As of my commencement of this post, we are 59 days, 17 hours, 2 minutes, and 40 seconds away from an end of the Bush error, I mean, era.  Since the election of President-elect Obama, the media and Obama himself have talked about the graciousness of President Bush in the transition to power.  Why Bush has now decided to be so friendly is beyond me...well, other than the fact that he wants to get out of the White House right flippin' now.  But there's one thing Mr. Bush can do to really bring the country together, though it likely won't happen.

Why not help install some of Obama's proposed policies?  Understandably, these two men come from two different sides of the political spectrum, but clearly President Bush is not doing anything to remedy our current financial crisis.  We can only have one president at a time, but what more can Bush do in his last 59 days to help bring confidence back into the market?

We saw the Dow jump up nearly 500 points just in the last hour of trading today because Obama has announced Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary.  We all know how we got into this mess, but the markets are continuing to slide because of a lack of confidence: lenders don't want to lend, borrowers don't want to borrow money, retailers don't want to hire more people because people don't want to buy stuff, etc.  Maybe Phil Gramm was kinda right about this being a "mental" recession (I'm not saying he was completely right, I mean, his policies are 99.99999% of the reason why we're here now, anyway).  And the fact that Hank Paulson has no effing clue what to do with the bailout money is not helping very much.  Today's upswing doesn't necessarily show that the markets are rooting for liberal policies--the markets are rooting for the return of competence to our government.  Anything positive Obama does between now and inauguration could very well save America's economy from sliding even deeper.

Dubya, unfortunately, has an ego twice the size of Barry Bonds and the intellect of an amoeba, so he still thinks he's in charge.  Obama, rightly so, has ceased his harsh criticism of Bush's policies--though I personally think castration as a form of castigation is still in order.  But shouldn't Obama, in his private meetings with Bush, try his best to convince him to at least get the ball rolling before January 20th?  I mean, Dubya thinks history will vindicate him, and this could help if he's so concerned about his legacy. 

I know it's a pipe dream, but it's an idea that could really set the tone for the return of bipartisanship to our politics.  It's just a shame that the current lame duck is so lame that he makes Vanilla Ice look really hip.  As for now, I may as well live under a rock for 8 weeks.  Nothing big, except for maybe a high-profile cabinet appointment will happen until Obama puts his hand on the Bible.  Yes, the Bible, in case you live in Texas and are one of those 23%.

Probably Keith's shortest "Worst Persons" segment ever. And probably his most spot-on one ever, too.

I will be glad when this election is done.  But I have another reason why I will be glad, other than the constant pacing, refreshing webpages every ten minutes in hopes of obtaining another morsel of information, the hope that nothing destroys Obama between now and November 4th, and hopefully not having to see Sarah Palin on television for awhile.

There's also another thing I'm tired of: the need for one candidate to call on the other to repudiate someone else's remarks (particularly McCain and Palin).  Seriously, this crap is getting nuts.

It was understandable during the Reverend Wright and Ayers controversies and when John Hagee endorsed Senator McCain.  Those were legitimate concerns.  However, sometimes calling on someone to condemn an act almost serves as a reasurrance that the other person actually has a soul.

For instance, take the recent Palin effigy that was on display a couple of days ago (that according to the linked article has been removed).  Of course, this sort of stuff has no place in our politics, on either side.  I disagree with John McCain and Sarah Palin on just about everything, including the color of the sky.  But if they so happen to win, I don't wish either of them harm.  And wouldn't all of us do the same?

However, it seems that some over at Fox News want to make a big hoopla because somebody didn't say something:

To think, that this guy [Obama] didn't just come out and say to these two idiots who are voting for me, "Please take that down. If you don't realize that, as a black man, the lynching thing is so sensitive to me, I am finally going to come across the aisle here with my opponent. That is a mother of five, the governor of a state. You idiots have to take that down. And if that costs me your two votes, so be it."

OK, seriously?  Oh, and let's inject race into it too!  Let's make him even more out of touch for not condemning it!

Look, if Obama had come out and condemned the effigy, good.  But does he really have to?  Even Keith Olbermann named the clowns who put this up the "Worst Person(s) In The World" that night, and I don't know of anyone on cable news who hates her more.  See, Republicans, Keith has a sense of decency!

I feel like condemnation of acts and repudiations of statements have just lost meaning this election.  Every single time a statement is misconstrued or someone does/says something wacky, the candidate (almost always Obama) has to step up and say "I don't agree with that retarded thing he/she did/said, ok?"  Now McCain and Palin do bear some responsibility due to the tone of their campaign, and I think the fact that some things were occurring daily and nothing at all was being said makes them more accountable.  You also have to consider that Obama has never called on McCain or Palin to repudiate ANYTHING, if I remember correctly.  If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I can only conclude that these calls for Obama to repudiate anything and everything is an attempt by the right to make Obama seem out of touch with America, or as if he only cares about himself and his own ambitions.  The next thing we know,  McCain and Palin will somehow connect Obama to something Kevin Bacon said.

Ever since the Democratic primaries, we have heard constant babbling about how many blacks are voting for Barack Obama and how they are voting for him solely on race.  Some of this talk has bubbled up again, probably in an attempt to undermine what would be a historic event, assuming Obama gets elected.  If McCain gets elected, it will be historic also; the first female VP and the lowest average voter IQ in any presidential election ever.  But I digress.

Many conservative commentators and blogs have used this argument to try and combat recent events that have not worked in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket.  You know, things like a white girl faking an attack on her, Colin Powell's recent endorsement, and oh, the fact that white supremacists are not happy about the fact that someone not white may soon be leading their country.  In sum, when someone white is accused of racism, someone has to go, "BUT THEY'RE RACIST TOO!"  with the implication at times being "if they're racist, why can't we be?"  Bill O'Reilly is another who has recently lashed out at Powell's betrayal, complete with comparisons of racism at McCain/Palin events to the Daily Kos (again):

Now this is from me to you, General Powell. I respect you, but they don't come more hateful than the Daily Kos. And they support your guy, and your guy lent them his statue. The door swings both ways, general.

If you're truly upset about personal attacks, check out NBC News, the pro-Obama network. It doesn't get nastier than those people. So I'm not buying any of this.

General Powell, in my opinion, endorsed Obama because the senator has been respectful to him and sought his advice quietly, while some Republicans have not been respectful of General Powell. So it's payback time. That is what's really going on here. No spin.

And it's perfectly legitimate for Sean Hannity, who is on your network, to question Obama's drug usage.  Bill, your network is so full of spin that it should be a cycle on my washing machine.

I may be jumping the gun when I say this, but as an African-American, I can't help but interpret the last part of the above blockquote into what O'Reilly really thinks is going on in Powell's head: "Well, them white folks don't like me because I'm critical of their policies, so let me support my brother and we take the man down together".  Bill, I know your job is to downplay every bad thing that happens to McCain, but this is nuts.  I've even heard Limbaugh and others say that he should be "grateful" for what the Republican party has done for him. Right, so Powell's service to the Reagan and Bush 41administrations is now meaningless to him?  We all know Powell's not a total ideologue; he's actually kinda liberal on some issues.  I guess I should be grateful for Bush's cutting of my Pell Grant too (at least he realized this mistake and increased it the year after cutting it, but I digress...again

Alfred Liggins wrote a column over at CNN, and he does make a few good points.  The fact is that blacks on the whole have lower median incomes and care more about Democratic issues: the economy, getting a middle-class tax cut, affordable health care, etc.  Oh, and for those who think it's all about race...it's because he's a Democrat.  Here's how blacks voted in recent elections:

2004: Kerry 88%, Bush 11%

2000: Gore 90%, Bush 9%

1996: Clinton 84%, Dole 12%

1992: Clinton 83%, Bush 10%, Perot 7%

1988: Dukakis 89%, Bush 11%

1984: Mondale 91%, Reagan 9%

Yeah, you get the idea.  Compare this to the 2006 Maryland Senate race, where conservative Michael Steele managed only 25% of the black vote.  Damn those racist black people for voting against the black candidate!

It'd also be hard for some blacks to vote for someone who opposed making Martin Luther King's birthday a federal holiday.  But while that is an egregious blunder on McCain, that's the least of the black electorate's worries this year.  The black guy holding the umbrella over McCain's head isn't exactly the best imagery, though...

In the end, the right-wing that wants to bring down Obama has decided to leave their history textbook at home and pretend that everything is 50-50.  Granted, Obama did have one minor slip-up, even though what he said is not very far from the truth.  In fact, he clearly saw the attacks we've seen this month well ahead of time.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir here at TPM, but stuff like this aggravates me and doesn't do much to improve race relations in our country.  Instead of trying to understand African-Americans in our country, conservative whites believe that history has nothing to do with our nation's current state of affairs.  Blacks may be a bit bitter also, but their "racism" (which isn't 100% evident in polling) is justifiable.  But words cannot describe how amazing to see my mother care about politics for the first time in years; to go into my barber shop and see the TV on CNN rather than BET; to see black America feel that they are truly a part of the political process again.  There's a reason why involvement in activism and politics among blacks has been down since April 4, 1968--the rest of the country decided to move on and expected blacks to do the same.  Having another MLK-like figure to pick up the pieces then would've be nice, but figures like him only come around once in a generation. 

Still today, even as Obama's rise to stardom may hit a peak in 7 days, some blacks feel let down.  This is why Hillary had the black vote for so long--blacks didn't really want to get their hopes up only to be let down again.  I wasn't sold on Obama myself until a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses.  Of course, I am disappointed that it took a black guy to run for African-Americans to get involved.  However, whites should keep in mind that he's only half-black:

    

"The Republicans have an ex-prisoner whose running mate is a heat-packing mama of five with a knocked-up teenage baby mama!  And that's the white option?! White folks, have you lost your damn minds?"

I have to admit, if we want to play stereotypes here, President Bush has been the gangsta of the world over the past 8 years--complete with drive-by shootings of soverign nations, taking care of his crew with tax cuts for the rich, and making sure we stay uneducated so we don't figure out what's really going on.

If Obama does somehow lose, I hope black America maintains its sanity (I intend to write a post later about how race relations will be after an Obama victory and/or McCain victory).  If he does win, it will truly be a huge step in overcoming our nation's original sin.  We have seen a lot in the past few weeks, but I'm glad everyone truly got to see the true state of our nation.  It is also shameful that some on the right wing has used arguments about the black vote, claimed double-standards as an excuse for their failed Atwater-like tactics, and have totally undermined what Barack Obama has accomplished.

I guess when you want to move forward two steps, you sometimes have to take a step back.

I feel really bad for my generation--they gave us an election of paramount importance for our first vote.  While most youth will go for Obama, I have to say that we have to take part of the blame if we screw this thing up.  This election isn't about the next 4 years...more like the next 40.

As a young-un, I've had to really dig deep and form my own political opinions.  Most everyone in my family is liberal, not that I expected a different political climate in my family.  I grew up in the most liberal county in Illinois that isn't in Chicago and now attend a University that's probably 1/3 Jewish.  So yeah, I've been surrounded by lefties.  It wasn't until the 2004 election that I actually figured out why I'm a liberal; before then, I was taught from the time I was born that Republicans are bad people--no, seriously, I commonly used the word as an insult to bullies in 2nd grade.

Despite my leftist leanings, I have prided myself on always taking a step back and looking at things from an "objective" point of view.  I put objective in question marks because of how much I tried to give McCain the benefit of the doubt and how much the mainstream media is STILL giving him a chance.  I thought that regularly visiting left-wing blogs and posting semi-regularly here at TPM would hurt my ability to see things objectively.  I was wrong; in fact, I can probably see things more objectively now than 6 months ago.

Secondly, we all know how scared many are to use that dreaded "l" word since the Reagan years.  I was once one of those people.  Hell, I once even thought Bill O'Reilly wasn't a bad guy!  Yes, go ahead and shoot me.  Now, I'm one of the few to have this book and this one right next to each other on my bookshelf.  I should probably toss out the latter one.  In fact, I was probably brainwashed by the oaf.  I never started watching MSNBC until January (more because I never really heard of them); before then I stuck with CNN for news and had FOX for laughs.

Senator Obama's flawless campaign has made me proud to be left-of-center.  Let's face it--who was the last true liberal to win the Presidency (assuming Obama wins)?  LBJ, maybe?  I can't say where Carter was exactly on the left-right spectrum, and Clinton generally ran and governed as a moderate.  There's a reason why these charges of socialism aren't working--because the progressive tax system in itself is a socialist idea.  Oh, and let's not forget that Palin is a hypocrite.

I can't wait for this election to be done, primarily so this bizarre and, even at times, repugnant media coverage can finally end.  I have come to realize that being "fair" is much more than giving each side an equal amount of time and then letting the viewer decide.  You could just, um, I dunno, tell the truth maybe?!?

This is one of the many ways Fox News gets away with its "fair and balanced" claim by giving both sides of things the same merit, even if it doesn't deserve it.  See the

Yeah, I don't know why I'm still up.  Meh.

I am in no way advocating complacence in the waning days of the 2008 campaign, but take a look at where the race is now...

...and where Bush and Kerry stood exactly four years ago.  And there were two fewer days left that year since the election was on November 2nd.

Like the rabbit-cat dude said in an earlier post...LANDSLIDE.

Sorry if this is a double post..I never selected a category, so I think that means nobody could see it.

Now, I don't know about you, but if your entire foreign policy is based on scaring America because your opponent will meet with dictators without preconditions, wouldn't you damn well be sure to know just what a precondition is?

You can only blame the "liberal" media for so long, conservatives.  Just admit that your guy and gal are done.

One tactic of the McCain/Palin ticket lately has been to try to use the words "Obama" and "socialist" in the same sentence as much as possible.  I have to give it to their campaign--at least they're creative fear-mongers.  Too bad they have very few new policy ideas.

I subjected myself to the pain of watching Fox News one day, and saw Hannity and Rove up in flames over the fact that 40% of Americans don't pay income tax, but are getting a tax cut.  I thought that a) the 40% to likely be an exaggeration, and it probably is, and b) if so, this is odd...why is this the case, and why do these Americans deserve a tax cut?  Now, this wasn't anything that would make me change my vote at all, but I always want to be knowledgeable when debating with conservatives.

So I did what any American would do, which is find out for myself what's going on here.  McCain and Palin are relying on not just fear of Obama to get them a victory, but on the fact that people will take them at their word and not cut through the bull.

So, first thing's first: the idea is that people will think that this 40% bloc of people aren't paying any taxes at all.  If that's the case, then who is this FICA guy and why is he taking my money?  And why isn't all of it going to where it should be going?

How much does the payroll tax amount to? Well, last year the standard income tax brought in $1.17 trillion, while the payroll tax brought in $873.4 billion.

Technically, payroll tax receipts are supposed to be reserved for paying for Social Security and Medicare, which is what allows some people to claim it is not an income tax. However, in practice that distinction was abandoned long ago. For decades now, the payroll tax has been bringing in a lot more revenue than needed for Social Security, and the excess has been siphoned off for general fund use like any other government money.

Last year alone, $190 billion in payroll tax receipts was diverted to general fund use, paying for everything from Iraq to the salaries of park rangers.

OK, so some of the money that should be going towards my Social Security is actually going towards a mindless war.  And that $190 billion figure is sure to go up. In essence, the lack of fiscal responsibility may be as big of a reason for the social security problem as the imminent retirement of baby-boomers.  You may think you're not paying income taxes, but some of that money is siphoned off for things that only income taxes should pay for.

Furthermore, people forget about the regressive nature of the FICA tax.  If someone of a lower income, say below $102,000 (the 2008 wage base) pays income taxes and someone over $102,000 does not pay income taxes, it's possible to have a lower income and pay more taxes overall.  Now, the output from social security may be progressive, but if you have more money to invest in the stock market or put into a 401k, then that cancels out Social Security's progressive nature.

These facts notwithstanding, McCain and Palin have offered up another word in the fear-the-black-man lexicon: "welfare".  This instills in the mind of a right-winger that they truly are getting "handouts" and in effect are not paying taxes (if not flat-out getting free money).  But there are other taxes, many of which are not progressive:

I know, I know: how could there be any sort of tax other than the (federal) income tax? I have heard that in distant lands there are strange, exotic taxes, like the "sales tax", the "property tax", "state and local income taxes", the "capital gains tax", "use taxes", "permit fees", other fees, the "severance tax", the "occupational privilege tax", the "estate tax", the "gift tax", the "federal excise tax", and even the fantastically named "generation skipping transfer tax". But surely we have no such outlandish customs here! We who live in a country that has only one sort of tax, the federal income tax, can only stare in wonder at those benighted countries where people actually pay taxes whenever they buy a shovel or realize capital gains.

Oh, and let's not forget the 2/3 of corporations that apparently don't pay taxes at all.  But that's not welfare, that's part of the whole "supply side" thing.  Even Laffer might be laughing somewhere right now.

I even looked on Obama's website, and he does avoid calling it an "income tax cut", but a tax cut nonetheless.  And while he is raising income taxes on those who make over $250k a year to cover it, at least he has a way of covering it.  It is not a "welfare handout", but an overall reduction in the tax burden of middle-class families.  We're already putting FICA and income taxes into one big pot and drawing from it--we probably shouldn't do that, but I think we should look at the entire tax burden one faces when talking about tax policy.  The tax code is ridiculously complex, and while it should be simplified, it's ridiculous to take advantage of those who don't understand it for cheap political points like McCain and Palin have.

The right-wing's way of campaiging since the Reagan years has been to not show how good their plan is, but convince you that the Democrats' way of doing things will make things worse, so just give us another chance and we'll get it right.  We've been scared into the idea that we have to give the rich a tax cut or else we won't have a job.  We've been bamboozled into thinking that we can get more revenues from Reagan-esque policies, but if memory serves me correctly, the national debt tripled under Reagan and doubled under Bush 43.  Obama certainly is convincing and articulate, but things have just gotten so bad with these policies that enough Americans want to (gasp) try something different.  The third time may be the  charm, but I'm not sticking to old sayings when the future of our nation is at stake.

No, I'm not Jerry Springer...but man, I would love to make a living watching people beat the crap out of each other for an hour.

A lot of you know that I am a 21-year old African-American, and I must admit that I have always been skeptical in a way.  Mostly this is because I always wondered that America actually is dumb to elect John McCain, but a small part of it still has to do with the history of race in our country.

While live-blogging, I was a bit worried that Obama might not win by as much as he did in the first two debates, because a) McCain had a strong showing and Obama was defensive at times, b) Obama, frankly, wasn't at the top of his game and c)  McCain just might have stirred up enough fear in Americans and (misinformed/ignorant) people won't fact-check McCain's incessant lying.

But then the snap polls came out, and I watched Fox News talking heads scrambling for something to make Obama look bad, and I realized something:  America is ready. People are ready to elect Obama, enough people that are willing to put ideology aside to bring change to our country. 

During the debate, I thought Obama didn't hit back hard enough.  Of course, he did some times, but he hit back with eloquence and not anger.  He told the American people what they want to hear.  And instead of  coming back on the attack in anger once Ayers and ACORN and all that hullaballoo was brought up, he gracefully debunked all of it and essentially made McCain's main point of his campaign irrelevant.  McCain tried keeping the conversation going, but Obama wouldn't have it, and neither will the American people.  Obama challenged McCain, and he failed.

I never thought someone could ever campaign the way Obama has done and win an election.  I never thought someone could ever rise above our fraying political system.  I never thought that a campaign of smears and hatred could be overcome by a campaign of pragmatism and honesty.  Maybe I was cynical for believing this.  But to hear my mother, someone who I love but is deeply cynical about the progress about race relations and who I have thought to be a racist herself, say that Obama will win in a landslide is truly meaningful to me.  To be a part of this movement, to make phone calls and canvass for this man, to visibly see the tidal wave of change that will hopefully come leaves me speechless at times.

We are all truly blessed to witness this, and if Obama does win in November and transform our nation, I hope to look back at this time in history and cherish how lucky I am to have witnessed a great chapter in our history.

This may be old news to some, but I just found out about it, so it's new to me.  Let's see how many parallels this story has to the alleged Obama/Ayers link:

In the 2006 Alabama Republican Party primaries, John McCain actively campaigned for George Wallace Jr., the son of that one angry dude back in the 60s, when he was running for Lieutenant Governor  Now, assuming Wallace doesn't espouse the same views as his father....oh, wait a second...maybe he does...

McCain's Alabama visit drew fire from the Democratic National Committee, which said McCain should have denounced past speeches Wallace has made to the "racist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC)," a group which opposes "all efforts to mix the races" and advocates U.S. withdrawal from such organizations as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.

Don't believe me?  See their website.  If you bother to look, you'll find all sorts of goodies about racial integrity and states' rights.  They're still ticked that Obama hasn't released his birth records yet.  Only, um, he has. 

Wallace has given plenty of speeches to the CCC in the past, and has claimed that there "is nothing hateful about those people I've seen."  After this he likely said, "Oh, they referred to blacks as a 'retrograde species of humanity'? No, they didn't say that, and if they did, I repudiate it, and I also call on Senator Obama to repudiate Reverend Wright, even though it is 2006 and I really don't know either of them."

Oh, there's this too:

The Birmingham News reported that in remarks at the reception, McCain praised Wallace as "a good and decent American" who wants to reform Alabama education and broaden the Republican Party's base.

Sound familiar?  Doesn't Obama work on a board with another once-controversial figure who works in education reform?

Look, when this Ayers thing came up back in March, I was concerned (and Rev. Wright).  But it's been looked at quite thoroughly, and not much was uncovered then or now.  It's perfectly fine to ask questions about these things, but I am very, very annoyed to see that John McCain or Sarah Palin has not yet (to my knowledge) been asked a question about the Alaska Independence Party, the Annenberg Foundation, Thomas Muthee, John Hagee, the Keating Five scandal, or this.

So, Senator, let me ask, since I find it only fair: Can we trust you, someone who pals around with white supremacists, to really put country first?  That is, are you a racist?


P.S. Sorry for posting 3 times today.  I really, really don't want to do homework right now.  And the debate's coming on in less than 2 hours, so maybe I should just give up on structural dynamics for now...

The idea of Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama has floated around in political circles since the beginning of the year.  Alarms have been falsely sounded; I was one of them back in August.  Granted, this was before I knew of Bill Kristol's right-wing-hackishness.  Many still think he's secretly endorsing Obama and just hasn't made it public, and speculation is bubbling up yet again.

I personally still have some respect for Mr. Powell.  Yes, he was in on getting us into the war, but it really seems that things could have been much worse if we had a more conservative Secretary of State in Bush's first term.  He constantly butted heads with Rumsfeld and Cheney, but ultimately made that fateful speech in front of the U.N. Security Council with that vial of fake anthrax in hand.

I can't read Powell's mind, but I believe that he felt like he could no longer honorably serve as Secretary of State--and he probably wasn't wanted there because he wasn't with the rest of the Bushies enough:

Powell said Bush accepted the resignation Friday, adding, "It has always been my intention that I would serve one term."

But a senior State Department official characterized Powell's departure this way: "He was not asked to stay."

He was one of the first conservatives to call Iraq a "civil war" and suggested a timetable for withdrawal while everyone else was screaming the usual "we're winning" mantras.  He's repeatedly said he wants to see everything the candidates have to say before he does make a decision, and I think he (and hopefully many other Americans) will have enough information to issue a verdict come 9:30 CT tonight.  Oh, and let's not forget McCain's recent antics lately.  I may be going out on a limb here, but a black man born in the 1930s can't be pleased about that.

The fact that he didn't speak out during his term as Secretary of State is detestable to some, myself included.  But he clearly knows he screwed up:

When Powell left the Bush administration in January 2005, he was widely seen as having been at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney over foreign policy choices.

It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address -- assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

He may as well should get up in front of the country and say "Sorry America, I f-ed up and the fact that I helped lie our way into war is unforgivable".  I guess I can understand that we may have still had a chance to turn this thing around in 2004, but once Bush's second term started, it became clear to many that it would be tough to turn it around.

So what does a Powell endorsement mean?  Would it really be enough for a landslide of 1964-like proportions?

Um...no.  But it can help those who think Obama still can't pass the commander-in-chief threshold in a time of war.  I mean the guy has an incredible amount of military experience, and if he thinks he's up for the job, then why shouldn't other Americans?  He's also still very respected in the eyes of conservatives and some moderates.  It may not make waves for long though; it would stay in the news cycles for a day or two and then likely be forgotten.  Nonetheless, it would be a powerful, moving endorsement.

On the flip side, right wingers can easily cry "well, he looks like you, so why wouldn't you endorse him?" and may not help so much, if at all.  Of course, this is a ludicrous claim, but obviously much worse has been said at McCain/Palin rallies lately.

So what say you?  Would it help?  Would you care less?

Many of us are obviously salivating at the thought of an Electoral College landslide on November 4th, but Dick Morris is taking it a bit too far.  Then again, it is Dick Morris.

He has Obama winning North Carolina, which is fine.  West Virginia?  Well, the latest has Obama ahead there, but I still take that with a grain of salt.  But South Carolina's a toss-up?!?  Strom Thurmond must be rolling around in his grave around now.  And even McCain's home state is slated to go barely blue come November.  Was this guy on acid when he predicted this?  Those red and blue spots you were seeing are NOT states.

I personally think this is nutty, and an attempt at Morris to maybe gain some attention.  Or maybe there are other motives, such as the following (since he's supporting McCain):

1) He may rant about this at Fox News for a few days, in hopes it will gain some traction.  Maybe it's an attempt to get Obama voters to stay at home because they'll think it's in the bag.  Or undecideds will stay home too for the same reason.
2) The financial crisis could potentially get even worse in the last 3 weeks, and even more voters will move to the Obama side.
3) McCain could potentially just do or say something really dumb.  Or the craziness at his rallies will get even worse and he'll still refuse to do something about it.
4) Morris really, really, really wants to be right this time when predicting something.  So if you make 5 gazillion predictions between now and election day, one of them might be right!

Anything can happen in three weeks, of course.  But the Votemaster may have something of value to say regarding this (in my opinion) nutty prediction:

The value of this map is not its accuracy, which is likely to be way off. What it does show is a paradigm shift among high-profile pundits who probably know less than you do (anyone who reads Websites like this is clearly knowledgeable about and interested in politics). The old paradigm was: "People won't vote for a black guy, especially one so inexperienced as Obama." The new paradigm is: "Obama ran a brilliant campaign and will win in a landslide." While signs are increasingly pointing in that direction, remember in politics three weeks is a VERY, VERY long time.

Well, I can probably agree with the fact that pundits know less than the majority of TPM bloggers :-)

But think about where Obama has been since the Iowa caucuses.  Even I, as an African-American, didn't think he could pull it off until he won Iowa.  I still had a little doubt until Super Tuesday.  The guy has made all the right moves and pulled the right punches at just the right time.  He is the Bobby Fischer of political campaigning, while McCain is still wondering why those horsey dude things have to move in L-shapes.  Obama plans things out weeks in advance, while McCain's plan is to, well, announce his plan to everybody.  There's a reason why Obama called McCain out on the Ayers controversy--whatever that reason may be, I'm sure Obama will have a counterpunch so strong it'll knock McCain into next week if he actually does decide to bring it up.

No matter how outrageous Dick Morris' prediction is, what was once a belief some of us had is now a fundamental truth: Americans want real change and not phony change look-alikes.  But Morris just needs to take his medicine or something.  Before long, he'll be on Hannity and Colmes sporting Jamaican garb demanding I call him now for a free reading.

Josh on the homepage mentioned seeing a CNN interview where McCain looks completely clueless.

I think this is the interview he was talking about.  Or at least a good chunk of it.

He says he's repudiated any anti-Obama comment.  Lie.  Obama hasn't repudiated John Lewis's comments.  Lie (well, a partial lie...the George Wallace bit was too far for Obama but his other remarks have merit).  His comments are "too far out of line" because "that's not what America's about".

Words cannot describe how much this man just does not get it.

Forget it.

From MSNBC First Read, it appears McCain likes this holier-than-thou game a bit too much.

Well, Senator McCain, I'll tell you why you waited so long.  At least why I think you waited until now: you planned to drag this out for a week and then appear all apologetic, as you did today, and as if you did absolutely nothing wrong.

You always mention Obama's naivete in debates, Senator, but it is naive of you to think that your recent campaign tactics wouldn't lead to this.  Don't you know about our nation's history, sir?  Hell, Obama was in diapers during the 60s; you were already in your 30s then.

On Monday, when the vitriol started to drip, you jumped up a bit and had a slight grimace on your face for a second.  But you kept going.  Surrogates that introduced you repeatedly used Obama's middle name to stir the pot.  Now if one does it, fine; but multiple times in a few days, sir?  You or one of your managers clearly ordered this.

But wait, let's not forget about that good old liberal media!  You know, the liberal media that decided to take so much time to talk about Bill Ayers again only to find out nothing new (again), when our country is in a crisis?  The liberal media that somehow thinks Obama is just as guilty with bringing up the Keating Five, which is an issue because of the state of our nation?  How about the liberal media that tries making this a close race with keeping so many states as "toss-ups" when Obama has clearly been ahead in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in every poll for at least a month?  Seriously, Senator, you should thank the media for saving your campaign!  And, well, they have an interest in this too...something about ratings I think...

But no, it's not hate.  They don't hate Obama, they hate the state of our economy, and Obama shouldn't criticize them!  How could I not see that?  See, this has been your plan the entire time: to make Obama sink to your level.  This is why you spent all summer on the attack, thinking Barack would bite.  And as you fall behind, you grow ever-so disdainful, while Obama has been as cool as a cucumber.  I guess if you got him angry then that would give your supporters some "conclusive" proof that he's a terrorist.

And even if your attempt to put out the fire was genuine today...seriously?  I'm sure you watch the news, and there's no reason to not think your supporters' actions would get worse and that it would all blow up in your face.  As Josh said the other day, how long until someone says the n-word?

But here's the point: you're trying to walk the tightrope of resorting to shameful tactics, yet appear to be a man of honor.  If you were truly a man of honor, Senator, you would have stopped this sooner.  If you were truly a man of honor, you'd walk the campaign trail with your head up high and send a positive message to the American people.  If you were truly a man of honor, you probably would've done a better job of vetting your running mate.  Instead, you chose to distract America, to wobble around with no central message, and to select a running mate who has acted unethically as governor.

Yet even though you appear to be self-aware now, even as I just might give you an ounce of my respect, you'll still continue the same tactics.  You know it's all you have left, because you want the big, bad liberal media to continue talking about Ayers and soon Wright (don't lie; he's on the table too).  But the American people aren't buying it, and Obama will easily lock the door come debate #3.

Senator, if you have any honor in you left and if you want to keep your legacy positive, I suggest you quit.  Or suspend your campaign until the day after the election.  Your strategy to tear down Obama has, in an odd twist of fate, beginning to tear you down.  It's only gonna get worse, pal.