going to give you a chance to climb back off that ledge. Did you say "real Virginia"?

PFOTENHAUER: I did say outside of north – well, I mean real Virginia, because northern Virginia is where I’ve always been, but real Virginia I take to be the – this part of the state that is more southern in nature, if you will. Northern Virginia is really metro D.C., as you're aware, Kevin.

CORKE: All right. I’m just going to let you -- you’re aware of that one. I’m just saying.

Amazing!

This comes within the 36-48-hour window of The Wasilla Whiz Kid shooting out code at one of her mob rallies, indicating how she likes to travel to the pro-American parts of the country (versus, by implication, those pallin'-with-terrorists, anti-American parts of the country), and, of course, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's "flush'em-out-call-to-arms" of bringing back McCarthyism and purging Congress of those with anti-American thoughts.

Now, we know that Stumblin' Bumblin' Fly Boy has no capacity for pulling up Google, or using a computer, but does it extend to the entire staff?

Being in and/or talking about Virginia?

What happened in Virginia, just short two-years ago?

Here's Lowell, from Raising Kane, if Puss'n'Boots wanted to go to a lifeline:

My god, how stupid can these McCain people be? First, they call Arlington and Alexandria "communist country." Then, Sarah Palin talks about how only the rural, "small town" (like Wasilla?) parts of America are "pro-America." Now, McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer channels George Allen's "macaca" moment, when among other things he welcomed S.R. Sidarth - a lifelong resident of Fairfax County - to "America and the real world of Virginia."

And, as Steve Benen points out:

Hmm. Virginia is a key swing state, with 13 electoral votes, and recent polling showing Obama with a modest lead. The state's two most populous counties -- Fairfax and Prince William Counties -- are both in northern Virginia.

And the McCain campaign keeps insulting them.

If there's a clever angle to this strategy, it's hiding well.

They really must be strivin' for that Rovian Utopia, of a 50.1% - 49.9% mandate.

**********

Bonus Nancy Puss'n'Boots Paw-in-Mouth Riffs

ABC News: McCain Adviser Says Northern Virginia Not "Real" Virginia

Think Progress: Pfotenhauer Insults Virginians: ‘Real Virginia’ Is Only Where McCain Is Winning

NPR: Nancy Pfotenhauer: McCain and the Faith Community

Crooks and Liars: Shuster refuses to be spun by Nancy Pfotenhauer




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Wow: Obama in St. Louis

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"All I can say is, wow," said Obama, standing in front of 100,000 people in St. Louis, under the Gateway Arch, a record crowd for his presidential campaign.

As the WSJ puts it: "To be sure, big crowds don't always signal a big turnout on Election Day. But Obama's ability to draw his largest audience yet in a typically red state that just weeks ago looked out of reach, could signal a changing electoral map."

The current RCP Average for Missouri is Obama +2.5. A recent CNN poll had McCain up by a single point, but most polls conducted this month have had Obama in the lead. The most recent poll, by Rasmussen, has him up by six points.

What else can one say about the excitement Obama is generating? (Contrast this with the vicious mob scenes at McCain-Palin rallies.)

An historic endorsement from Obama's hometown newspaper

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As I noted yesterday, The Washington Post has endorsed Obama.

And as Mustang Bobby notes today, three other major newspapers -- the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- have also endorsed Obama. Another one is The Denver Post.

I can't say I'm surprised, except when it comes to Obama's hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune. Why? Because it's one of the most Republican newspapers in the country. In fact:

This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

Over at TMV, Elrod has the full list of the paper's presidential endorsements: "Not a single Democrat, until now. No FDR. No JFK. No LBJ in 1964."

Yet, now, the Tribune is "proud" to endorse Obama. And it actually goes so far as to liken him to none other than Lincoln, a fellow Illinoisan:

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

Simply put, the Tribune knows Obama well, and this editorial is astonishing in its praise:

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

Yes he is. And maybe I shouldn't be surprised that even this most Republican of newspapers has endorsed him. As I have been saying for a long time -- and I myself endorsed Obama on February 5, Super Tuesday -- he is what America and the world need in the White House, and he has already proven himself to be one of the most brilliant political figures -- one of the most brilliant leaders -- of our time. With a message of hope and change, with the goal of achieving America's full potential, of realizing at long last that "more perfect union," and with a substantive policy platform that addresses our most pressing concerns, he has inspired many of us in a way and to a degree that we have never been inspired before.

The Chicago Tribune knows this because it knows him. Not even a long history of Republican partisanship can stand up to Obama in 2008.

The return of McCarthyism

By Libby Spencer

Apparently mistaking a recent Hardball appearance as an audition to become the latest face of reckless demagoguery, Rep. Michele Bachman gave voice to the most rabid and vile imaginings of the increasingly violent GOP base. She hints darkly of widespread anti-Americanism within the Congressional chambers. The video is at the link, I can't bring myself to repeat it here.

Immediately after the segment, Katrina Vandenheuvel issues the appropriate, and surprisingly impassioned, rebuke.

Chris, I fear for my country. I think what we just heard is a congresswoman channeling Joe McCarthy, channeling a politics of fear and loathing and demonization and division and distraction. Not a single issue mentioned. This is a politics at a moment of extreme economic pain in this country that is incendiary, that is so debased, that I'm almost having a hard time breathing, because I think it's very scary.

Bachman's hateful remarks are not only scary, they verge on criminally irresponsible. I think she should be immediately censured by her peers. If you agree, join concerned Americans and sign the petition and pass the link on. The signators have already doubled in number in the last few hours.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

The Palin Factor

By Mustang Bobby

Sen. Barack Obama is way ahead in endorsements by major newspapers across the country, including some big surprises such as the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, both considered to be conservative in ownership and editorially, and others in regions that would be considered the bedrock of conservatism such as the Atlanta Journal Constitution. But what's interesting is one of the common factors these papers noted in making their endorsements: they all see the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as the deal-breaker for John McCain.

Here's the Los Angeles Times:

John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies. He earned The Times' respect, and our endorsement in the California Republican primary, for his denunciation of torture, his readiness to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his willingness to buck his party on issues such as immigration reform. But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined "torture" in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred.

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment.

The Chicago Tribune:

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

...the competence of McCain’s campaign staff is itself cause to question the candidate’s executive abilities. To some degree, the rigors of creating and running a campaign organization can be a test of the skills needed to create and run an administration. And even many Republicans acknowledge that the McCain campaign has been poorly organized and erratic, lurching from one crisis to another without the sense of a strong hand at the tiller.

Columnist William Kristol, a longtime McCain backer, calls the McCain campaign “close to being out–and–out dysfunctional,” concluding that “its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic.”

And of course, the most unfortunate evidence of that “strategic incoherence and operational incompetence” was McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a person utterly unprepared for the high post in question.

The pundits are fond of saying that the voters don't make their selection based on the vice president, and they point to Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew as examples of dubious choices for tickets that won the election. But perhaps the voters do take into consideration the process and the motives by which the presidential candidates choose their running mates, and it's obvious to anyone -- including the editorial boards of these papers -- that the selection of Sarah Palin was an indicator of what kind of judgment John McCain would use in the White House. They found it disturbing, cynical, and short-sighted to the point that they saw it as one of the factors that disqualified him as their choice for president.

All three papers note the Barack Obama has his flaws; his inexperience, perhaps, or even his lack of flapability in the face of a crisis leads some to wonder if he grasps the seriousness of the duties. But no one has questioned his judgment in choosing his advisers, and the selection of Joe Biden is a testimony to that leadership. It will be interesting if the Palin Factor is a common thread in subsequent endorsements from the rest of the editorial community.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Beating the press

By Libby Spencer

Literally. With the GOP in general and McCain and Palin specifically villianizing the 'liberal media' as the mortal enemy of conservatives I suppose it was only a matter of time before the physical attacks began.

And then he kicked the back of my leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.

From my position there I saw the bottoms of a number of feet almost accidentally stomping me to death as the two political camps screamed back and forth, the music continued to blare and some of the Obama crowd moved the large bearded man and his friends away. When I was helped to my feet the bearded man was walking away quickly.

For a moment I considered running the bloated, twelve-sandwich eating prick down and beating the living hell out of him…and then I remembered that I’m a reporter, how much I enjoy being gainfully employed and how hard it would be to keep my job if I got into a fistfight with a guy at a political rally.

I happen to know Joe Killian in the cyber-sense and he's a very mild guy who would never provoke such an attack. Thankfully he wasn't injured but how long before someone gets seriously hurt?

On a metaphorical level, this from Steve Benen is in a way even more disturbing.

Yesterday, the Washington Post's Dana Milbank added some details.

"I have to say the Secret Service is in dangerous territory here. In cooperation with the Palin campaign, they've started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd. This is a serious violation of their duty -- protecting the protectee -- and gets into assisting with the political aspirations of the candidate. It also often makes it impossible for reporters to get into the crowd to question the people who say vulgar things. So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it's unfounded because the reporters can't get close enough to identify the person."

Now, this is an important detail. I'd assumed the escorts/minders were paid campaign staffers, but Milbank explained that it's the Secret Service that's blocking reporters from chatting with voters. If that's the case, we're talking about a rather obvious First Amendment violation.

When I read the original reports, I had the same impression that the reporters were being blocked by internal staffers. If in fact the Secret Service is doing this, it is indeed a serious FA violation and yet more proof that the police state has morphed from tin foil theory into a true threat to our democracy.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Obama stands up to bogus ACORN claims

By Creature

Here's Keith's rundown of the facts and his interview of Obama's lawyer on this unprecedented PRE-election call to stop the intimidation.



More from CNN.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Quote of the Day: Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Most of Peggy Noonan's column in yesterday's WSJ was predictably awful:

-- McCain won the debate on Wednesday? Really?

-- McCain succeeded in ridiculing Obama's "eloquence"? Seriously, what debate was she watching, and from the confines of what alternate un-reality?

-- The election is "infantilizing"? Why, because the guy she doesn't like is winning?

-- Palin could have been another Truman? Come now, that's just plain stupid.

But it also contained this, which is our one-day-late QotD:

But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office.

*****

In the end the Palin candidacy is a symptom and expression of a new vulgarization in American politics. It's no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And yes, it is a mark against John McCain, against his judgment and idealism.

I don't share Noonan's admiration of Reagan, and I don't agree with her assessment of conservatism, both of which follow the first part of the quote, and I don't care about what's good for conservatism, but she is quite right about Palin, about the "new vulgarization," and about what her pick says about McCain. I would even say that she understates, and euphemizes, the case against Palin. There is no sign, not little sign -- and, as I have said before, she is both an arrogant twit and an ignorant thug. She isn't just a symptom and expression of the "new vulgarization," she is the personification of a deepening of that vulgarization.

Still, for once -- and it is rare indeed -- I am in agreement, up to a point, with Peggy Noonan, who, like certain other of the smarter conservatives out there, like David Brooks, has had enough of Sarah Palin. Welcome back to reality, if only for an instant.

The Reaction in Review (Oct. 17, 2008)

A week's Reactions that deserve a second look:

Friday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "A Powell endorsement?" -- Michael looks at what a Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama, perhaps this weekend, might mean to the presidential race.

By Carl: "I LOVE this election!" -- Carl thoughtfully looks at what an Obama election might mean to the nation.


Thursday

By J. Thomas Duffy: "For Joe the Plumber" -- Great visuals and bonus links explore this bizarre episode following the debate.

By Mustang Bobby: "Joe the plumber isn't licensed" -- Bobby fills us in on the real deal, here.

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Reflections on the third Obama-McCain debate" -- Beginning with a "not much to add," Michael adds a great deal of debate perspective -- his own and several others writers' important ideas.

By Mustang Bobby: "Debate wrap" -- Yet another very skillful analysis of the presidential debate,"All I can say is that Barack Obama didn't lose and John McCain didn't win."

By Capt. Fogg: "Let him have one?" -- Duffy skilfully analyzes the debate and the MSM media's lackluster reactions to McCain's performance vs. Obama's.

By Carol Gee: "When "eloquence is an epithet" -- After the debate this post explores one of McCain's most bizarre misuses of the language, along with other debate elements.


Wednesday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Ambitions of empire: Live-blogging the third Obama-McCain debate" -- Fantastic post with 61 comments: "UPDATED FREQUENTLY -- PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS AND LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK/THOUGHT OF THE DEBATE AND THE REACTION TO IT."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Obama trouncing McCain among early voters" -- The good news: "2008 isn't 2000 or 2004. This may be the year that the old rules no longer apply."

By Dan Tobin: "A Red Sox comeback vs. one from McCain" -- This great writer juxtaposes baseball and the election in a post with a prediction about the upcoming debate.


Tuesday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Canada Votes 2008" -- Michael takes us through the Canadian election's intricacies, including real-time updates, ending with, "For now, though, we must accept what was, going in, the likeliest of outcomes, another Conservative minority."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Dan Balz and double standards: Yet another example of the media's abominable coverage of the 2008 presidential race" -- "Balz defends McCain's attacks on Obama's "patriotism or his commitment to the values the country holds dear" and questions Obama's ability to deal effectively with the current "crisis in the credit markets," says Michael as he critiques the Balz piece.

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Troopergate: Orwellian Palin" -- Michael reports on the Alaska Daily News take on the Palin scandal.


Monday

By Carl: "Way to go, Paul!" -- Carl happily announces economist Paul Krugman's award of the Nobel Prize in Economics (extra comments).

Sweet Jane

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Why don't we mellow it out a bit this autumnal Friday evening...

In 1987, the Cowboy Junkies, one of Canada's finest musical acts, recorded The Trinity Session at Toronto's Church of the Holy Trinity. Released in 1988, it's an exquisitely beautiful and haunting album.

In 2007, many albums later, the Junkies went back and re-recorded the entire album. The new version, Trinity Revisited, released the same year, is simply magnificent. Profoundly intimate, it also achieves a soaring grandeur that marks perhaps the highest point they've ever reached. And Margo Timmins, with one of the most distinctive voices in music, is simply amazing, as usual. Guests include Ryan Adams and Natalie Merchant.

The two-disc release includes a DVD of the performance. It, too, is fantastic.

Highly recommended. You can find it at Amazon Canada, Amazon US, or, well, pretty much anywhere else. (I don't know if or where it's available internationally.) Or download it at iTunes, or wherever you get your music.

Here, below, are the Junkies, from Trinity Revisited, performing one of their most well-known songs, "Sweet Jane."

A Powell endorsement?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It might be coming. (Perhaps on Meet the Press this Sunday.)

Powell doesn't have nearly as much credibility as he had before he Iraq War -- that is, before he sacrificed it all out of loyalty to Bush (or whatever else prompted him to play the mouthpiece for deception, and he certainly had his concerns even as he was voicing the party line) -- but he still seems to be a fairly popular public figure (though I haven't seen any recent approval ratings to back that up), particularly among independents.

I don't want to overstate the case -- endorsements don't usually mean that much, after all -- but I think a Powell endorsement at this point, with the three debates behind us and with Obama having opened up solid leads in the polls and with time running out, would be a significant coup for Obama. It would give him a high-profile boost to his own foreign policy credibility (that is, it would act as a major vote of confidence -- even though polls show he already has the confidence of voters even in what was thought to be one of McCain's strongest areas) and there would likely be overwhelmingly positive media coverage next week (certainly the establishment press still likes Powell a lot). As well, it could be just what Obama needs to win over remaining independents and "undecideds," those voters seemingly waiting for something, anything, to compel them to vote one way or the other.

We shall see.

And the WaPo endorses...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Barack Obama.

No surprise there, though the Post is hardly a bastion of liberalism and pro-Democratic sentiment, regardless of what the finger-pointing self-victimizers of the right may have to say about it.

It's actually not a bad endorsement -- well, actually, it's quite good -- with most of it focusing on Obama's many positive qualities and policy positions, including praising him on foreign policy, health care, education, and the economy. And this is especially nice:

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic cisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

But, I have my problems with it, too. To wit:

1) Like so many in the establishment media, the WaPo editors can't quite get past their long history of sucking up to, and being charmed and deluded by, McCain:

It gives us no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.

Of course, he has only been bipartisan only on selected, self-serving issues; he has waffled back and forth on immigration (even openly disagreeing with himself); he may be against torture but his torture bill was weak (and ignored by Bush); he has supported Republican-friendly campaign finance reform while remaining in cahoots with certain key industries (gaming, alcohol, telecom) and their shady lobbyists; and his ongoing support for Bush's disastrous war in Iraq has been shaped by his warped neocon worldview and grotesque stubbornness in the face of reality.

And Obama made the right decision not to take public financing, given his extensive grassroots efforts and the distinct advantage the Republicans have with respect to national-party spending. Plus, the public financing system has been a matter of convenience and necessity for McCain, not a matter of principle.)

He would not make a "pretty good president" -- not even close. It's possible he would actually be worse than Bush: neoconservative on foreign policy, neoliberal on economic policy, social conservative and even theocratic on domestic policy, including abortion and judicial appointments.

2) The WaPo editors reiterate their continued support for the Iraq War: "Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans."

It must be repeated: The surge has only partly contributed to the decline in violence in Iraq and has otherwise been a failure. Given that, how would withdrawal be "precipitous"? The Iraqis no longer want the U.S. there, and it's not like the occupation, which is what it really is, has achieved much in the way of progress. And what is "success"? The editors don't explain, perhaps because they don't know what it is, perhaps because there are any number of definitions of it. Success in the war has always been a nebulous concept anyway, which is partly the reason the war has been such a mismanaged disaster.

Like so many who still support the war, the WaPo editors simply toss out the usual distortions and deceptions. Thankfully, Obama has other plans -- which, even if adjusted to accommodate future conditions on the ground, wouldn't simply be more of the same, or worse.

I LOVE this election!

By Carl

I love this election so much I think I want to have sex with it...

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media

I've railed ever since the Reagan administration about the pendulum, and how it swings in both directions and liberals would get their turn again at behind the wheel.

The nation is not a unitary monolith of ignorance or intellectualism. Instead, it is a living, breathing being, as capable of changing its mind and its heart as anyone of us, and now we're seeing the realization that progress happens, that liberalism, for whatever perceived flaws were magnified and exaggerated by the right, has its benefits to everyone.

And once we've persuaded the majority that we will not hurt them, that we are not the scary monsters we've been made out to be, oh what a glorious day awaits America and the world!

Get ready for it, folks. Please leave in comments the one thing you'd like to see a liberal super-majority accomplish.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Election, the Big Picture

By Carol Gee

The last presidential debate is over. Fewer people watched this debate than watched the second. Most people think that Barack Obama was the more successful debater. And, because that is the case, the Republican smear machine is still in operation.

Truth squads are out. There are websites dedicated to that work. Television networks make some attempts to help viewers sort fact from fiction. Attempts to define Barack Obama as somehow dangerous are back-firing. Recent weeks have proven that racism remains a nasty reality in far too many places. And it was unleased by the McCain campaign. John McCain has been playing with fire. People worry about the potential for violence. Moreover, McCain is losing credibility as a true maverick with the general public, and also with many in the mainstream media.

"Joe the Plumber" is on the hotseat, along with Sarah Palin. Joe is actually a worker. He is not a licensed plumber, and several government entities that have jurisdiction are probing further. Veep candidate Sarah Palin is also having major ethics problems. Palin's problems are turning out to be the perfect example of that old saw, "the pot calling the kettle black."

TV ad buys for presidential candidates are in a state of flux. It is quite a contrast. Obama is soon going to be speaking to the nation on many major networks for a half hour. And the Republicans are forced to cut back on any advertising in several states. Voting has begun for many people. Many people worry that the Republicans will somehow steal the election. There are predictions that there will be major voting problems, a possible "major meltdown." College students will be particularly affected, facing major stumbling blocks.

President George W. Bush has 94 days left in office. There have been 4185 military deaths in the Iraq war since March of 2003. And in 18 days it will be Election Day. Get the picture?

Hat Tip: Most of today's story leads came from my regular contributors, Jon and "betmo."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Like Dubya

By Michael J.W. Stickings

John McCain declared in the debate the other night that he is not George Bush (and that Obama "should have run four years ago"). It was a fairly effective one-liner, but Obama's substantive, fact-based response was even more effective: "So the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush."

And this excellent new Obama ad, first aired the morning after, gets right to the heart of the matter.

For Joe the Plumber

By J. Thomas Duffy



His 15-minutes ...

Barack Obama And The Plumbing Business Owner

His 16th-minute, ad nauseum ...

Joe the Plumber Reacts to debate - Katie Couric Interview


Bonus Links

The Jed Report: McCain's Lame October Surprise: Joe, The Right-Wing Loon

Think Progress: Fact-Checking ‘Joe The Plumber’

A.J. Liebling: No Mo-Joe for McCain

BooMan: McCain Took an Ass-Whooping

SilentPatriot: Obama to McCain: "Your attacks say more about your campaign than they do about me"

Thers: The Plumber?

Debate Results: Flintstones vs. Jetsons Pt. III




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

"Joe the Plumber" isn't licensed

By Mustang Bobby

Following up on Michael's analysis of "Joe the Plumber's" financial situation comes this news...

According to The Blade, the latest star of the campaign, Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber," isn't licensed or registered as a plumber:

A check of state and local licensing agencies in Ohio and Michigan shows no plumbing licenses under Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher’s name, or even misspellings of his name.

Mr. Wurzelbacher told reporters Thursday morning that he worked for Newell Plumbing & Heating Co., a small local firm whose business addresses flow back to several residential homes, including one on Talmadge Road in Ottawa Hills.

According to Lucas County Building Inspection records, A. W. Newell Corp. does maintain a state plumbing license, and one with the City of Toledo, but would not be allowed to work in Lucas County outside of Toledo without a county license.

Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work.

He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he's not a plumber.

So, what is he? A plumber's helper?

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Reflections on the third Obama-McCain debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I actually don't have a great deal to add today to what I wrote last night about the debate in my long and occasionally rambling live-blogging post.

Obama won. Pretty easily. That's about it. And that's pretty much the consensus today.

But, a few points:

1) One of the best summaries comes, as usual, from TNR's Noam Scheiber: "[T]he debate in a nutshell: McCain fulminating angrily, if sometimes effectively; Obama yielding more than he should at times, but still deadly on bottom-line differences. The election obviously isn't over. But McCain came up empty on his last, best chance."

**********

2) The most famous man in America today is Joe the Plumber. But who is this celebrated American Everyman? Well, hardly a non-partisan moderate. In fact, it looks like he's a registered Republican.

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "It turns out Joe the 'Plumber' is like the perfect McCain supporter. He says Social Security is a joke and he 'hates' it."

In an interview with Katie Couric right after the debate, he said that "McCain did a fine job this evening, I think he brought up some good points. I do like his health care and I do like his, where he stands on taxes."

Robert Barnes at WaPo's The Trail: "Joe the Plumber is not exactly a plumber and he's 'not even close' to making the kind of money that would result in higher taxes from Democrat Barack Obama's proposals." (He's not even a licenced plumber.)

Dean Baker at The American Prospect explains that, under Obama's plan, Joe's taxes would increase only by a small amount, assuming that the plumbing business he is planning to buy "would be his entire taxable income."

Jonathan Chait at TNR's The Plank: "It's pretty ridiculous that somebody who earns more than 99% of Americans should become a stand-in for the average working man." He's not there yet, but, if he may be if he buys that plumbing business.

"In the meantime," Steve Benen at Political Animal notes, "depending on some of the details, Wurzelbacher would probably get a tax break under Obama's plan, and if he's like most of the middle class, his break would be bigger under Obama than under McCain.

**********

3) I wrote recently about what I call "the revolt against the punditocracy," whereby the people, according to the polls, decisively disagreed with the pundits' initial reaction of the first presidential debate and the vice-presidential debate. Many pundits called that first debate for McCain, or at least called it a draw. In contrast, the people, by a substantial margin, gave it to Obama. Many pundits said that Palin was, if not the outright winner of her debate, at least the winner of the expectations game. In contrast, the people, by a similarly substantial margin, gave it to Biden.

The pundits seem to have gotten the message. After both the second and third debates (and it was quite evident last night) many were far more cautious in terms of their initial appraisals than they had been before. There were the notable exceptions, hyper-partisans like Bill Bennett (who's hardly much of a pundit) on CNN, but, overall, I detected a certain uneasiness, as if they wanted to wait for the poll results before weighing in, at which point they generally agreed with the people.

To put it another way, the pundits often -- it may not be a general rule, but it's close -- get it wrong. And they do so, in my view, because they focus not on substance but on style. What matters to them is the expectations game, the drama, the theater. Instead of focusing on content, they look for game-changing moments, gotchas and gaffes, snappy one-liners that easily digested and easily regurgitated.

This is not to suggest that the people (and, yes, I'm speaking of them as if they were a monolith) do not care about such things. Clearly they do. Negative ads work, for example, or at least can work, and the look of a candidate can mean as much as what he or she says. Voters in 1960 who listened on radio thought that Nixon won the now-famous debate, while voters who watched it on TV thought that Kennedy won. Why? Because Kennedy was cool and collected while Nixon was unshaven and sweaty. Now, in 2008, not much has changed. Voters are reacting negatively not just to what McCain says but to how he looks, how he sounds, how he comes across. And they are reacting positively to Obama not just because of his policy proposals but because he has come across as presidential. But it's like skating on thin ice. If Obama were to lose his control, even for a brief moment, he would immediately be characterized as yet another angry black man, in other words, as a vicious, racist stereotype.

Still, this time, with information coming from so many different channels, and with a good deal of insecurity and uncertainty out there, the people are looking beyond the surface and, according to the polls, rewarding Obama on the actual merits, that is, on substance. The punditocracy has clued in, sort of, and is now taking its cues as much from the people as from its own sense of entitlement.

For more on this, in a related way, see Joe Klein, who has an excellent post up at Time's Swampland: "Pundits tend to be a lagging indicator. This is particularly true at the end of a political pendulum swing. We've been conditioned by thirty years of certain arguments working -- and John McCain made most of them last night against Barack Obama." Read the whole thing. In brief: Many journalists are "trapped in the assumptions of the past," and hence unable to see things clearly in the here and now. And so many of them have bought into the old-style attacks (anti-liberal, anti-government) of McCain (and Palin). But it's a different time now, a different world. And "this is a very good year to be Senator Government," namely, Barack Obama.

**********

Well, I guess I did have quite a bit to add.

And here's our Amusing Photo of the Day, from Andrew Sullivan:

He is The One

By Creature

This pretty much sums up how Obama handled John McCain's petulant attacks in the debate last night.



(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Debate wrap

By Mustang Bobby

All of the good metaphors have been taken -- the folks at MSNBC ran through all the sports ones; boxing, baseball, and football, and Gail Collins at the New York Times even used the one from summer camp -- and all of the highlights have been noted, too; Joe the Plumber, the newest "everyman" symbol, will probably wake up this morning with CNN parked in his driveway in Holland, Ohio, and be hounded for his reaction. The pundits are going to pick him over until the next shiny object comes along. All I can say is that Barack Obama didn't lose and John McCain didn't win.

The overnight snap polls give it overwhelmingly to Mr. Obama, and that will probably be the indicator of the rest of the responses, and the so-called "uncommitted" voters gave it to Mr. Obama as well. As I said last night, I think that if the outcome of the polls is based on performance, then they weren't judging it on substance because we really didn't hear anything new. Then again, you never really do hear anything new at these events unless it's a gaffe.

I think Mr. McCain has begun to believe the mantra of Sarah Palin; he's got nothing to lose, which would explain his attempt to throw everything he had at Mr. Obama, who deflected them well, including the much-anticipated Ayers assault. If anything, that made Mr. McCain look desperate; at one point he said he didn't care about an old "washed-up terrorist," but then kept harping on him.

To Mr. Obama's credit, he maintained his cool throughout the whole night to the point that, as Brian noted to me in an IM, it was BORING. I agreed to a point, but as Andrew Sullivan noted, in the case of Barack Obama, boring is good. It gives the uneasy white voter the impression that Mr. Obama is not some kind of scary black dude, and "haven't we had enough drama in the last eight years? Boring is fucking awesome after Bush." The cool demeanor not only accomplished that, but it also seemed to get under McCain's skin; Mr. Obama never rose to the bait and never showed a flare of temper. Even more than that, he was able to come back to the admittedly best line Mr. McCain's been able to come up with in three debates -- "I'm not President Bush" -- by saying that if he mistakes him for Bush, it's because he follows his economic policies most of the time.

I think Mr. McCain will come to regret his mocking of the "health of the mother" argument on the abortion question; that makes him a hero to the far-right every-sperm-is-sacred crowd, but will offend people who see that exception as something that both pro and anti-choice advocates seem to agree on. His defense of his selection of Sarah Palin because she's a "freath of bresh air" (paging Rev. Spooner) makes it sound like he chose her for no other reason than that, and that's both an insult to the intelligence of the voters and calls into question his judgment, especially when he skates out onto the thin ice of knocking Joe Biden on foreign policy (There's a sports metaphor after all).

So by just staying above the fray and showing grace under pressure, the debate goes to Mr. Obama. That's 3-0, and with 19 days to go, that's probably enough. And if I never hear about Joe the Plumber (or see the obligatory picture of plumber's crack), it will be fine with me.

P.S.: NPR does some fact-checking on the points from last night's debate.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Let him have one?

By Capt. Fogg

Although all indications are that the vast majority of Americans thought Barack Obama "won" last night's conversation, the howling of the media this morning seems to be about the whining comment McCain made: "I am not George Bush." Is this an effort to allow McCain to leave with some small measure of undeserved dignity?

In the interest of that old "fair and balanced" shell game, I guess they have to show that he didn't come across as an incoherent, double-talking, sneering and condescending Bush clone. He did however, and in contrast with polls of professional pundits who listen to and repeat what other professional pundits repeat, the public seems to agree. CNN's unscientific poll shows that about 80% of respondents did not think McCain won, but the "scientific" polls seem restricted to those still after all this time undecided and not to the voters in general. I can't help thinking there's something a bit wrong with someone unable to make up their mind after almost two years.

So far this morning, all I'm reading are rubber stamp repeats of the "I am not George Bush" line and nothing of the embarrassing (for McCain) reiteration of "he's going to fine you" after it was explained that he would not and the nauseating repetition of the "there's more we need to know about your relationship with Ayers" red herring after that stinker was put thoroughly in its grave. There are no more unanswered questions, John, no matter how often you ask the same damn thing. No, Obama didn't say that, but I wish he had.

McCain repeated his rehearsed points over and over and it was often obvious that he wasn't really listening to the answers and that he had no idea what the public's view of his and Palin's mean, vicious accusations might be.

My biggest disappointments of the evening were that McCain seemed too often to have the last, and often dishonest word; that Obama did not point out the continuing "trickle down" nature of McCain's proposals that are so much like the Bush standard, that Obama did not bring up William Timmons and tell us "we need to know more." I wish Obama would have asked him why he kept repeating that chestnut about fines when it was patently a false claim. I wish a lot of things, actually. I wish sanity and honesty weren't so rare in this country, but, all in all, I saw McCain as the defendant here, a defendant trying to talk his way around the evidence by postulating unlikely explanations of how his fingerprints were all over the crime scene.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

When "eloquence" is an epithet

By Carol Gee

The last debate between the two presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), is over. The panels and pundits have had their say, the polls have been enumerated, and the TV replays are on the way. Since I have the floor, here are my impressions. The contrasts I see are between form and substance, between shooting from the hip and fluent expression.

Candidate form was in the eye of the "commentaria." Opinion makers looked at how the men spoke more that what each said. TV opinion posited that the difference seemed to be indicated by what was visible on viewers' split screens. There was Obama's unflappability and McCain's edgy emotional reactions of anger, disdain and dismissiveness. The initial responses of both CNN and MSNBC, as I flipped back and forth, were that Senator McCain's performance was a definite improvement, and that Senator Obama's performance was rather flat. Many thought that McCain prevailed at the beginning. He did seem to be in good form, his thoughts persuasively expressed. Many liked the way Bob Schieffer handled the moderator's role.

Candidate substance was in the eye of the "publica." After the first responses of the pundits, the instant polls and the focus group results began to emerge, the tide turned toward an apparent Obama win. It seems that the public watched the debate somewhat differently than the TV commentary community. The viewing public did not like the candidates' attacks and defenses nearly as much as the core substantive content. Approval went up when the debate focused on the issues, particularly the economy. What won the public's approval, once again was Obama's eloquence, marked by forceful and fluent expression.

Form vs. substance: The challenge that "Joe the Plumber" faces in trying to start a business became one of McCain's talking points. Obama's focus with each new theme introduced by the moderator was a specific plan, eloquently laid out. He stayed on message, while McCain was trying everything to get under Obama's skin. Once again, it became very clear that, to the very serious problems facing the people of the U.S., McCain's lack of answers, his garbled and inarticulate responses, are in stark contrast to Obama's wide-ranging and specific ideas. Eventually McCain took up the theme of Obama's "eloquence," using it over and over as a kind of disdainful epithet for deceitfulness.

The word "eloquence" was used by Senator McCain, for example, in completely dismissive comments about the issue of the "health of the woman" in Roe v. Wade. He used it as reverse snobbery shorthand for manipulation or deceit, and it was very insulting. Senator McCain's revealing misuse of the word eloquence as an insult is a good clue to how little the man offers to a potential presidency.

With what are we left? We have 19 days until the election, 95 more days of the Bush presidency, and $562,900,440,000 (and rapidly counting) spent on the war in Iraq. We have stock markets around the world going down again. Our own lost 733 points yesterday. We have Congress campaigning, Democrats optimistic, and Republicans pessimistic.

We have experienced 8 years of a rampant epidemic of "dumb." A vaccine is on the horizon, "eloquence." In its correct usage, according to Webster's Dictionary, it means "1) marked by forceful and fluent expression, 2) discourse marked by force and persuasiveness, 3) vividly or movingly expressive or revealing." The choice is clear. Go with Webster. Eloquence will never be an epithet.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)