They can attack Obama but we should attack their entire ship.  The Republicans are dangerously vulnerable.  As a party.  If the party goes down, he goes down.  

John McCain never got the hero's welcome he deserved, and you can tell it still gnaws away at the back of his mind. He's jealous.

The brighter Barack Obama's star shines, the more John McCain wants to reduce his opponent's substance to the gossamer dreams of studio hype and the nutritional value of buttered popcorn. McCain has gone Hollywood, releasing a slick, high-concept ad starring Obama as "The One," a preening superstar adored by the political paparazzi, and featuring guest appearances by Britney Spears and Charlton Heston as Moses.

Let's stipulate: McCain has fewer adoring fans than Obama. But McCain's relatively dim star power owes as much to his bad imitation of Nora Desmond as it does to Obama's proven charisma. And no, McCain is not ready for his closeup, Mr. DeMille, especially not his left side or his creepy forced smile.

Instead, "Johnny Mac" is trying hard to boost his box office by recasting Obama as a "celebrity," but most voters just don't view Obama as some sort of political Elmer Gantry. The one audience McCain's buzzword does seem to be getting some traction with is the press, whose eagerness to repeat McCain's gripe du jour about Obama runs contrary to the disgruntled senator's other complaint that the news media are throwing the Illinois senator roses at every turn.

Of course, McCain is a celebrity also and has been for over thirty years. Graduating 894th among his class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy, McCain was closer to being "Bottom Gun" than he was to the cooly dangerous Maverick played by Tom Cruise in "Top Gun." His name skyrocketed to fame not long after the news he bailed out of his stricken fighter jet into enemy hands.

Obama is right to note that McCain deserves respect for his real-life military service and sacrifice as a POW. Yet McCain's image as a political maverick since then is as carefully groomed as a Hollywood lawn. McCain touts his willingness to play both sides of an issue as a humble virtue, while ridiculing Obama's few policy shifts as spineless pandering.

Now The Honorable One from Arizona is criticizing Obama for being what amounts to wildly popular. Of course, it isn't likely McCain would refuse attention from whole stadiums full of voters, either, if he could only step up from packing high school gyms.

To see how desperate for attention McCain is, one need only compare his definition of celebrity with any standard dictionary's. As a dictionary defines it, a celebrity refers to a person who has achieved a high degree of prominence and media exposure. McCain uses the word as an epithet meaning a vain creature propelled to vapid stardom by fawning media. (Note the addition of cynical adjectives and airhead starlets.)

If Obama wanted to turn that distorted portrait on its head, he would invoke a different kind of celebrity. The kind that drew tens of thousands of cheering New Yorkers out to see John Glenn after he became the first American to orbit the Earth. Or the celebrity that summoned 250,000 to hear Martin Luther King Jr. speak of his "Dream." The kind that idled every car on a busy California highway in deference to the funeral motorcade of an actor-turned-president. Even the kind that made John McCain famous for surviving a POW camp.

Hi there, come on in.  Good to see you, may I get you something?  Who?  Don't be silly, of course they're welcome.  Hi, I'm Melissa.  Come on in.  Very nice to meet you. 

Find yourselves a spot, might be one on the sofa... no, maybe not.  You'll find something, don't worry.  The floor with a pillow is quite inviting, especially if near the right people.  Unless you have an aversion to a big dog in your face with her tongue hanging out wearing her heart on her sleeve.  She'll just stand there and look into your soul through the windows you didn't know were open.  As long as your eyes are locked, she won't move towards you, she'll just start to wiggle gently.  If you hang up, she'll turn in disappointment and walk away, still hopeful for next time.  If you connect, well, you've got a very happy 70 pounds of Boxer in your lap.  No extra charge for the hair.  Or the bad breath.  But you'll never be able to repay her for the sheer love.

What's that?  Sure, I don't mind.  Will you get me a glass while you're at it?  Oh, dammit!  There's a tree frog in the house, somebody help.  Yes, of course he came in through the door, that's not helpful!  No, don't do that, you might hurt it - I just want to put it back outside.  Stop laughing at me, my mother taught me not to kill something just because it winds up in the wrong place.  There it is, quick!  Grab that bowl thing and put it over it!  I have no idea what I'm talking about, just get it out of here.  No, I don't have a problem with grabbing it with my hands except that I can't!  Can you?  

One particular reader post qualifies as evidence that many recommendations do not necessarily make a thread good.

The diarist begins this way:

Wasn't it Schmidt, McCain's new hit man, who produced the "Call me" ad in Tennessee?

So doesn't simple logic dictate that Schmidt's recent inclusion in the McCain inner circle, followed closely by the appearance of this blond-bimbo celebrity ad are quite closely connected?

No. What simple logic dictates is that your premises must be true in order to yield a sound conclusion. And as we are told by Taylor Marsh in a 2006 article critical of those who politically assassinated Ford, those responsible for the production of the ad were Terry Nelson and Scott Howell.

I suggest that my fellow TPM readers/writers stop making things up.

testing

123

Firstread thinks it's suspicious.  I don't know if it's a good idea, but Bayh could guarantee Indiana.  I don't like Bayh personally and as a VP choice (due to being on the Iraq Commission) but if he guarantees Indiana, that would be okay. 

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

This is going to go over REAL well.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tomasic/clinton-calls-for-cathart_b_116482.html

I was thinking the other day of a hilarious ad for YouTube or that the Obama people could run if they could do it within copywrite protections...

The ad would start with an image of a dinosaur sleeping on the floor of a Flintstone like cave...maybe the dinosaur could even have a likeness of McCain's face...

The ad would start with Dino yipping like he normally did and then the yips would morph into "...bomb...bomb...bomb...bomb...' with images of destruction in the Middle East, then "...drill...drill...drill..." with images of oil spills, then "...surge...surge...surge..." with images of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

After that scary montage, Fred would yell from other room, "Dino, shut up!"  And then a releaved Dino wakes up from his nightmares.

The Tag Line could run something like, "McCain, stuck in the wrong era."

Recently I, and some others, have had a certain fear concerning the way in which the Election is playing out. Before continuing, let me ask that people please NOT focus on my mention of polls. Because part of the fear some have been feeling is a tightening of the polls. It is undeniable that the polling returns have been slanting more in McCain's favor, in terms of McCain making slight gains where he hadn't been able to before. But as we all know, polling at this point really doesn't mean shit. Still, it presents a certain picture. When the polls kept tipping in Obama's favor, we savored it. Now that McCain's made some gains, we brush it aside. The entirety should be brushed aside or all should be taken into account, not one way or another.

But besides simply polls, there was also a drop for Obama on Intrade. Yesterday, he dropped below 60%. He's back up, but still not at his previous highs around 68%. Intrade is a very good indicator of the current climate. This stirred up some feelings for me.

Then, of course, I continue to hear some people speak (sometimes quite indignantly) that Obama is not responding strongly or forcefully enough to McCain's onslaught. While I personally disagree with this, many others believe it's something to be afraid of.

Yet there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and some have been very intuitive in their assertions: it has to do with Obama's strategy versus McCain's.

In a nutshell, McCain has less money than Obama. Thus, he must find a way to get his message out there on a national scale. We've seen this with his recent ad strategy. His "Obama won't visit the troops without the media" ad got national coverage, but was a tiny buy. McCain spent close to nothing. His Britney/Paris ad is a bigger buy, but again, it's getting huge media coverage and is being talked about relentlessly. That's the kind of exposure Obama's ads have never gotten.

But the point is: who cares? McCain's strategy is for the short term: ad-onslaught. With it, his poll numbers take a slight boost. Things look worse than they actually are for Obama, and people start to hold doubts and fears about the future of the election, whereas before there was confidence and strength. Gotta hand it to McCain: it seems to have had an effect. But is it really that great? He still can't edge out Obama in the national polls.

But while McCain is making $22 million a month to get temporary boosts in the polls, Obama is making $50+ million to boost his ground game.

Those who are frequent visitors of FiveThirtyEight.com would have seen Sean's most recent post about Obama beefing up his ground game; expanding field offices and hiring more volunteers and paid staffers. You can read the article here.

Let me just post the part that made me smile the most.

In Alaska, Obama has four field offices open (Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Palmer) to McCain’s none. In Montana, Obama had six offices to McCain’s none in July, with reports that McCain would open five offices by August 1.

In Virginia, Obama has a 20-6 field office edge, with as many as 60 expected to be open in the near future. Via the widely-linked Boston Globe piece from whence the opening quote comes, each of Florida and Pennsylvania Obama is expected to have a minimum of 200 paid organizers.

In Wisconsin, Obama has 15 offices open now, with 24 expected to be open by mid-August. The staffers are directly paid by Obama’s “Campaign for Change” organization. By contrast, Republicans have five party offices open that handle both McCain field work as well as the state leg. races, which somewhat dilutes the effort.

Obama is beefing up his field organization to a huge extent. The article goes on to speak about how the Republicans are completely confident that Obama will never be able to turn states like Virginia blue, so they're not focusing much energy on combating Obama. And that's the beauty of it. Those who know anything about this election know that Virginia is well within Obama's reach. As are many other traditionally red states, like North Carolina and Montana. The Republicans do not believe that field organization and ground-level campaigning will have a real impact on the ultimate outcome.

But the other piece of gold in all this is the fact that red state Democrats will benefit themselves through Obama's efforts and his 50-state strategy. Though it is not clear how exactly the Obama camp. will be coordinating with Dems. in each state, the fact of the matter is that in traditionally red states, (I'll use Virginia for an example, since it's so popular here) there will be people like Mark Warner, Tim Kaine and Jim Webb out there doing their part to get Obama elected, because they know they get something out of it through Obama's field organization and national popularity. Ride the wave, I guess we could say.

It's a double-edged sword the Republicans are completely ignorant to. Not only is Obama's strategy going to undercut and undermine McCain's in the long run, it's also helping to undercut and undermine the Republican Party as a whole, nation-wide.
"The largest field operation in the history of American politics."
-Boston Globe, July 19 2008

If the Republicans truly do not step up to the plate, then they will surely suffer a loss greater than they currently expect. And knowing them, it is doubtful that they will do so. Their disorganization this election is especially evidenced by McCain's own campaign, who has resorted to a strategy one can only describe as "cutting his losses." Senator McCain, a word of warning: watch out.

Willow: The icon's called the Mark of Gachnar. I think this is a summoning spell for something called...
Xander: Gachnar?
Willow: Yes! Somehow the beginning of the spell was accidentally triggered. Gachnar's trying to manifest itself. To come into being.
Buffy: How?
Willow: It feeds on... fear.
Buffy: Our fears are manifesting. We're feeding it. We have to stop.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season IV, “Fear Itself.” 

Alright everyone, your self-appointed morale officer has arrived to tell you that our “get a grip” moment has arrived.  Napoleon may, or may not have said “morale is to material as is the ratio of three to one,” but its bloody true and its time for Democrats to get a damn grip. 

McCain has always been what he accuses Obama of being: a pure media creation.  The MSM shielded the public from McCain's true sub-mediocrity with a solid wall of freshly laid bullshit but, under the harsh light of a national campaign, that wall  is drying up and blowing away. Well now, he has more or less completed his Kubler-Ross cycle of grieving for his solid wall of MSM protection (with frequent lapses back into the “anger,” stage, of course).  He's been forced to acknowledge his own inadequacies as a politician and a human being, and what that means to his long-thwarted but always feverish ambition to be president.  And then he did what all of us always knew he would do: he scrolled down to the contact for “Mephestopheles” on his cellphone and hit the “dial” button. 

Oh, being a noble and honorable national hero and a man of impeccable character, and all that, he first had to convince himself that Barack Obama is  a vile, contemptible, evil threat to our nation's honor and security.  But, hey when some handsome new kid shows up at school and bumps you from your position as starting quarterback and steals your best pals who used to sit with you on the bus, that's easy to do.

So now, here were are in August, and he's doing what 99% of us have always known he would be doing.  He's opened up that musty old  Atwater-Rove campaign playbook, hired himself a sleazy Republican DC Beltway Consultant to implement it, and opened up the spigot on the vast Republican above-ground cesspit.  This is how its going to be, people, and how its going to go, until sometime after Labor Day when, according to the Rove-Atwater All-Purpose Plan for Victory calls for him to turn down the flow-volume on the toxic waste, put on his clean white suit and step forth as the Hero who will deliver the nation from the person of low moral character that the Democratic candidate has been exposed to be. 

Naturally, of course, the Beltway media are all agog, and manyRespectable Liberal Bloggers  are expressing deep concern.  This is, after all, The Way to Win, the dark supernatural path by which the forces of good are invariably and inevitably vanquished by the forces of evil.  Now that McCain has (contrary to his true nature, of course, but one must do what one must do, tsk-tsk) adopted it, the callow, untested, unsophisticated, naïve teenager called Barack Obama cannot possibly stand up against this Perfect Plan for Inevitable and Invariable Victory.   (Unless, of course, he immediately adopts the means and methods of his enemies, and not a moment to lose.  It's his only hope of salvaging something from this debacle.)

Whatever. 

We cannnot control the MSM.  It's late summer and late summer is Stupid Season for journalists in any year, much less an election year.  If they can't portray the election as close, there's nothing to do except write stories about attractive young white women in peril from sharks.  And, besides, they love Rove and believe he is well-nigh omnipotent.  He beat them and abused them for years and that makes them love him. 

We cannot control the campaigns.  Either of them.  They will do as they will do regardless of how hard we rant against the perfidy of McCain or how much frantic, panic-tinged expert advice we give to Obama in blog comments.  He is unlikely to to do what we want him to, even if we threaten to withhold our contributions.  Especially if we threaten to withhold our contributions—say what you will about him, Obama has shown repeatedly in this campaign that he will be owned by his potential or actual donors.

What we can control is ourselves. 

I submit to you that one of the primary goals of the Republican Atwater-Rove Sewage Release is to sew fear and panic among the Democratic candidate's base.  Do you think it's a coincidence that fear is the central unifying feature of the Rove-Atwater playbook?  Those who say that the purpose of that plan is make our candidate the issue miss the point.  They aren't attacking the candidate, they are attacking us.  With all the malign calculation of a psychologically abusive spouse or parent, the Republican Atwater-Rove game plan is a directed in no small part at undermining our own self-confidence, our belief in our candidate, our belief in our party's worthiness to govern and its ability to win.  It is directed at the undecideds and at firing up their own base, but a critical feature of the Atwater-Rove gameplan is a psy-ops campaign directed at undermining our will to win.  They know that if they can crack our own belief in ourselves and our candidates, there is no way in hell we can get those we deem “low information voters” to believe in them as well.  

And we make it so easy for them.  Democrats are the worst, the absolute worst, about believing every momentary transient news event three months out from the election is the decisive moment of the campaign even though most of us struggle to remember what happened three months previously.  We obsess over every blip in the topline poll numbers, ignore the ones with good news and obsess over ever little variance within the margin of error.  And then, in the midst of our fluster, we don't drill down into the crosstabs and indeed, believe a poll without crosstabs is inherently more reliable than one that does because it has less data to confuse the clarity of our conviction of impending doom.  We are convinced that Republican TV commercials have secret subliminal mind-control instructions in them that the weak-minded fools who don't hang out on political blogs all day are powerless to resist, while our commercials are useless wastes of money. 

We are, in short, slaves to our fear and that fear—not any ads by McCain or further asshattery from the asshats at ABC News—is the only thing that can lose this one for us.  Fear is contagious.  It saps our will, suppresses our turnout and, most corrosively of all, creates the perception among the MSM and the GDI's that we lack confidence in our candidates and our party's fitness to govern.

If we act like people who, in their heart of hearts, believe we're losers, we will lose.  This is not because of any mystical juju drivel, but because we are social animals and our emotions are contagious.  To those on our side, fear turns into futility and dejection.  To those who are undecided, it reeks of defeat.  And, of course, to our enemies, it smells like sweet, sweet victory.

I am personally convinced that this was what was truly decisive in 2004.  Not the Swift-liars or the purple heart band-aids, not Kerry running out of money before the convention, not Teresa and not John Edwards' failure to be as good an attack dog as the veep candidate is supposed to be.  It was us.  We let Rove get into our heads and the critical five percent who held the keys to the White House in that election smelled the fear on us and ran from it as fast as they could. 

Well the good news is that abusers can't get into your heads if you don't let them.  In a far darker hour than any we face today, or, God willing, ever will face, a great Democrat told us how to deal with that fear:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Read the whole thing, and recall that this is what being a Democrat used to mean and it is what it must mean again because, if the hour is not as dark as it was in 1933, the stakes are stratospherically high.  We still have two wars going, no insurance, an economy in freefall, and, oh yeah, a looming environmental catastrophe that stands a fair chance of turning our children's world into a place that looks a lot like “Soylent Green.”  Preventing that means we have to stop being so afraid of losing that we can't bear to take any risks.  Stop, to coin a phrase, spinning off into “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

This means having the courage to have a little faith in the voters, both the ones who handed the Republicans a defeat in 2006 that the MSM pooh-poohed right up to the end, and the new ones who are out there now, flying under the radar of the polls “likely voter” models.  And it also means having a little faith that our candidate and his team may actually know what the hell they're doing.  That just maybe they're playing a deeper and longer game directed toward winning the actual election, rather than just “winning the week” on the banal MSM scorecard.  That faith, too, would not be blind.  Notwithstanding the hysteria about how much worse and more damaging the new, improved McCain attacks are, the fact is that the sophomoric College Republican twittery we've seen so far has been some weak shit compared to the much better conceived and executed attacks Hillary's people ran.  Indeed, so far, I haven't seen anything from McCain's frat boys that Hillary didn't try first and do better.  And yet, despite that, and the added bonus of being smarter, better prepared, and a lot better looking than McCain, it didn't work.   

But if you're having trouble mustering up that faith, whether because of your deeply held conviction that Hillary would be doing much better now, or just because Obama's not doing what you think he should, another great, albeit fictional, Democrat has some more advice for you:

"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you. Put it another way, fake it till you make it."

We're going to have some rocky days, and some bad weeks.  Some days, the horse is going to throw us and we're just going to want to lay there and bleed.  That's how it works.  No one said it was going to be easy.  Only a fool believed McCain would continue to fumble-fart around forever like he did back in those halcyon bygone days of the green screens and the scary fake smiles and only a bigger fool would believe the MSM was going to let Obama just run away with it.  We're going to have to suck it up, make with the stiff upper lips and stomp Gachnar the Fear Demon's tiny eight inch tall ass. 

And, just this once, you don't have listen to Giles; go ahead and mock the little fear demon before you step on him.  It's not tacky when he's a Republican. 

I'm not much of a poster/blogger...I have to admit I just read the articles and the comments because I love to see how like minded individuals are thinking...but what I'm noticing is everyone has an idea and an opinion of what Obama should be doing...it's like when you're watching a tv/movie and you're screaming at the tv knowing the characters can't hear your advice, but that doesn't stop you from doing it anyways...

So, I was thinking, instead of debating and analyzing better ways that Obama could respond to John McCain's (asshat) attack ads and his surrogates attacks, we can go on the offensive and create our own YouTube videos and the likes highlighting McCain's negatives/flip flops/inconsistencies that often go ignored by the msm...I'm not too savvy with creating videos online and editing, but I'm sure collectively we can come up with something...and it's free...and the good thing about YouTube and the Internet is it's easily accessible...

This is already a critical election and we can't wait for Obama to respond the way we hope he will...I say if media production and editing is your thing make a video and post it on YouTube/Facebook/MySpace anywhere that's possible...Let's create those same forwards highlighting the truth about John McCain that the average or low-information voter may not be privy to and fwd: and link it to as many people as possible. I'm even willing to call random ass people in whatever battle ground states and dispel any myths about Obama or just have an honest conversation about the issues that matter to them most and who can help solve those problems

For every Republican action there's not an opposite and equal Democratic reaction.
It's as if they didn't go to surrogate boot camp.
Where are they?  Have you seen them anywhere?
When the Republicans collectively steamroll an issue into the national dialogue, like drilling for oil in ANWR, the Democrats should counter with a powerful uppercut.  

But they hesitate.  There's a measured, let's just take it easy, none of us wants to get hurt response.   
They're tentative and the fans are screaming for them to throw a punch.    
But nothing.  
An unsatisfying hush peppered with a few Democratic quips and then, they vanish into thin air.     In this election, the loudest party wins.  And the relative quiet and wavering let's not rock the boat mentality of the Democrats is perceived as weak.  Every time they've had a chance to stand strong and resolute, they recede. 

Why?
Because the Republicans will call them weak on national security.  The Republicans will call them unpatriotic, The Republicans will say they don't want to support our troops, that they want to surrender to terrorists, lose the war,  and remain dependent on foreign oil.  The Republicans will say the Democrats just want to conduct endless investigations instead of conducting the business of the American people.  (Even though those investigations are the business of the American people.)  
Barack Obama has said we shouldn't give in to the politics of fear.  
So what do the Democrats do to set an example?  Give in to the politics of fear.
They take impeachment hearings off the table.  They never really put impeachment hearings on the table.   Investigations into almost everything evaporate.  
They stood up against military funding for an occupation and they gave in.  They stood up against telecom immunity and they gave in.  They stood up against drilling for oil and now they seem to be giving in to that too.  
It's gotten to the point where every time they stand up, I don't know what it is they stand for.  
Do they?
In terms of driving an agenda,  the Republicans have been an incredibly effective majority.  Now, even as a minority, I think the Republicans are more effective than the Democrats.  
With the Bush administration at the helm and neocons having  infiltrated every branch of government, government agency and the press over the last eight years, a party can lose its voice.  
So it's not surprising you can't hear them.  
But Democrats, it's now or never.  Eight years of going in the wrong direction on almost every issue.  Eight years of unparalleled incompetence and corruption.  
Perhaps now more than ever, independents and moderates and disillusioned Republicans are listening.  
Enough of them want to take America back.  
They want to see how passionately you'll fight for your country.  

" "

It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about an object that is not clearly defined.  When dueling parties are able to attach their own subjective definitions to fundamental vocabulary of a debate, the conversation is doomed for failure.

And that is why I ask this question: What exactly is 'The Race Card'?  We know we're not supposed to "play" it.  We know it's inherently bad and should be avoided by any self-respecting politician.  We know it's a "game-changer." 

But in spite of that, we don't seem to know what it is.

John McCain's campaign and a not-insignificant portion of the Republican Party seems to believe that The Race Card consists of any reference -- implied or otherwise -- to the issue of race in the campaign. 

Is talking about The Race Card playing The Race Card? 

Is talking about racial issues playing The Race Card?

Is talking about the historical dominance of white Christian male presidential candidates playing The Race Card?

It seems to be that we ought to be able to have more complex conversations about crucial issues like race, gender, and economic issues in this country.  We (and the media, of course) do ourselves a great disservice when we speak in terms of Cards and not in terms of facts available to us.  We spend more time talk about terms that we cannot define (such as 'The Race Card') than we do about the issues that the 'Card' implicitly represents.

Before we start making accusations of who played which card when, we should do ourselves (and our discourse) a favor and define the terms we're using.  Using a catch-all term is intellectual lazy and ultimately, confusing for those folks participating in a meaningful debate.

In recent years, Fox news won a lawsuit allowing them to lie about what they "report.."  Ok, so they're not a news channel (no news there). 

A couple of months ago, Fox covered a McCain Town Hall meeting IN FULL, start to finish, on air.  How is this NOT a contribution?  So, here is my question:

If Fox, and others, are lying about what they are saying about Obama, about parsing their reporting in an obvious attempt to benefit McCain, at what point does this become a campaign contribution?  Can the news stations be sued for their blatant stumping for one candidate over another?  When might the FEC step in (yeah, I know), to say, "Hey, you're giving $X.xx to McCain's campaign by delivering advertising for him (an hour in total equals $200,000) and that has to count towards a contribution which must be reported."

I called Lionel (on Air America) and asked him that.  He said it was a very good question, that he would look into it and report the following week.  Alas, I was out of the country that next week.

Did anyone hear what Lionel said?  What about you attorneys out there?  Thoughts?  Anyone in the know about FEC rules?

TheZoo

The New Republic (like almost everyone else, at this point) wonders why Obama has pulled ahead in the national polling:

These days, McCain’s every utterance about foreign policy seems to arrive packaged in an embarrassing slip (sorry, Senator, Pakistan doesn’t border Iraq); his crowds are paltry, and his campaign’s stage-managing of events (see the cheese-aisle press conference) is downright, well, JV.

Yet, somehow, despite all this, McCain remains in the game. This is not easy to explain–and it should cause a great deal of introspection at Obama headquarters. For all the many ways that the stars have aligned for Obama, he has yet to take full advantage of what historically has been a great opportunity. Of course, we speak of the economy. These are the type of painful times when voters invariably turn to Democrats. So why aren’t they turning to Obama in greater numbers?

Actually, it’s not terribly difficult to understand why Obama hasn’t pulled ahead in the polls; despite the fact that the national mood leans towards Democrats, it’s still the case - as it has been for the past eight years - that the electorate is basically evenly divided between the two parties.  After all, despite running in the in the aftermath of 9/11 (and in the midst of two wars), Bush only won reelection with a hair-thin margin of 2.4 percent (50.7/48.3).  When an electorate is this polarized, it should be a given that both candidates will be evenly matched for most of the election season.  We won’t see any real movement until the fall, when more people begin tuning into the campaign, and the various events swirling around (the economy, the war, etc.) begin to make an impact on each campaign.  Until then, please, chill out everyone.

(cross-posted from The United States of Jamerica)

ABC takes the Obama Camp's declaration that it was talking about race in reference to the dollar bill comment as an admission that it was "playing the race card:"

ABC: "Obama Camp Admits Playing Race Card"

The camp's actual stance on whether it "played the race card," which is much more than simply referring to race or saying that one's opponents are geared to take advantage of race (which is true to some extent) can be found here:

RCP: "Obama Denies Playing Race Card"

To be fair to ABC, Jake Tapper sided with Obama on the ridiculous Moses ad. in his blog... but there is a difference between a blog and a major headline.

Is ABC News to the right of FOX News? Sure seems that way recently.

Look who has an invitation to Schubert Flint's August 14th Open House.
I do.

Chino Blanco

McCain was there, Faux covered it live. All of it, even most of the question answer. Obama they showed a couple minutes of, then left to show 'Operation Smile' and other 'more important' crap..

CNN is showing it live, but without sound..

How shit is 'our' media?

It's time to prove that you haven't wasted your life watching TV.  Let's put that pop culture knowledge to work.

This week, Obama has refocused his campaign here at home after a successful overseas trip.  The big story has been the McCain campaign's attempt to attack Obama for . . . having a successful overseas trip.  So, they started running two new ads, one attacking Obama for cancelling a trip to a military hospital in Germany, and the other accusing Obama of being like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.  This second ad is backed by ongoing complaints that the media has been nice to Obama.

This is all very Ferris Bueller.  Remember at the end of the Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Jeanie is sitting in the police station.  Principal Rooney in a mad attempt to catch Ferris playing hooky has broken into the Bueller's home.  Jeanie, with the same mad goal, has attacked him.  She's sitting in the police station where she gets some sage advice from a young Charlie Sheen:

Jeanie:  I went home to confirm that the shithead was ditching school and a guy broke into the house and I called the cops and they picked me up for making a phony phone call.

Charlie:  What do you care if your brother ditches school?

Jeanie:  Why should he get to ditch school when everyone else has to go?

Charlie:  You could ditch.

Jeanie:  I'd get caught.

Charlie:  So, you're pissed at him because he ditches and doesn't get caught?

Jeanie: Basically.

Charlie:  Then your problem is you.

Jeanie:  Excuse me?

Charlie:  Excuse you. You oughta spend a little more time dealing with yourself and a little less time worrying about what your brother does.  It's just an opinion. . . .  There's someone you should talk to.

Jeanie:  If you say Ferris Bueller, you lose a testicle.

Charlie:  Oh, you know him?

John McCain is Jeanie--she's pissed that Ferris is so popular--he's everyone's friend, even the druggie sitting in the police station.  She's pissed that Ferris ditches school, but Ferris doesn't just ditch school, he ditches with style.

Ferris joy rides in a classic Ferrari, talks his way into an upscale restaurant, goes to a Cubs game, and does  spontaneous renditions of "Danke Schoen" and "Twist and Shout" with adoring crowds happily joining in.

Sure, who wouldn't be jealous?  But in an election, you want to be popular.  You don't want to have to argue that being popular is bad.  John McCain would happily speak before 200,000 people in Berlin.  But 200,000 people wouldn't turn out for John McCain.  John McCain's problem isn't that Barack Obama is popular--John McCain's problem is John McCain.

Yes, Obama needs to respond to the McCain campaign's Britney/vacuous celeb/uppity Black guy ads. Now. Here's my suggestion to Obama's campaign:

A new ad campaign of their own, featuring not Obama or a faceless narrator, but ordinary Americans, speaking to the camera and explaining why they strongly support Obama--why they show up at those big rallies, why maybe they've knocked on doors for his campaign, or simply how he won their vote and their respect.

Show it: It's not because they view Obama as a celebrity, not because they're foolish groupies, but because they're solid, smart Americans who've responded to Obama's plans to get us out of Iraq; expand health care coverage; take on our economic challenges; and finally do something real about both spiraling energy prices and onrushing global warming. And, because they believe Barack Obama will restore Americans' confidence in their president, and in the possiblity of democratic change that's by and for average Americans. Sunrise in America.

And, yes, also some folks who are dismayed and disgusted by John McCain's bizarre, ugly attack ads--the whole negative, bullsh-- character assassination stuff that gets us nowhere good--and can say so sensibly and convincingly.

Lots of different folks, of course--all ages, regions, ethnicities. Individuals, groups of folks, families.

In short, let Obama voters and supporters themselves put the lie to McCain's lies, and remind the Americans seeing McCain's trash ads why, in fact, so many  people are indeed streaming into those big campaign rallies. Because Barack Obama is of course not a celebrity, but an elected senator and a candidate for president, a political leader, whose apparent integrity, intelligence, grit and vision have encourged millions of Americans to support his candidacy at a time of crisis, in an historically important election. Serious stuff, and a long, long way from Britney Shields.

But you can't just say it, you look defensive; you have to show it.

The Republicans want to suck the hope out of Obama's campaign, and replace it with cynicism and division. Throw $10 million into a campaign such as I'm suggesting (right now, before the conventions), go big, especially in swing states--and you could knock a lot of that evil wind right out of McCain's sails.

Election Central reported that the McCain campaign was sinking a decent amount of cash into showing the now-infamous Britney/Paris ad around the country. I know that I'm supposed to understand that this ad is a genius ad, with all the subtle imagery included in it, and it might be, but I have some questions about it. 1. Why did the McCain take ownership of this? The RNC should have done it. McCain has provided Obama with a nice opportunity to keep saying "McCain keeps running ads about Britney Spears, and I'm out here trying to help you. Who do you want as President?" He'd have less of an opportunity to make that point had the RNC run the ad. 2. Who were the focus groups? There's a short story in today's McClatchy claiming that the ad might be hurting Obama, but when you read it, there's just not much there. The study says:

But the results that may have been most telling were the changes in whom the participants would vote for and suggested that such advertising could have an impact, especially among independents. Before viewing the ad, 75 percent of the Democrats said they would vote for Obama. After viewing the ad, that percentage was 72, while undecideds rose from 13 to 15 percent and those favoring other candidates rose from 3 to 4 percent.

So 75 to 72? And it goes on:

Similar results were recorded for Republicans and Independents. Republican support for Obama dropped from 8 to 6 percent, while McCain's percentage remained unchanged at 74 percent. Undecideds rose from 16 to 18 percent, however. Only among independents did the drop in Obama's percentage, from 44 to 43 percent, accrue to McCain, whose support went from 33 top 34 percent.

In other words, the ad had no effect. This is a tiny study (N = 300+), and maybe the ad will have a cumulative effect, but right now, I don't see the advantage for McCain. He's spending money to show this, he's tied directly to it, it provides a great soundbite for Obama, and the effectiveness of it remains in question.

Josh invites us this morning to stop whatever we're doing to check out the new campaign insight from New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/48928/ Here's the distillation of the article: "But with the weeklong string of attacks uncorked by the Arizona senator and his people during Obama’s trip abroad and in its aftermath—some brutal, some mocking, but all personal and focused on Obama’s character—we now have an inkling of just how deep in the mud McCain and his people are willing to wallow in order to win in November: right up to their Republican eyeballs" As always, Josh Marshall is high on kool-aid and cannot see past the, er, talking points memo from the Obama campaign. Here's a message to Josh Marshall: your subtle, manipulative and suggestive moral indignation is not worth the key strokes. You and others like you (formerly known as progressives) have led and clapped at the attack on the wholesale character assasination of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Remember that? Say anything to win, et al? Sorry, Josh, after what you and your candidate did to a fellow Democrat, your tsk tsk outrage has ZERO credibilty. If it was OK for Obama to campaign this way against someone, then it's OK for others to do the same. You should really be focusing on helping Obama focus on economy, jobs, gas prices and national security. Not on explaining the details of poor blond girl/horny black man stereotypes. But this is not the first time you completely miss the point.

What’s the Matter with Kansas may have been an impossible book to read, but its central point is unassailable: In a country filled with the profoundly stupid, emails spreading lies and commercials arguing ridiculous things, instead of debating our future on this planet, can have a huge effect on who wins elections.  Were this a competitive election (which it is not, solely because of George W. Bush, the savior of the Democratic Party), this would have been the week that Senator Obama’s campaign started to unravel, not based on reason, but on inanity.

Why, they keep asking, does Senator Obama consistently run behind the generic Democrat?  Why, given all that has happened, the obvious desire for change, the antipathy toward an almost historically loathed president, is Senator McCain only a half dozen or so points behind Senator Obama?

His message doesn’t resonate, they cluck on Stephanopulis.  Americans are uncomfortable with him.  Heartland, too European, most inexperienced since ummmm, oh, yeh, Bush, but....

The answer to all of this is very easy to divine, but, before we get there, keep the following in mind.  Even the notoriously pro-Republican Rasmussen has Senator Obama on the verge of sealing an electoral college victory.  There is landslide in the air, almost everyone knows it, and it will likely occur.
 
But, but, but...

Barack Obama is the son of a black man which, in this country, means he is black, a Negro, a member of the race which was enslaved by half the country when it was founded.

We have come a long way since the first four score and seven years of slavery-infested politics, and a civil war, and then another hundred years of race-infested politics until, while mourning the murder of a president from New England seeking to resolve this issue once and for all, Congress enacted, and a president from Texas signed legislation that both interjected new guarantees of fairness and law in the protection of the rights of the formerly enslaved race, and converted the solid South from being ritually loyal to the Democratic Party (the party that all but destroyed itself over slavery) to being ritually loyal to a Republican Party that abandoned what it had once stood for, to collect the votes of the most racist among us.

That’s why.

(As noted perhaps too many times in the stuff I deposit here and there, such as this one, I believe this to be the central issue of this election and the vast majority of them since we first started having contested elections when Jefferson defeated President Adams.)

At a speech to the Urban League John McCain shocked many hoping for education reform by calling teacher training to rigorous and insisting that in his administration anybody who wants to teach will have a job waiting for them.

“You can be a Nobel Laureate and not qualify to teach in most public schools today because they don’t have all the proper credits in educational theory or methodology,” McCain told his audience who sat so intent on his message that the remained enraptured and silent.

This is an injustice that needs to stop.  If those 10 or so education classes are stopping our Nobel Laureates from moving into the classroom, we need to make those classes easier.  It is well known that in most universities a huge number of students begin as education majors before the rigorous class work eventually weeds out those who can’t hack it who settle in those majors that lead to careers that pay a living wage like medicine, business, or the sciences.  Surely, teaching credentials shouldn’t be this hard to come by.

We all want the best teachers for our kids and for that reason we must make it easier to go into teaching.  If Nobel Laureates can’t hack a year of taking education classes what hope do the rest of us have?  Let’s start making this certification easier so we can get more Nobel Laureates and other learned people in front of our kids.

Take a look at this. In late June, a month before the latest fracas over who is playing the "race card" in this campaign, the McCain campaign released a television spot, in what was perhaps a test run of the current ad campaign to smear Obama as a vacuous celebrity along the lines of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, and a presumptuous, self-appointed messianic figure. It was called "Seal" -- based on the Obama campaign's use of the Presidential Seal in its own podium graphics -- and it contained a very interesting image, about half-way through: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU&feature=related So here we have the GOP using images of Obama on a $100 bill in June to ridicule and attack him, and plant the seeds of the what has emerged as the central theme of the McCain campaign -- dissing Obama nonstop, and implying that his popularity (and everything else about him) is inauthentic and self-invented. And then when Obama takesa shot at this line of attack a month later, the McCain campaign and the GOP not only cry "Race Card!!!", they do it non-stop, 24/7, as if to say that they now have the right to play the race card themselves because, in this narrative, Obama started it. Now I have seen craven attacks, but this one is a real insult to the intelligence. Are we supposed to believe that the McCain campaign is above the right wing attack machine's "Barack Hussein Obama" rhetoric, and its "Obama is secretly a Muslim who hates America" rhetoric? Please give us an empirical basis to believe that. Because McCain says he is above it? The same man who said he would run a positive campaign of issues, that would raise America, but who now says he is "proud" of the Brittany/Paris ad?? The same man who says he will never exploit the troops for political putrposes, but then runs ads falsely attacking Obama for snubbing the troops? Do they really think the public is that stupid? The answer of course is "yes" -- McCain's campaign is run by the same people who have been the architects of the past several presidential campaigns, and if there is one thing that is absolutely clear about that school of political consultants, it's that they believe in (and depend upon) stupidity and ignorance to get their "point" across. These ads are an insult to the intelligence, and so is the accusation that Obama is playing the race card in response to them. So where is the so-called Mainstream Media on this? This spot was released almost a month before the GOP cried "Race Card!!" over Obama's sarcastic statement that he would be attacked because, among other things, he doesn't look like those other Presidents on the dollar bill. But not one major cable news network or television news network has picked up on this sequencing as far as I can tell. The McCain campaign has accused Obama of injecting race into the campaign. But over a month earlier, the McCain campaign did exactly what Obama was describing -- they attacked him by showing images of how funny he looks on a $100 bill. Is the story line about the race card just too juicy to let silly little facts get in the way? Now "Seal" was not an overt racial attack. The core purpose of the ad is to ridicule Obama based on the notion that he has delusions of grandeur, that he is trying to rise above his station. Of course, anybody running for President is, by definition, arrogant and presumptuous -- after all, every presidential candidate thinks that he or she is qualified to be the leader of the most powerful country in the world. McCain, who has been at this for 10 years, is hardly an exception -- indeed, one need only look at his self-image as reflected in recent GOP ads (i.e., a glowing god-like figure looking over us from the distance), and he repeated references to his own "courage" in supporting the surge, to understand that narcissism goes with the territory (even for those the media has annointed to be "humble" or different). Ronald Reagan was a celebrity before he went into politics -- his career in politics would not have been possible but for his celebrity as a movie actor. Even McCain rode his celebrity as a POW to political office. By contrast, Obama has achieved celebrity after he ran for political office. His celebrity is based on how people are reacting to him as a politician, a leader and now a national and international figure who is admired for his accomplishments, intellect, and his unbelievable ability to inpire people to be and do better. So one candidate is completely self-made, born into a family of modest means, orphaned as a child, who got into Harvard law school, and rose to the top of his class academically (becoming president of the Harcard Law Review, which is no small feat), who eschewed big Wall Street law firms and prestigious clerkships to practice civil rights law in a working class community, and has achieved every bit of celebrity he now has entirely on his own merit. And yet he is painted as the elitist, the presumptuous and vacuous celebrity who will say and do anything to be elected. The other candidate is the son and grandson of admirals, who was at the bottom of his class and spent his years at the Naval Academy drinking and screwing around, who probably would have been expelled but for this father's rank, who had an indistinguished military record (until being shot down), who committd adultery and dumped his first wife to marry into a rich and powerful Arizona family, and who used his celebrity and family status to gain political office. But he is not painted as an elitist, even though his life story is a classic account of an elitist. Now, I have no doubt that McCain's experience as a POW shows that, underneath the surface of an irresponsible underachiever, was a man of great personal character. It is why he is a credible candidate for President, and the best of the GOP candidates in this year (or most other years). But Obama is also somebody who has a record of profound personal accomplishments, whose celebrity is the result of, not the driving force behind, his political career. So this is truly a campaign based on insulting Obama and what he has accomplished. It depends on the voter to be ignorant of what Obama has done relative to what McCain has done. It has nothing to do with where they stand on the issues, it has nothing to do with the incredible challenges the next President will face. No, this is entirely about insulting somebody and planting in the minds of an inattentive (or intellectually impaired) public this notion that Obama is a phony, an empty suit who sounds nice, but has nothing going on under the surface (and that paints his supporters as vacuous cult worshippers). No, McCain's campaign is now a campaign that is officially based upon insulting our intelligence. They are playing the "Insult the Intelligence" card -- proudly, I might add -- and the mainstream media is not only letting them do it, they are facilitating it by running the ads over and over, and not calling them on the falsehoods, which are out there to be reported. And there is only one antidote to that type of attack. We in the blogosphere need to get the facts out there if the mainstream media won't do it. Call them on it. Obama needs to focus on letting voters know what he is going to do to deal with the great challenges that face us after the Bush presidency ends. It is our responsibility to carry the heavy water in responding to these insulting attacks.

The problem: Race cards

I am a whist player myself, so I will confess up front to not being fully up to speed on the game that uses race cards.  In whist the ultimate power that any suit has is determined by last card in the pile, the one at the bottom of the deck. 

 Truth be told, I’m having trouble finding any rules at all about a game that uses race cards.  The cards themselves seem to be thematically connected, but all the suits seem the same.  I can’t determine any relative values.  And while the themes on the cards seem to celebrate the act of going around in circles, the game itself seems random and anarchic, no real sport, no subtlety.  Hardly a gentleman’s game. 

Perhaps I’m missing something.

I can't watch it anymore.  And if I do, I just turn the sound off until something of substance is being discussed. And that's become a rare occasion.  It's all McCain said this, Obama said that, McCain said this.  This isn't journalism.  This is gossip.  
Have any of you stopped watching it?  Television news has been losing viewers for over a decade.  
Here's something I wrote in another post:

I'd like the following people to ask "is it news or is it gossip?" and "Should I verify that this isn't just hearsay, or something taken out of context BEFORE I write or broadcast?
-Andrea Mitchell
-Dana Milbank
-Jake Tapper
-Bill Kristol
-Charles Krauthammer
-Jonathan Weisman
-Harold Ford Jr.
-Joe Scarborough
-Pat Buchanaan
-Wolf Blitzer

I'd also like all the cable news channels to ask:

"How many times a day should we run the same attack ad in its entirety as news, not commercial air time, before we're the ones guilty of damaging a candidate's reputation?"

"Are we just parroting what everyone else gossips about or whatever the White House talking points are or are we serving a journalistic purpose?"

"On issues, such as drilling for oil in ANWR, should we just have politicians from both sides recite talking points or should we look into an issue on our own and report facts neither side mentions?"

What's stopping Obama from appealing to moderates, independents, as well as some who've traditionally voted for the right, without at the same time alienating so many on the left, such as myself?

Wouldn't this be the kind of "new politics" he championed in the primaries?

Has he even tried it?

It's Saturday - watch some cartoons:

Car of Tomorrow

Farm of Tomorrow

Note: In an earlier post regarding the McCain campaign's video association of Obama with two current pop female pop celebrities, I mistakenly cited Lindsay Lohan instead of Britney Spears. Usually when I cite a reference to an article or ad, I check the original source and make a link to it. For some odd reason, I didn’t and thus my obvious mistake. Although blogs are mostly opinion oriented, I strive to make whatever I post fact-based since facts as well as the truth are important.

My apologies to TPM readers, to Ms. Lohan, and the McCain campaign.

***

What is McCain really inferring by his association of Obama with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? It’s not merely being a celebrity, for his campaign could have chosen George Clooney, a liberal Hollywood hunk, or Brad Pitt.

No, these gals are just frivolous, airheads, the kind who suck up more media airtime like that frivolous two-book writing, Harvard-trained, University of Chicago lawyer professor, first-term senator from the Land of Lincoln. He’s like numerous other blondes in America pop culture: Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Anna Nicole Smith, or Pam Anderson, all airheads, all frivolous, some gold-diggers.

Women like Spears and Hilton are, after all, the essence of trophy wives; nice to look at, but you don’t take them seriously.

There’s nothing serious about this guy Obama. He doesn’t inspire people; he ain’t cool like the Senator McCain, who has a war record and years in Congress.

Obama isn’t a real nigga, black man; the kind that America fears but is used to: Mr. T. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Le Bron James, Samuel Jackson, These men exude some kind of niggatude that make them a known entity, and useful. You may hate them, but they are the black devils you know rather than the Obama devil you don't know.

Obama? He’s slim and sleek, which makes him suspicious in the eyes of some of the electorate who may not vote for him because he ain’t fat. He’s has nice smile, too.

In a word, a bimbo. No, two words, an Obama bimbo.

The case Obama can make without compromising on drilling and pandering to the right in general is to suggest that McCain is playing the fiddle while Americans are suffering.
The major economic news yesterday was the massive loss of jobs and increase in unemployment. McCain's campaign puts out an ad that diverts the nation's conversation to Moses.
Before that, suicide bombers cause death and unstability in Iraq (days after Mc declares we are winning!) and we talk about Britney.
This is irresponsible and shows applaing lack of restraint and JUDGEMENT!! Why isn't Obama seizing on this?
Why bow down to these aggrieved racism claims?
Come on Barry, show some spine, would you?

McCain needs to make voters afraid of Obama. That's how Dick Morris bluntly assessed McCain's campaign strategy even as he derided the campaigns current slime as "pit-pat" punches, not a knockout.

Morris is scum, but his point is sublime. Fear is their only weapon.

"Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price on Friday was singled out and asked to leave a media area at the Panama City rally of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain."
Mr Price just happened to be the only African American reporter in attendance.  He was fully credentialed.  When another reporter questioned the ejection, she too was asked to leave.
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/CAPITOLNEWS/808020312

Start here to see when it began...

Wasn't it Schmidt, McCain's new hit man, who produced the "Call me" ad in Tennessee?

So doesn't simple logic dictate that Schmidt's recent inclusion in the McCain inner circle, followed closely by the appearance of this blond-bimbo celebrity ad are quite closely connected?

Can I get a group "DUH!"

Anyone who refuses to admit that this is just more of the same is either ultimately ignorant or "one of them" running cover for McCain's new handler(s).

One big problem for McCain. Their patent Republican myopism blinds them from the fact that Tennessee is not Iowa or Ohio or California, or even Illinois, and the same tactics that worked in a tight race in an ethnically charged and morally challenged southern state can only backfire on them in this historic election.

McCain's got a long and fruitless history of trusting in the very rogues he once lamented.

Once again, his staff of miscreant Rove wannabes has managed to create a firestorm that will burn their own ground.

I smell Mehlman and Gillespie, which means the turdblossom too is once again in full bloom, somewhere out on the Republican pasture.

Expect much, much worse as McCain's numbers inevitably falter, these kinds of ads are wholly indicative of one thing: McCain is already losing, he's replaying Bob Dole '96 for all the world to see. So they are pulling out what decency stops they still have in place, in a desperate frontal assault against overwhelming populist odds.

The writing is on the wall, and all over the blogs.  But the MSM doesn't want the fire to go out of the R's yet, they need them to remain delusional for a few more million bucks worth of ad time and space.

Yet again I've burned a more CPU cycles simulating the November elections, using data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's www.electoral-vote.com.

We're now just over 3 months away from the election, and there were a number of new state polls this week, but in terms of frequency of winning simulated elections, essentially nothing has changed since last week. Or, arguably, since mid-June: Obama continues to lead in more states, and McCain needs to improve markedly in state polling to win the race. I'm running two simulations, one using a 4% margin of error that is a snapshot of the most recent polling from each state, and another using a 12% margin of error.

4% Margin of Error
Obama wins 99.05%, averages 309.2 EV (low 255, median 310, high 378)
McCain wins 0.68%, averages 228.8 EV (low 160, median 228, high 283)
Electoral tie 0.27%

12% Margin of error
Obama wins 90.7%, averages 306.0 EV (low 182, median 307, high 404)
McCain wins 8.8%, averages 232.0 EV (low 134, median 231, high 356)
Electoral tie 0.5%

This week I took a closer look at how recent the polling is in each state. All the polls were from June or July except for five states: Wyoming's latest poll was in May, Maryland's was in early March, and Vermont, Deleware, and Hawaii were last polled in late February. All those states have double-digit or larger leads for a candidate, except Delaware, where Obama led by 9, so those states are not in play.

Of the 10 states last polled in June, only Indiana (Obama up 1 in a June 23 poll from Survey USA) had a lead of less than 8 points. So we've got recent polling from the closest states.

With all the hand-wringing about national polls and how Obama may be slipping back, I find it interesting  that what movement we see this week in the "big three" swing states is favorable to Obama. Obama led by 2 in a Quinnipiac poll in Florida, after leading by 1 and trailing by 2 in Rasmussen and ARG surveys last week. While it's not statistically significant evidence that Obama is gaining, or even that he's ahead, it is a marked improvement over spring polls where Obama had trailed by as much as 10. Florida looks like it will be close, which means McCain will have to fight hard to win it, and McCain needs Florida *much* more than Obama does.

Similarly Obama is ahead by 2 in a Quinnipiac poll of Ohio, reversing a 6 point lead for McCain in the prior week (the Votemaster's algorithm averages the two polls, since their midpoints were within 7 days of each other). So where last week my model would have given McCain Ohio almost all the time, now it's closer. I'd guess that McCain is still likely ahead in Ohio, but it's tighter than 6 points.

The latest Pennsylvania poll (Quinnipiac again; they've been busy this week!) has Obama ahead by 7, up from 5 and 4 point leads in two previous Rasmussen polls from last week and late June. The differences could be sampling noise, or minor differences in weighting between samples, so perhaps Pennsylvania isn't moving at all.  The most likely outcome as of now appears that Obama will win Pennsylvania and one of Ohio or Florida. But in the current map, Obama needs to win just one of them. And to win all three, McCain needs to see significant movement in his direction.

There is good news for McCain in other close states.  The two previous polls in Missouri in early July agreed on a 5 point gap but disagreed on the leader. This week Survey USA sees McCain up 5, so it now McCain is likely at least ahead there. After an early July poll showing Obama ahead 5 in Montana, McCain is now back ahead by one (both polls from Rasmussen). This is likely movement back in McCain's direction, but it could also be statistical noise.

North Carolina was the only other state closer than 5 points with a new poll this week, and it showed McCain ahead by 4,  no change from the previous leads of 3 and 5.

The state polling landscape hasn't materially changed since Obama's bounce from clinching the Democratic nomination in early June:  Obama is ahead in all the states Kerry won, and is also leading in 6 states Bush carried in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico.

Virginia is a tossup in current polls, and McCain's leads are less than 5 in previously solid red states North Carolina, Montana, and the Dakotas.

Certainly if opinion shifts towards McCain nationally, this race could be a dogfight, and it's far from assured that Obama will win. But he's still in a far stronger position, and McCain has yet to make sigificant progress in eroding Obama's lead in state-by-state matchups.

It has been nearly eight years since George W. Bush took office and in that time much has changed across the American landscape. From the tragedies of 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the housing foreclosure crisis to $4 a gallon gasoline and rising food costs - America 2008 is vastly different from America 2001. In your opinion, how has George W. Bush transformed the American landscape?  Under the Bush administration is the United States better or worse off today than it was in Janaury 2001?

We are small theater outside of Pittsburgh, PA, assembling stories from real people to tell the story of where America is today. These stories will be worked into monologues to be presented as an evening of live political theater.

We are looking for your point view – a one to two page fact-based story of how American life has been affected or changed by the past eight years under the Bush administration. And we are not just interested in the negative – if you believe the American situation has improved or you have been changed for the better, we’d like to hear those stories as well.

Be bold, be brave, be honest. Let your voice be heard. Don't just write partisan attacks - let your emotional response be tempered with facts.  Although there is no monetary compensation for chosen monologues, authors will be credited in the program (i.e. John Smith of Tulsa, OK) and a copy of the program will be mailed to them.

Send to letters@newobt.com . No attachemnts, please. Deadline is August 20, 2008.  Thank you for your submission. If we choose to use your story, you will be notified by August 31, 2008. H elp spread the word and please pass this along to any friends who may be interested in telling their story.

It has been nearly eight years since George W. Bush took office and in that time much has changed across the American landscape. From the tragedies of 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the housing foreclosure crisis to $4 a gallon gasoline and rising food costs - America 2008 is vastly different from America 2001. In your opinion, how has George W. Bush transformed the American landscape?  Under the Bush administration is the United States better or worse off today than it was in Janaury 2001?

We are small theater outside of Pittsburgh, PA, assembling stories from real people to tell the story of where America is today. These stories will be worked into monologues to be presented as an evening of live political theater.

We are looking for your point view – a one to two page fact-based story of how American life has been affected or changed by the past eight years under the Bush administration. And we are not just interested in the negative – if you believe the American situation has improved or you have been changed for the better, we’d like to hear those stories as well.

Be bold, be brave, be honest. Let your voice be heard. Don't just write partisan attacks - let your emotional response be tempered with facts.  Although there is no monetary compensation for chosen monologues, authors will be credited in the program (i.e. John Smith of Tulsa, OK) and a copy of the program will be mailed to them.

Send to letters@newobt.com . No attachemnts, please. Deadline is August 20, 2008.  Thank you for your submission. If we choose to use your story, you will be notified by August 31, 2008. H elp spread the word and please pass this along to any friends who may be interested in telling their story.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself."

-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I

From ThinkQuest:

Political cartoons often demean or mock groups based on stereotypes or prejudices. Although the purpose of these cartoons is undoubtedly different from the German anti-Semitic propaganda, many comparisons can be drawn between the two. Both, and all of this type of propaganda, use humor to make a point, and exaggerate stereotypes of the group it wishes to demean. Although this propaganda is rarely used heavily in wartime, in peacetime it becomes extremely important. Political cartoons very similar to those in Die Brennessel and other Nazi publications can be found in almost any newspaper or magazine published today.

From yesterday's press conference in Panama City, John McCain responds to a reporter's question about the negative campaign he is running: “I don’t think our campaign is negative in the slightest,’’ Mr. McCain went on. “I’m, we think, it’s got a lot of humor in it, and we’re having fun and enjoying it."

The use of humor, or rather what one person or group perceives as humor, has been used as both a political and a propaganda tool since the time of ancient Greece. It is one of the most powerful because it has the ability to coat a negative attack or smear against one's opponent with the veneer of a "good-natured" joke while subliminally embedding the message in the minds of the hearers. It is most effective when it implies or infers a smear or attack that plays directly to the hearers' prejudices which if overtly said would cause a backlash of negative reaction and thereby wind up damaging the attacker rather than the one attacked.

The McCain campaign has embraced this tool whole-heartedly in this election year more so than in any other election cycle because this year their opponent is black. And because of that unchangeable reality, the issues of race and racial prejudice are impossible to ignore or diminish or avoid. The problem that the McCain faces is how do they use those issues which are politically radioactive to the benefit of their candidate. They saw the perils involved their use during Hillary Clinton's campaign which caused a whirlwind of negative press when either Hillary or Bill (more ham-handedly than she) attempted to interject it into the primary race.

They have developed a rather simple formula for their negative campaign ads: Obama = black = other = foreign = non-American = dangerous. And so far, they have used this paradigm to produce these two political ads.

The Obama-as-"celeb" ad use of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton had some scratching their heads as to its point. The campaign claims that the use of those two blond white women were meant to compare their vacuous "celebrity" to that of Obama's. But the real intent was to evoke the old Southern bugaboo of the black man hungry for white women. It wasn't the first time the Republicans have used it. They used similar imagery very effectively (he lost) against Harold Ford, Jr. in his senatorial fight in Tennessee in 2006.

Obama as "The One" ad with its biblical imagery is intended to present another aspect of his "otherness". This time the audience is not the bigot but rather the religious zealot. To the casual viewer, the ad comes across as a rather heavy-handed attempt at satire not very well executed. But once again there is more subtle almost subliminal imagery buried within. It is an imagery very familiar to those on the evangelical right...Obama as the Anti-Christ. They seem to be channeling Pastor John Hagee in this one. For an in depth analysis of this I would refer you to this piece at Daily Kos by Larry Madill.

Always remember, all political campaigns for the presidency are highly disciplined, carefully structured, extremely expensive organizations. Nothing, nothing is left to chance. The highly compensated operatives in the campaigns whose job is to create its advertising campaign are all pros who have been plying their craft for years. Every ad is a carefully choreographed blend of the images, every word of copy, and even the music. It can be stated without fear of contradiction that when John McCain says they're just having fun, fun has nothing to do with it. It is a deadly serious game.

I am sure many bloggers and progressives will be wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth at the recent statement by Obama that he would negociate on offshore drilling.  This might be capitulation to McCain based on the large majority of Americans that believe we can drill our way to lower gas prices.  However, I think not.
What he really said is that he would be flexible, and is willing to make unpleasant compromises to achieve a greater good.  This is actually a very practical political move, and one that I would support.  There is the old wisdom of "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." 
Notice also that he is talking about the states sharing in profits, a windfall profits tax, and repeal of oil and gas tax breaks.  These, despite the flexibility on drilling, make it a deal killer for the oil companies and their Republican puppets in Congress.  Obama scores political points without incurring any actual damage.
Hold your fire, Progressives!

Another Friday night, and I stayed up all evening.
I saw the sun rise and I'm not ashamed.
Oh how I wish McCain could get this much money
.....he's in an awful way.

Face it, folks.  The wind has changed.

Get with the program.

Via kos, Ambinder has this report from CBS5 in Arizona about trouble brewing for McCain in his home state. (Not sure about the "(Ja?)net for 2006" signs!)
So once again, allow me to push Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano for the Democratic Vice-Presidential slot.  She was re-elected with a 63-35 margin, so she's popular in AZ for sure...  As I wrote on my blog earlier (follow the "push" link above):

"Of course, Senator McCain's from Arizona as well. But that's precisely the point - the sheer audacity of the pick would show that the Democrats are taking the fight to Senator McCain's homeground. With Arizonians on both major party tickets, there's less of a "favorite progeny" factor. Senator McCain would have to spend time and money defending a "given" state, further stretching his resources (considerably lower, for sure, than Senator Obama's). And IMHO, that's a good compelling reason to have a Democratic VP pick who happens to be a woman not named Clinton."

And might I add - maybe that would make McCain blow his fuse in public ;-)

And she assures me that Barack Obama is, in fact, not The One.

You can imagine my profound sense of disappointment.  Here, I had placed all of my electoral eggs in Sen. Obama's transcendental basket.

Sen. McCain released his silly "The One" ad today for his supporters.  I kept thinking that there must be some subterranean message in this eminently mockable advertisement.  However, not being a part of the wing-nut, 'Left Behind' culture, I missed the false prophet overtones. 

But, according to 'The Google', this 'Obama is the Anti-Christ' stuff has been percolating in the wing-nuttery world all year.  So, I get it now.  This is the quintessential 'dog whistle' ad, which is meant to pray on fears that Obama is the Anti-Christ [I literally can't believe I just wrote those words].

By the way, notwithstanding how much happier I was thirty minutes ago before I knew that typing 'Obama' & 'Anti-Christ' into Google would generate almost a million hits, if you believe that Sen. Obama is the Anti-Christ and it has been foretold by the Book of Revelation--then you should probably be forced to undergo sterilization.  This are genes that we desperately need to ween from the pool.

Did you know that there's a website 'anti-christ.com?  I'll give you one guess as to its two main pieces of content--give up?

The first is a sinister looking Barack Obama.
The second is John McCain's 'The One' ad.

Note also that there's close to a thousand comments in the discussion of whether or not Sen. Obama is, in fact, the anti-Christ, including these gems:

Obama is evil.

I am not saying that he is the antichrist…I don’t believe anyone can know that except God Himself, but I do believe that he will be our next President and what may seem like at first to be a “heaven-sent” solution for our nation, will eventually be the beginning of it’s destruction.

Before I knew anything about Obama, I knew that something with him is not right with him. A black man (and I’m black by the way) with the name hussein, who won’t salute the flag, whose wife has never been proud of America, and who wants to disarm this country could only be winning because satan is backing him. There is no other logical explaination, especially after 911. No way should our next president be named hussein obama, sounds too much like osama. I am 99.999 percent sure that this is the real deal people. The end is very near. Let’s get busy telling the unsaved about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the Way the Truth and the Life. And he is coming soon. I have been reading all the scriptures I can on endtime prophecy. The more I read them, the more I am covinced that obama is the antichrist and he is taking the world by surprise because no one expects him to be a black man.

Obama will start us at the End Of Days….. Al-Qaeda backed Obama before and will do so again. Israel has always been backed by GOD and there planning to bomb Iran before Obama gets into office. If they do not succeed then Obama will cut off Israel when he gets into the presidential office because he owes Al-Qaeda.

Obama is scary!!! Several people have mentioned to me that they get strange, evil vibes from him. Lets hope he is not the anti-christ.

You know, forget the forced sterilization--just pray for these deluded people.

And send Sen. Obama some $$$$$$$$.  Praise the Lord and pass the offering plate.

I try to keep abreast of what's going on the far Right, so for the last few weeks I have been keeping up on the nightly Fox shows. It really does amaze me how the man could be paid to do what he does.

Obviously, I understand that the man has strong opinions and can invite these folks that echo the twisted talking points. What cracks me up though is how seriously he takes on these "issues' with faux outrage.

His greatest hits this week are mainly on Obama's "radical" associations: Ludacris (because Obama thinks he's a "talented" artist), Malcolm X (because he read his books), Frank Marshall Davis (Chicago socialist/ Marxist that Obama read), Luis Farrakhan (Obama went to the Million Man march, but he's not sure they've met), William Ayers (They had dinners, many "associations").

I mean come now! I laugh out loud, snicker and say there's no way anyone believes this grunge right? At least I hope so because if other viewers believe this stuff then we all have to be REALLY afraid.

Hi there, come on in.  May a get you something?  Sure.  If you're not overdressed for the heat why not join a few of us outside?  I just got here myself a small while ago and changed clothes straight away.  Old cut-offs are the best thing in the world for summer, assuming you don't need to be too decent.  Luckily I know you don't care.  OK, now we have our wine, let's go listen to crickets.

It's hot - the sultry, sticky kind of hot.  Makes you sweat right away, as if the humidity a predator waiting for your skin.  Once it attacks, it spreads, consuming your body until you feel that first drop rolling between your shoulder blades.  The next down your neck ... slowly winding along your chest.  Makes your hair wet with its sexy summer shower of moisture.  You must stay still as it takes you over, assumes control.  If you are very still you can hear it breathe.

Then a drop lands smack in your eye and burns like hell.  No, I'm fine.  I like to sweat, but you?  Are you overdressed?

  

The late, but still unsinkable, Molly Ivins once counseled: "Never get into a mud wrestling contest with a pig; you get all muddy and the pig loves it."  Still I can't help but wonder why McCain is attacking the experience of Barack Obama.

Even more shocking, given the military history he has taken pains to bury, is his assertion that Obama does not have McCain's military experience, repeatedly claiming that McCain is by far the most experienced and therefore the most trustworthy candidate to fill the role of Commander-In-Chief.

Therefore, since McCain has announced today that he will stick by his recent ads featuring a classic presentation of the fallacy, argumentum ad hominem (by association), some Dems think it only fair to examine his claim that he has the military experience that we need in these trying times of "war."

McCain's 1967 USS Forrestal Incident

August 1-3, 2008 -- With McCain's campaign firing off anti-Obama videos, there is one video John McCain doesn't want anyone to see:

Courtesy of The Wayne Madsen Report:

"The John McCain campaign is releasing a series of anti-Barack Obama videos. However, there is one video that Johnny "Wet Start" McCain, as he was known after the disastrous USS Forrestal fire in 1967, does not want America to see."

From WMR, November 20, 2007: WMR has learned additional details regarding the deadly fire aboard the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, on July 19, 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The additional details point to then-Lieut. Commander John McCain playing more of a role in triggering the fire and explosions than previously reported.

WMR also cited the potential that McCain's Navy records were used against him by the neocons in control of the Pentagon, "The neo-cons, who have had five years to examine every file within the Department of Defense, have likely accessed documents that could prove embarrassing to McCain, who was on board the USS Forrestal on July 29, 1967, and whose A-4 Skyhawk was struck by an air-to-ground Zuni missile that had misfired from an F-4 Phantom."

In McCain's case, the "wet-start" apparently "cooked off" and launched the Zuni rocket from the rear F-4 that touched off the explosions and massive fire. The F-4 pilot was reportedly killed in the conflagration.

"Wet starting" was apparently a common practice among young "hot-dog" pilots. McCain was quickly transferred to the USS Oriskany (the only Forrestal crewman to be immediately transferred). After the disaster, McCain was shot down over North Vietnam on October 26, 1967.

"McCain was confronted by Forrestal fire survivors with his role in starting the Forrestal fire during his 2000 presidential campaign, particularly in South Carolina. McCain was visibly shaken by the encounter with the survivors, according to some who contacted WMR. WMR is pleased to present the video that causes McCain to turn whiter than his usual wan complexion. Watch the following video and McCain's reaction to any mention of the Forrestal is understandable."  -Wayne Madsen

See Video Here

Nate Silver's the mastermind of FiveThirtyEight.com, which if you haven't been there, it's the straight dope for poll junkies. The guy - who is also the guy from Baseball Prospectus who invented the PECOTA sabermetric system (for analyzing baseball talent), has now turned his statistical sights on the '08 federal elections - presidential, senate, house, the whole nine. It's amazing how many insights the guy has, coming from such a fresh perspective and all.

knowing his background and having read his blog for months now, I'm convinced Nate Silver is some kind of rare analytic guru. So when he writes a post designed to call the attention of the major liberal bloggers I'm more than happy to pass it along.

Today Nate spies a Pew survey and gets a wee bit shrill at the pro-Obama crowd. Money quote:

...it’s not even close among Democratic voters that the press favors Obama. That’s called utter failure of the Democratic blogosphere to influence the debate on press favoritism. Democratic bloggers and television analysts need to accept that if they want to fight this battle they need to scrap the entire ineffective strategy they’re using and start from scratch.

My only response: what would this new counter-bias strategy look like?

That's not a rhetorical question; I really have no idea. I'll hash out some ideas here but I'd really like to hear what others think.

As far as I can tell, the only thing bloggers can do effectively is (a) provide their partisans a community space and (b) spread the word to them about anti-Obama bias when they spot it. Between TPM, Kos, MyDD, Eschaton, Firedoglake and a mess of others, aren't they doing a pretty good job?

In my estimation the problem is that while bloggers do have some reach, the MSM isn't gonna pass a "process" story like press favoritism along that easily. And they're allergic to media-oriented process stories in particular. Really, even the conservative "liberal bias" meme doesn't get a whole lot of play on the non-FOX networks or top-line newspapers unless a conservative is doing the talking.

The only exception is when an unavoidably-juicy "news peg" happens by, and the MSM has no choice but to discuss the issue. Maybe we bloggers should do more to help provide that peg, to give some news-catching embodiment to the notion of anti-Obama media bias.

To explain what I'm thinking, take the Dan Rather/Memogate "scandal". That story was a goldmine to the "Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias! Liberal Bias!" right. But the story itself wasn't going anywhere without the involvement of Dan Rather and 60 Minutes, and it wouldn't have had the effect that it did if CBS hadn't botched the journalism.

Why did Dan Rather and CBS get into the story? Because they realized the memos about Bush's were being provided by a sympathetic person with a controversial story in Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. A potentially hot news peg if you can get most of his story out - which you can, on a venue like 60 Minutes.

And how did Rush Limbaugh, et al. turn Memogate into a clarion call against "Liberal Bias"? Because Dan Rather, a highly-visible symbol of the MSM, fumbled the ball badly.

Note the archetypical dynamics of the story: A tragic victim, scorned and seeking vengeance. A botched assassination of the President. The fall of a giant among men. The near-mythical resonance of this story outline is the key to Memogate, and why it continues to reverberate in conservative circles today.

We need that kind of moment so that the public can rearrage their preconceptions about Obama's media treatment.

But who will be our Dan Rather?

Count me in as saying it should have been Katie Couric, two weeks ago when the whole "fake interview" stuff first came to light. Really, the liberal commentary on that issue across the blogosphere was pretty weak tea. Lots of mild outrage and snark, but no true call to action outside of a few credits to petitions and reader posts. Next time something like that happens - and it will, any moment now really - we should give no mercy. Squeal louder and louder until you get some grease.

Anyone else have some thoughts?

My Republican/Right-Leaning Independent family members weighed in, last weekend, with their opinions. Here is what I gleaned: 1. He talks down to us. We don't want to hear that we should lose weight and drive smaller cars. (My counter: *rolls eyes* and plans to buy a Prius and start exercising more). 2. He's smug. Arrogant. (My counter: So are you, sometimes). 3. He falters when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him. (My counter: McCain falters when he DOES). 4. He planned this since after he wrote his first book. Maybe before then. (My counter: McCain has been planning to be President even longer....and hey, he wrote a book too!) 5. We don't like big government. (My counter: I don't like small-minded people running and owning everything while the rest of us get diddley-squat.) As you can see, I had a fun weekend with my Republican family. Truth be told, though, I still love them. And they still love me. And they admit that they think Obama's gonna win this thing. And they admit that they can put up with that. They also admit that they don't do ONE QUARTER OF A THIRD of what I do for their candidate, like I do for Obama. Republicans.....they are so silly.

The country was reeling from the verdict in the OJ Simpson case When Robert Shapiro Told Barbara Walters "not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck."

Since that time, the race card has been used as a bludgeon to halt  serious airing of differences in how aggregates of Whites and African-Americans view certain situations. Ask Blacks and Whites how much racist exists or how much racial progress in racial relations has occurred or whether the judicial system is colorblind , and there are marked differences in opinion. Are Blacks playing the race card, or just  reflecting their point of view based on life experiences?

Let's go back to the case that served as the agent for introducing the term race card into the language. OJ Simpson's acquittal caused a surge of anger throughout the country. During and after the trial Johnnie Cochran was viewed as a man responsible for setting race relations back several decades.

Paradoxically, many legal analysts felt that OJ would be in prison stripes today if Cochran had been the prosecutor. Cochran would have analyzed the jury in detail. For the Black women on the jury, OJ would have been portrayed as a brutal man who hated Black women. Simpson had divorced his African-American wife. The ex-jock then cavorted with Caucasian blondes. By the time Cochran was finished emphasizing abandonment of Black women, Simpson would have been convicted in a flash.

If the jury had been all-White, Cochran would have presented the same focused data, this time emphasizing the blondes. Again, conviction would be the result. Cochran had the benefit of a prosecution team that was too arrogant to take into account different life experiences of the jury.

Would Cochran have been guilty of playing the race card with the African-American jury or the White jury?

We have now entered a dismal turn in the Presidential race. Obama makes a factual statement. Barack Obama says that he doesn't look like any of the people on US paper currency. To deny that simple reality is absurd. McCain says that because race has been mentioned, Obama has played the race card.

The underlying message being sent to African-Americans is that we may let you in the door, but don't force us to address the fact that you are not Caucasian. We agree to accept you if you deny your ethnicity. A corollary of this message is that there is nothing of importance that someone who is not White could tell us. Be White and you'll be alright.

There is no race card. There are only different life experiences. We don't want to address the contrasts.

        Some will find this somewhat inflamatory, but it needs to be said. I am a white Southerner who saw the overt racist campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s as well as the less overt subsequent campaigns which were almost all Republican.  I am proud that I played a very, very small part in ridding the Democratic Party racism as a very, very minor "foot soldier."  I remember vivdly watching Jesse Helms "editorials" on Raliegh Channel 5 while attending Duke University in the mid 1960s and how that station signed off with Dixie rather than the Star Spangled Banner or America the Beautiful.  I also observed the segregationists leaving the Democratic Party in 1964 and being welcomed by the Republicans with Strom Thuromnd and Jesse Helms being the primary instruments integrating them into the Party of Lincoln.
       The McCain campaign's Spears/Hilton ad is a vicious appeal to the baser racist instincts in some of the American electorate. It is somewhat more substle than the RNC "blond bimbo" ad run against then Rep. Harold Ford in 2006. It is a blatant appeal to the racist myth that African-American males are a threat to ravish white women and must be stopped by any means. If Senator Obama is subjected to physical attack, this ad will be one of the instigators.
    This racist myth has its origins in European anti-semitism wherein one of the "inflamatory" myths propounded was that of the rapacious Jew whose most fervent desire was to ravish Christian virgins (female).  This myth, or memory as some refer to it, was imported into the racist cannon in the form of the "fact" that black men had as their sole purpose the desire to ravish white women, especially the blond and purportedly virginal. This was used during slavery as a means of represion and became even more virluent after the civil war. Countless African-American men were lynched to perpetuate this memory.
    This is the background to the McCain ad. Unfortunately the memory to which to ad appeals still exists in our nation. These folks know precisely what they are doing. If you look at the ad, the insertion of the pictures of Spears and Hilton make no sense to the "story line" of the ad. They are only put in there in close proximity to images of Mr. Obama to appeal to the racist memory that black men want to ravish white women and that to protect white women Mr. Obama must be defeated. [I do not think even the McCain campaign purports to making any appeals to protection of virginity with those two photos.]
     Why has the media not labelled this as a blaant racist appeal? I suspect that they would say that McCain cannot be personally racist given the multi-cultural backgound of his adopted children for whom he obviously has deep affection. I do not doubt that he does have that deep affection, BUT he cannot have any perosnal illusion about the racist appeal of that ad.  McCain went to prep school here in Northern Virginia at the height of the Byrd machine's campaign of massive resistance to desgregation. [The Harry Byrd machine controlled Virginia for decades and used some of the most vicious tactics to [reserve segregation and to preserve the power of the Virginia establishment.]  McCain had to have witnessed these viscious racist attacks which included the overt propagation of the rape memory. He knows that this was a blatant racist appeal. He lived in the middle of it.  Someone who uses racist appeals to win an election cannot escape the label notwithstanding their familial actions.  If anything, that makes even more despicable.
   If you look at the biography of Mr. Charles Black, purportedly the "godfather" of the McCain campaign, you will discover that he was a key part of every campaign Jesse Helms ran.
   Is anyone suprised at this campaign?

For those of an academic bent, the following are several rather good books which provide some background to my analysis/essay.
Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil rights 1919-1950, WW Norton, 2008.

W. Fitzhugh Brundage, The Southern Past: A Clash of Race and Memory,  Belknap (Harvard) Press, 2005.

Corey Robin, Fear: The History of A Political Idea, Oxford U. Press, 2004.

Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Facisim, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

There is also the classic writing by V.O. Keys and C. Vann Woodward.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/08/01/0801obama1.html


This may be the smartest thing I've seen him do.  I understand people have qualms about it, but with 75% of the electorate for offshore drilling in one form or another, this could have killed his campaign.  The key is reading SPECIFICALLY what he said.  I've read through his energy plan, and he's been calling for something similar along these lines for a while. 

There are several things to note:

1.  He is for offshore drilling ONLY in a comprehensive plan (which the republicans would never allow)
2.  This is classic "Bill Clinton" triangulation, and that was surprising. 
3.  Remember, he's not giving the profits from this to the oil companies.  He's planning on taxing the windfall profits and giving 1000 to families and 500 dollars to individuals.  This is going to prevent that issue from lining up. 
4.  He just massively negated McCain's stranglehold on the issue.  McCain can't call him a flip-flopper because he did the exact same thing.
5.  Folks, this is the only thing holding McCain's campaign afloat.  This is not a good day from the Senator from AZ. 

Thoughts? 

Who da thunk it?

Going negative and winning. Well, me of course. Sure could use a fighter and it is not too late to run her.

It goes downhill for Obama from  here.

I tried to tell you but don't feel bad, the dems are corrupt too. They are holding out on drilling to get more "campaign" millions from big oil just like they did on FISA from the telcos.

They will cave to big oil when they get back just like they did on FISA. Change that unity with corporate. Yeah, right.

That gop stunt at the end of this session was hilarious.

Hope it hits Youtube.

UPDATED: 8/1/2008- And so the saga continues. When we last left off, the joker Karl Rove had narrowly escaped an impending Congressional subpoena by stealthily sneaking on a plane to Yalta. But just when he thought he was safe, we now learn that John Bates, a federal judge who we hope is no longer cowed by the dark shadow of Chief Joker Bush and his ilk, has ruled that current and former White House aides are not immune from Congressional subpoenas. And from this ruling, it looks like our shadowy villain may acquire two sidekicks in his battle to evade a subpoena: White House aides Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten.

This landmark ruling is the first of its kind, in which the courts have decided to enforce a Congressional subpoena against the White House. But can Rove get away again? Dana Perino, a spokesperson for the Joker's main protectors, who reside in their shadowy lair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., issued a statement suggesting that the White House may appeal this decision.

There's only one woman who can save the fight for Rove's subpoena: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although the House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Rove in contempt of Congress, the full House must vote for it to make it official. For that to happen, Pelosi, our black knight now paralyzed by political pressure, must schedule the vote.

Join the force now by sending an email to Pelosi, asking her to schedule the full House vote immediately.

 

---------

“Absolutely, 100%, Aye.” Such was the enthusiastic vote of Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) today, when the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena. The committee said that Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

Rove claims that Congress can't force him to testify because of . . . wait for it . . . executive privilege! Taking the Bush administration's already shopworn privilege claim to newly ridiculous extremes, Rove, who no longer works at the White House, is claiming executive privilege for allegedly illegal activity -- a claim that the Supreme Court ripped to shreds in the Nixon case some 30 years ago.

Executive or not, no one should be so 'privileged' that they are above the law. I guess it makes sense that a man carrying such disdain for the law that he would regard it merely as a suggestion while serving the White House would continue to think himself immune to consequences.

Americans are tired of the blatant disrespect for the law and constitutional foundation that Bush administration officials have practiced for the past 8 years. As much as we're all looking forward to new leadership in Washington, we have to hold these people to account for what they've done to our country. The next step to move forward to hold Rove in contempt is for the entire house to vote on the matter. Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to schedule this vote for this to happen, but the AP has reported that it is unclear whether she will allow for a final vote.

The House Judiciary Committee has done its job. Now it's Nancy Pelosi's turn to do hers. We cannot allow the Democratic-majority Congress to bow to the will of the Bush administration any longer. Send an email to Nancy Pelosi, urging her to schedule to full house vote to hold Rove in contempt immediately.

This celebrity issue is clearly something that will resonate with voters such as myself.  Now hear me out before you criticize.

Yes, I know to be running for president one must possess a large ego, but for Barack,  is that all he has?  On the other hand, for our modest Humble john, clearly his prostate is larger.  Because of this, McCain, can also claim the experience of already answering those 3 AM calls.  God knows, he might already be up at that time anyway. If he is up, he obviously is thinking about Paris or Britney and thinking about giving his buddy, Bob Dole, a call on how to get a hold of some of that Viagra.

Also McCain is firm in his convictions.  When he says, 'that depends', we all know what that means.   Besides, McCain is just more huggable.

Your thoughts?

This McCain ad actually PUT OBAMA'S FACE ON MONEY!  WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT IT?!?!?  It's a conversation changer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU

Oh, well.  No one in the media is talking about this Obama ad either, and it's probably good that they got it out there under the radar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPLSHKH0h4

I like it.  It's a tough ad.  You may have to watch it 2 or 3 times to catch the underlying theme from the key words:

PAST, SAME, OLD, FAILED.

It's Obama's inflated ego the McCain campaign is using against him, not his race.

Here's the latest.

This one follows ads lampooning the MSM's adulation of Obama and his celebrity status. 

Obama made the mistake of trying to change the subject to race when the celebrity ad aired.  He needs to stay cool when he addresses the el mano poderosa ad.

Now, as someone who has been severely lampooned myself, I feel for Obama, and I think I can give him some advice.

First of all, I'd say, McCain just made a fool out of you.  Don't dwell on it.  Whatever you do, don't torture yourself with pictures of old John McCain rolling on the floor laughing every time Charlton Heston bellows: "Behold his powerful hand!"  You'll just make yourself sick.  Bright guys like us get really upset when the dummies get in a shot.  Get over it.

Second, don't whine or complain that the ad takes a cheap shot by using one of your few attempts at humor against you.  I know it's irritating that they used about the only joke you've ever told on yourself to ridicule you, but that's what campaigns do.  And don't fall into the trap of explaining that you were joking and they made fun of your joke.  That's lame.

So what can you do?  Keep laughing at yourself, and at McCain.  Hire some joke writers.  In the meantime, don't be afraid to steal a joke or two.  Stealing jokes will put you in the tradition of great comedians.  Go for it.

Here's one  that's been making the rounds on the web.  You can touch it up to vex old McCain.

When I was in Germany, Andrea Merkel said:  Barack, why are you running?  How can you win? You're a lawyer, married to a lawyer.  McCain is a war hero, married to a woman with big breasts and a brewery.  How can there be a contest?

See how McCain likes those apples.

The Ted Stevens corruption trial is scheduled for 24th September. While it might be possible to hold the trial and return a verdict in the six weeks before the election this is by no means certain.

More interesting for the GOP is the fact that the last day on which a candidacy can be withdrawn is September 17th. The filing deadline has already passed.

So given that Stevens has clearly no intention of stepping down before the trial and given that with no obviously electable alternative it is highly likely he will be nominated, the best outcome the GOP can hope for here is that they go into the election after weeks of hearing about the Veco funded extension. The most likely outcome is that Stevens has been convicted.

Given those circumstances its not just the Senate race that the Alaska Republicans need to be worried about. Corruption on this scale clings to everything.

So says David Plouffe, in a video he sent to all supporters who (apparently) had contributed to the Obama Campaign during that time.

He said,

Remarkably, over 100,000 people made contributions just yesterday alone; over a third of those being first-time contributors.

He also attacks McCain and his campaign for "going down a lower road." I quite enjoyed it myself.

Still, 200,000 donors in a week? That's impressive. I guess the supporters are really turning out in droves to combat McCain's blatant and baseless negative attacks. Absolutely wonderful!

$11.68 billion . . . That's how much money ExxonMobil reported earning in its second quarter report.

1 . . . That's the rank of ExxonMobil's quarterly profit among all American companies. Ever.

Doubled . . . That's what happened to the price of a barrel of oil from 2001 to 2005.

Doubled again . . . That's what happened to the price of a barrel of oil from 2005 to March 2008.

Rose 40% . . . That's what happened to the price of a barrel of oil from March to July 2008.

85.5 million . . . That's how many barrels of oil the world consumes every day. 

1.9 million . . . That's how many barrels of oil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would produce per day, at best and not for 20 years, if Congress opened it to drilling today.

2 million . . . That's how many barrels of oil that protected areas of the Outer-Continental Shelf would produce per day, at best and not for 7 years, if Congress opened them to drilling today. LINK

2.5 million . . . That's how many barrels of oil we'd save per day by 2020 if Washington, instead, doubled federal gas mileage standards for new cars and trucks.

$10 billion . . . That's how much we're still spending every month on the war in Iraq.

In short, Big Oil is earning record profits and oil prices are skyrocketing because oil consumption is high and supplies are low and all the oil in Alaska and all the oil off the coasts of Florida and California won't lower prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so if we want to stop spending billions on wars in countries that, as Al Gore says, happen to have a lot of oil, we better start conserving and shifting to clean energy. Now.

How much did you spend in taxes on the war in Iraq last year? And how much clean energy would that money have bought? Click here to find out.

The NYTimes is now running a piece called "Malwebolence: The Trolls Among Us" which will be in the Sunday magazine. It is a profile of several well-known internet trolls and although the ones mentioned are not overtly political the techniques and attitudes they display are similar to the trolls that we see here at TPM.

Shortly after I read that I saw McCain's presser and the latest web ad and the similarity of the methods and attitude is obvious to me. McCain has become a geriatric political troll. 

These ads are designed to get a rise out of Democrats and the Obama campaign and stimulate the Republican base. McCain can't energize the wingnuts with issues because he doesn't agree with them on most and he has flopped all over the place on the rest. He has to get the base going with ATTITUDE. And nothing gets a rise out of wingnuts like poking at Democrats until they get a reaction, the bigger the reaction the better. And then hopefully get Democrats so pissed that they say something that will be used against them.

He intends to bring down Obama and the entire process with infectious nihilism. Drag Obama into the gutter and then come out of the Republican Convention and change his tune back to that ole mavericky dude that the press loves so much.

Besides the fact that Obama is on the same side of the issues as most of the electorate, I think Obama is too calm and cool for this to succeed.

According to TPM, Eli Pariser was meant to post here to discuss MoveOn.org's 10th year and its past and future impacts on the progressive movement.  Since the debate this week was largely about whether MoveOn is a genuine movement that empowers individual progressives or is a typical, top down marketting or lobbying organization, having Pariser here to join the discussion and to engage with TPM's readers was of paramount importance.

I understand that Pariser is busy.  It's an election year.  MoveOn is a big organization.  But, come on.  If MoveOn wants those of us in the netroots or in the wider progressive world to believe that it can or will be responsive to our ideas than Pariser should make darned sure to not only show up in forums like this one but that he engages with the readers and not just the writers that TPM invited to dicuss his organization on the main page.

Absent a good explanation (and maybe there is one) it seems like Pariser dissed us.  What gives?

Newsflash: Obama Receives Endorsements from New Testament Figures.

In a video erroneously released by the McCain campaign, Moses was shown tacitly endorsing Senator Obama.

This action by the Old Testament Legend triggered endorsements by Giants of the New Testament. In a coordinated announcement, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit also gave their blessings to Obama, also anointing Him as The One.

The Three glowed, providing a heavenly backdrop as a spokesangel read a prepared statement. "We join Moses in our endorsement of Barack Obama. While He was in the desert during his trip in the Middle East, we put the Senator to the test three times and He passed with flying colors."

The McCain campaign, in an attempt at damage control, questioned the actual number of endorsements received by Obama.

"Obama is claiming three new endorsements, but in acuality, he only received one," said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis, "Obama is playing the Trinity Card, and sadly, he's dealing from the bottom of the deck."

An unidentified high ranking official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, disclosed that the McCain camp is desperately trying to find Biblical figures to endorse their candidate. "Holding hands with the Dalai Lama [as seen midway through this video] is not enough. McCain suggested Allah, but, as Joe Lieberman reminded him, the God of Islam is not in the Bible. We're trying to land Joseph and Mary, but securing Jesus' parents won't be easy."

Anyone else starting to think that the recent anti-Obama ads are more about republican's fears than any actual Obama liabilities? I.e. that they are afraid he is a messiah of sorts, that he is becoming an uncontainable celebrity, of the sort that could not possiblty lose an election (Arnold &c.)?

In light of the well-known rovian tactic of attacking your opponent's greatest strength, might we be getting a glimpse of just how dim they believe their own prospects to be?

It's one thing to make fun of obama for what he says, but to impart any biblical references into a commerical- that's a new low. I wonder how the religious right he so desperately needs feels about this.

I feel like going on a rant about this, and I may have some questions to pose afterward.

 

So here’s the deal:  I’m 21 years old, and like many African-Americans (and Americans in general, really) I have had to work hard for my success.  My family’s income has never been more than $25k a year, I’m in college, and I have an older sister that also went.  As first-generation students who have had to endure the consequences of institutionalized racism, my sister and I know what it means to work hard in this country.  And we are both glad to see Obama run for president of the US.

 

Notice that I said president of the US.  Not black America, but the entire country.  I saw this article and got a bit fumed, even though I know there will be people like this around for quite some time.  I can understand the frustration—a poll around 1990 or so showed that 4 out of 10 blacks believe the government should intervene to aid full equality; only 1 in 10 whites favor government policies to reverse the past.  I’d guess the numbers are the same now.  However, it annoys me a bit when people ask what he should do to “speak to the interests of the black community” and questions why he should run a government that has attacked “his people”.  That’s loosely paraphrased, but I’ve seen many people ask similar things before and even attack Obama for wanting to run the “white man’s show”, as my grandmother says.  I know it’s a generational thing, but I pray for the day that African-Americans can let go of this animosity towards our country and truly notice the strides we have made. 

 

Yes, we need to make progress.  LOTS of progress.   But keep in mind that first of all, one guy cannot do it all.  Secondly, I hope that “addressing black issues” is not always a code word for “give me free money”.  Blacks have to realize that they are not the only ones with issues; there are quite a few working-class whites who have to live paycheck to paycheck also.  Government solutions to past discriminatory practices must be practical and not hinder the progress of other Americans—the idea that some throw around the idea of reparations (even Alan Keyes did supported this in ’04 in his Senate “run” against Obama) is nuts.  We have to look to ourselves to get the motivation to make our lives much better…government can intervene, especially in rough times like now, but I hope people aren’t banking on the black guy (and actually, half-black guy really) to pander to them just because he looks like you.  I am glad to see Obama respond the way he did.  The fact is that most government officials do see these problems to a degree (maybe not the White House, at least according to Kanye West), but I’m really not sure if blacks can really get themselves to really understand.  I also don’t know if I’m going anywhere with this post.

 

I’m not sure what it is that blacks want, if anything…even though I’m black.  I’m graduating from college in a year, and from there I know I will have a much better life than my parents had…which is what they raised me to do.  All I know is that this is a problem that just has to phase itself out, and that government can speed up the process, but it will never be fast enough for people. 

 

Any of you have ideas?  Is there anything that government can really do to satiate the African-American community?  Is there anything government can do that won’t tick off white people?  And what is it going to take for blacks and whites to realize that we’re all in this together?

When did our political discourse turn in to a three-ring circus? Maybe it happened a long time ago and I missed it. But today, the republicans are being even more insipid than usual.

First, there’s John McCain, playing the “they played the race card” card and putting up a new ad linking Obama to Moses (yes, that’s right, the Charlton Heston variety) in the hopes that it gives his beloved media something to talk about this weekend.

Then, there’s the NRCC telling their congressional candidates to go right ahead and criticize their own party and plan on skipping the convention.

Finally, there were the incumbent republican congressmen and congresswomen on the House floor, yammering on about offshore drilling after (AFTER) the lights and microphones were turned off and Congress had adjourned for the August recess.
 
A petard trifecta, if you ask me. But still, it pisses me off.

All the problems we face, and they’re channeling Shecky Greene. Maybe they should take their act to the Catskills circa 1956. They would kill.

Or maybe they should get their heads out of their asses, stop worrying so much about losing their grip on power, and actually try to forge some solutions with their democratic congressional colleagues. (Note to those colleagues: Stop looking so smug. Take your song and dance to a subway platform and you might earn enough for a gallon of gas.)

I know, I know. They’re too busy hurling insults across the aisle to have time to address issues important to those of us out here in their actual districts. But I’m just a Pollyanna at heart. I actually believe leaders ought to show some leadership. Instead, we get a freaking vaudeville revival.

Ignore the imagery and listen to the "Obama Obama Obama" soundtrack in McCain's ads. Do you notice what's missing? The pause for breath between "Obama"s. In this classic use of visceral response in conditioning, you become uncomfortable, both because there is something unnatural about a crowd that doesn't need to breathe to chant, and even more because you empathicly feel you can't breathe yourself - just to the extent you identify with the chanting crowd.

The visual imagery and the narratives are all a distraction to set this up: the feeling that the very name "Obama" is suffocating. Because this conditioning happens below consciousness, it will color future footage in crowds chant for Obama with normal pauses for breath. It's insidious, a move by the McCain camp to win not through conscious message, but by a very crude sort of conditioning.

Are psych ops specialists helping produce this stuff?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/01/mccain-camp-happy-to-inje_n_116360.html
What is he insinuating?  Is it obvious?  

The apparent stalemate chracterizing Barack Obama's poll numbers is a function of a confluence of factors among which the unrebutted John McCain attacks---or delayed response thereto--- have had a very effective impact of significantly suppressing what should have been a significant edge in the polls for Obama following his overseas trip. For the entire week during that trip he had all but ceded the battlefield to McCain who used it to level one attack after another against Obama with maximum effect. And quite inexplicably Barack has passed up every opportunity to aggressively counter-act these charges untill very late as if he had been lulled into a false sense of complacency in the tradition of previous Democratic presidential candidates whose political demise was precipitated by their failure to fight back at crucial moments when it mattered most.   With the foregoing in mind, then, this vitual deadlock in polls between these two rival canidates will continue perhaps until right into the Democratic Convention. The problem is that in the immediate aftermath of the primaries Obama did not do enough---if any effort at all---to define himself before the McCain campaign defines him, which is precisely what they are now doing. All those campaign ads that raised  eyebrows within political and social circles are calculated to dramatically shift the strategic intitiative in McCain's favor through the saturation of the airwaves with negative ads all designed to decisively define Obama and systematically trumpet their talking points geared to inculcate their poliltical narrative. What then can Obama do? He should respond to these negative ads soon enough. There should be no doubt that they work, even though the public has invariably professed aversion toward negativity. With this in mind, it cannot be stressed strongly enough that as running-mate, assuming winning this election is an inexorable imperative for Obama, he should pick someone who has the stomach for a fight, while he himself stays above pettiness and nastiness that increasingly characterize this election. Hillary Clinton remains the best pick. Republicans know full well that if she were to be picked, they would be in trouble. Meanwhile McCain seems content because his negativity is dominating the headlines, without anybody on the opposite side to confront him.   Without doubt, and in view of the above, Obama's options are quickly dissipating if he does not adapt his tactical approach within a broader strategic framework encompassing the amalgamation and utilization of resources
toward the re-orientation of his campaign to  tactical and strtegic readiness to respond to attacks and smears in a timely fashion rather than wait for a week or two while McCain's smears and attacks gain traction. 

The McCain campaign has been indignantly accusatory over the following words by Obama:

They're going to try to say that I'm a risky guy, they're going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he's got a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they're going to send out nasty emails.

Barack Obama was merely describing behavior in which the McCain campaign has already been engaging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU&feature=related

Credit to commenter pjay.

Or at least I hope that Obama is running to make history. I hope that Obama does feel he can make a historic difference to our country in a way that other leaders do. Otherwise I won't vote for him. Why would I want someone who is just like me...an average person sitting at my desk plugging away slow and sure. I want BIG ideas...BIG dreams...Slow and Sure may win the race and may make some difference...But I am ready to quote take the "Risk" and see what he can do. This is why we have a 3 part system of government. It is not like Obama can become president and overthrow the checks and balances of the government. I am ready to take the risk and see if this can be "the moment"...versus taking 100 years to make progress....

Talking about celebrities and politics, negative ads and the "low road" benefits no one; it seeks to discourage voters confidence in the system and, in the long run, depress voter turn out.  It sparks anger on both sides, perpetuating the partisan divide and helping maintain the status quo.  With that in mind, I got to thinking about the substantive questions that I want John McCain to answer; questions that would force McCain to make policy statements that would redirect the media cycle.  

Although CW wisdom says that McCain is open to all questions and has actually been asked some tough ones, the reality is that his answers to an even marginally well thought question have provided some of the best examples in this entire campaign of the disaster that would be a McCain presidency, and the horrific risk involved in electing him (for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1NweA9662g&feature=related

So I've started a list of questions on a broad range of topics that Senator McCain should be forced to answer.

Foreign Policy

1.  What specifically would you do differently from this administration to capture or kill Osama bin Laden?

1. How do you plan to work with the Pakistani and Afghan governments to secure the border of Afghanistan and decrease tensions between these two important allies?

1.  Beyond adding two brigades, what is your plan for future NATO operations in Afghanistan?  

1.  Define victory in Iraq.

1.  Do you plan to maintain the Bush Defense Department and Department of State or would you make major changes in the leadership?

1.  You've said that troop reductions in Iraq would be predicated on conditions on the ground; on exactly which conditions would this decision be made and what measure would you use to judge satisfactory progress?

1.  How do you plan to pursue peace between Israel and the Palestinians?  

1.  Do you have any non-military plans or ideas to force Iran to end its nuclear weapons program?

1.  How will your administration help Lebanon's tenuous democracy?

1.  Would you be willing to pursue direct diplomacy with Syria?

1.  What, if any, plans do you have in or for Darfur?

1.  What is your vision of future US/Russian relations?

1.  How high a priority is pursuing better and more open relations with the Chinese?

1.  Can you think of any US action that you would at least explore that could help the people of Zimbabwe?

1.  A relatively bright spot in Bush's foreign policy has been its funding of AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa, what would be your policy in this regard?

1.  Which, if any, foreign policy issues do you think you could pursue through diplomacy within the United Nations?

Trade Policy (I don't know know enough about this, unfortunately)

1.  You've said you're for current and further free trade deals with foreign nations; during your presidency, which nations would you pursue such treaties with?

1.  How would your economic policy help stop the decline of the US dollar?  

1.  Would you increase funding to the FDA and other agencies in order to better test imported food and other products for contaminants?  Is this currently included in your budget estimates?

Education

1.  Would you increase, decrease or maintain at current levels funding for the Department of Education?

1.  How do you plan to reverse the increasing education gap between the US and our economic partners and competitors?

1.  Are you in favor of funding increased early childhood education?  Is this currently included in your budget estimates?

1.  What is your policy towards federal research funding of universities?

1.  Regardless of what you think the federal government's role should be in the questions, do you think children should be taught Intelligent Design in school?

Energy

1.  What are your plans to build the necessary energy infrastructure to achieve your goal of decreasing US dependence on foreign oil and promote renewable energy technology?  Is funding for infrastructure development included in your current budget estimates?

1.  Within your renewable energy goals, which technologies do you think show the most promise, and what specifically do you know about how they work and what part they could play in your plan's success?

1.  What are the specific reasons for current or future subsidies to oil companies?

1.  What would be your policy with regard to nuclear waste disposal?

1.  With impending dramatic increases in home heating costs this winter, do you have any plans to provide Americans with economic relief?

Environment

1.  Is it your opinion that the federal government's official policy should be that global warming is real and a threat, and, as such, should be a priority of your government?

1.  Do you have plans to pursue an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  What would you envision the framework of such a treaty would include?

1.  Do you believe that FEMA has been sufficiently reformed since its response to Hurricane Katrina?  How would FEMA work better under your presidency than it has over the past four years?

1.  President Bush has listed the fewest species ever on the endangered species list, while ignoring government scientists in the process; would you continue his policy towards America protecting endangered species?

Social Issues

1.  As president, would you make a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade be prerequisite for consideration as a Supreme Court justice nomination?

1.  What is your policy towards equal pay?  Why do you think women currently get paid less in the work place for the same work?

1.  You've said you don't believe in a quota system of affirmative action; is there any affirmative action policy that you would pursue as president?

1.  Do you believe English should be the official language of the United States?

1.  Regardless of the federal government's role in the matter, is there any gun control that you would support?

Military

1.  How will you work to decrease the number of suicides of US soldiers and veterans?

1.  Do you believe the current Veterans Administration is living up to our nation's duty to support all of our veterans' mental and physical health needs?

1.  You've said that you would have used more troops for the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq; as president, what level of troops would you have sent to Iraq for the past five years?

1.  Prior to 9/11, one of the priorities of the Defense Department was transforming America's military for the 21st century; would this be a goal of your administration's Department of Defense and in what areas do you see substantial changes in the structure, technology, combat readiness, and force projection of our future military?

1.  As president, would you work to close Guantanamo Bay's detention facility?

Economy

1.  How much impact do you believe the federal government has or can have on the US economy?

1.  Do you believe that more regulation is necessary within the credit and banking industry?  If so, which specific regulations would your administration pursue to ensure more transparent and effective business practices?

1.  Do you believe Alan Greenspan was a successful Federal Reserve chairman in his final two years?

1.  If the economy worsens further, would you be in favor of another round of stimulus checks for lower and middle class Americans?

1.  In which sectors of the US economy do you see the potential to bring the economy out recession, real or potential?

1.  Are you in favor of government intervention to save failing banks?  If so, would you differentiate between small banks and large ones when deciding on whether to grant government assistance?

1.  Is there any general economic theory that you guides your policy views?

Health Care (don't know enough here either)

1.  What percentage of income do you believe middle class Americans should pay for health care?

1.  Where do you see potential for decreasing health care costs and increasing the neediest Americans' access to health care?  

The McCain Campaign

1.  Has there been any change in your policy towards employing lobbyists within your campaign?

1.  In what, if any, way is your campaign working to increase turnout in the 2008 election?

1.  Do you believe the management of your campaign provides any indications on how you would run the White House?

Open Government

1.  Are there any aspects of the Bush administration that you would have the Justice Department investigate as president?

1.  As president, would you allow high ranking members of your administration testify before Congress when asked?

1.  Which, if any, specific policies would your administration pursue towards greater transparency within the Executive Branch?

1.  Would you use executive signing statements to alter the meaning and impact of legislation?

1.  Would you maintain the majority of Bush administration political appointees within the federal government?

Oh I don't know what the hell McBushies are up to!! After being Paris and Britney or like them or whatever... Obama is now Moses and Jesus!! I would have expected them to show Obama as Muhammad, instead they went for Moses LOL. Oh and watch for Dana Milbank's gift to the McCain campaign featured prominently in the ad.
On a serious note though, the strategy seems to be to attack Obama's strength - all that charisma and youth is fluff, if the 8 attack ads in 2 weeks are to be believed...

Oh I don't know what the hell McBushies are up to!! I would have expected them to show Obama as Muhammad, instead they went for Moses LOL. Oh and watch for Dana Milbank's gift to the McCain campaign featured prominently in the ad.
Check this out --
http://theutubeblog.com/2008/08/01/john-mccains-new-the-one-ad-compares-barack-obama-to-moses-jesus/

On a serious note though, the strategy seems to be to attack Obama's strength - all that charisma and youth is fluff, if the 8 attack ads in 2 weeks are to be believed...

McCain's latest triviality aimed against Obama is a poorly conceived, but appropriately simplistic attack that claims that Obama left out the Latin countries when he made his speech in Germany. The speech is punctuated with a driving rhythm and cut-away titles in Spanish only.

The one that really got me was the last title, which roughly translated asked "Did he forget about us?" US? John McCain is a latino? WTF?

If they had asked "Did he forget about you?" it would have made a certain sense, but us?

If I were hispanic, I'd be pretty offended by this pasty old white dude married to an even pastier blonde heiress, McCain's self-inclusion in my racial identity.

Another example of the lame, amateurish crap that the McCain camp keeps turning out. I hope the hispanic community notices its presumptuousness. Yes, McCain is being presumtuous. Go figure.

Glenn Greenwald posts a comprehensive and enlightening summary of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the lie that they were perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, and ABC's complicity in the whole matter.  
Here's the link.  (Scroll down a little on the page.)
I think it's important for everyone to read because as Glenn suggests, the anthrax scare was another example of the administration using a curiously all too cooperative press to seed the idea that the anthrax came from Iraq, when in fact, it came from a U.S. government lab.  

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/1/103419/3802/773/560613

We have long had an absurd policy re Pakistan. Condi Rice, our incredibly incompetent Secretary of State, urged Benazir Bhutto to make an ill-advised trip back to her former domain, only to be assassinated, Mafia-style, by alleged al Qaeda operatives (not the ones who hosed down the crime scene immediately after the operation, however).

President Bush was urged by many in Pakistan and in the U.S. to prevail upon the Pakistanis to undertake a U.N. investigation into the perpetrators of this murder, much like the one our President has been cheerleading for years into the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri, former PM of Lebanon.
Intuititively, one would think that the assignation of blame in the one case to Syria, and in the other to al-Qaeda, would actually lay out a stronger case for a full-fledged intvestigation into the latter crime than the former, given that Syria is merely a state sponsor of terror, while al-Qaeda is Terror, Inc., itself.

But no. Al-Qaeda can wait, as it always does, while the Shiite Crescent and regions adjacent take priority.
Now, apparently, our friends (the ISI, I mean) have decided to blow up embassies, too.

It was, according to a State Department official, an 'aha' moment.

Some of us catch on slower than others...

Senate Republicans should be embarrassed by the floor debate on energy this week. Their transparent pandering to oil and gas interests and hedge funds should outrage every American with genuine concern about our nation’s future. Senators acting as oil company hacks, echoing half-truths and untruths like puppets while they stall any meaningful progress on our energy problems. America is less addicted to oil than these senators are to the oil industry and their lobbyists’ pocketbooks. Have these senators forgotten their duty to promote the general welfare? Indeed, they read the constitution to promote instead the oil industry welfare so that oil company coffers open to them, and likewise the speculators.  

You don’t cure heroin addiction by finding a new hood where you can “cop your score” closer to home; you can’t cure alcoholism by changing your brand of vodka; and you won’t cure oil addiction by drilling in ANWR, the OCS, or anywhere else, except Detroit. You climb out of an addiction using sublimation, substitution and redirection.

Sublimation, the first step, requires finding and committing to a higher purpose. That higher purpose is slapping us all in the face right now. It is the emerging climate crisis that hangs over us. Unchecked, humankind is facing a global holocaust more dreadful than all the wars and famines of the twentieth century combined.  For centuries we have reached into the bowels of mother earth and retrieved her sequestered waste. We have smeared it across the face of her lands, her oceans, and her skies. The higher purpose is survival. It is to preserve a habitable planet earth for humankind to live upon and prosper.

Thus the central principle of our sublimation must be to minimize use of fossil fuels in every form. This is the “having the guts” part, where you really make the decision to fail or to succeed. So far, the clinical reality is that the decision has been indecision, and failure looms as the clock ticks toward the tipping point. Eventually congress will decide because the pain we in the public feel will be reflected back upon them. That level of dissatisfaction is approaching fast as congress plumbs the historical lows of public approval. The dictates of wisdom should move them to action before that occurs, but the dictates of self preservation demand action now.

How do we minimize fossil fuel consumption? Conservation is certainly number one, and billions of barrels of oil can be drilled out of the soil of Detroit at a fraction of the cost of drilling the OCS, while improving rather than worsening our carbon balance. Beyond conservation and the gains of enhanced efficiency, substitution is the second rung of the ladder from addiction. We are a mobile society and our mobility is currently predicated on liquid fuels. That will change as advances in energy storage technology move us toward electric vehicles. However, today, liquid fuels are the most efficient means of portable energy storage. One kilogram of gasoline contains 46.9 MJ (Mega Joules) of energy whereas a one kilogram state-of-the-art lithium ion battery will hold less than 1 MJ. Even assuming an electric motor to have double the efficiency of a gasoline engine, liquid fuels still store power 20 to 25 times more efficiently than any battery on the horizon.

Biomass conversion into liquid fuels is the only avenue open to us at this time. Even with rapid deployment of electric vehicles, the fleet turnover rate in the US will require liquid fuels for the next several decades. Ethanol is only a stopgap in the change to biofuels. Ethanol is a satisfactory oxygen carrier for blending with hydrocarbons, but it is a less than satisfactory fuel in itself. However, new biologic processes are already available to produce hydrocarbons from myriad forms of biomass including forest waste, municipal waste, agricultural waste, construction debris, old tires, and various energy crops like switchgrass and miscanthus that can be grown on marginal lands. Much of the current ethanol production capacity can be retrofitted to produce hydrocarbons, and at a much lower cost since, unlike ethanol, hydrocarbons are immiscible with the water environment in which they are produced. They simply rise to the surface like fat to be skimmed off, saving the enormous energy cost of distillation. Biogasoline, biodiesel, and biojetfuel can all be produced and profitably retailed at half the cost of today’s petroleum-based products.

We have the capacity to substitute hydrocarbon biofuels for petroleum fuels, and end our reliance on foreign energy sources within a decade. To do this, no food crops are necessary, and no food producing cropland need be diverted to energy crop production. During a recent congressional debates it was said that there are 34 million land acres under lease to oil companies who are not drilling. This is double the energy cropland necessary to make us petroleum independent. There is an excellent analysis of this issue in a white paper by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, entitled “Where Will Biofuels and Biomass Feedstocks Come From?”  This paper and others are available on the Khosla Ventures web site, http://www.khoslaventures.com. I urge anyone interested in our energy future to read it.

The amount of solar energy striking earth every 40 minutes is sufficient to provide enough electrical power to meet our planetary consumption for a year. We can capture that energy the old fashioned way (biologically), or we can capture it more directly using advanced photovoltaic and solar-thermal techniques. We must forget about coal which, like fast food, is cheap, plentiful, and accessible, but very unhealthy. The use of coal is a blight; it is damaging to the air, the land, and the water. Like petroleum, it is the sequestered waste from earth’s dim past. Let it lie! Instead of removing mountain tops and destroying their surrounding valleys and waters, dot those mountains with solar collectors and wind turbines. This should be the course of our redirection, the final rung on that metaphorical ladder from addiction to freedom. Sustainability. Electricity the common currency of energy, and the sun, our source of energy, sustenance, and life.

So, please, can we get beyond the rhetoric, partisanship, and the control of government policy by fossil fuel lobbyists? Stop the nonsense of drilling for petroleum to battle the scourge of petroleum, dispel the oxymoron of clean coal, and end the fraud of nuclear power. The sun will provide us with all the biomass required to fulfill our liquid fuels needs, all the photovoltaic, solar thermal, and wind power required to fulfill our electrical energy needs, and both are scalable to meet all our energy needs for generations to come. All without pollution and greenhouse gases. It is there for the taking.

Please contact your senators and tell them that it’s time get real and make this new energy paradigm a reality now.  If you have a Republican senator who's up for re-election, sock it to 'em!

Senator Obama recently said that he is looking for VP candidate that will not be just a yes person, and someone who will challenge him, when he thinks that he is wrong. I wonder if he has some senior campaign people that are willing to do that? The reason why I ask that question is:

I think Senator Obama is getting careless with some of his prepared speeches. Most of you know that I am an ardent Obama backer, but I do think he should not be pointing out how he looks different. Here is my reasoning on that issue.

When he gave his keynote speech, and his race relations speech, he stressed that there is not a black America and a white America, there is the United States of America. When he then starts to draw attention to his color, and lets be honest about this, when he said in Berlin that he does not look like the previous Americans who had spoken there, of course he was talking about his racial difference. Every one who heard that speech knew that he was making that point.

I felt at the time that that was striking a discordant note with his one America theme. Why did he even have to bring it up. His skin color is apparent. He should not be making a point of it.

Now, this is where I think that his campaign staff are being sloppy. They should not have ever let him say that in Germany. Then, when returned home, as is usual with most candidates, they recycle a lot of their prior speeches, and what he said in Germany he repeated to a domestic crowd.

I would not be at all surprised if the McCain camp had taken note of what he said in Berlin about looking different, and were just waiting for him to repeat it to any American audience, and they were ready to pounce.

I think Obama made a mistake. Drawing attention to how he looks different, conflicts with his message of one America. He needs to be told that, and stop pointing out how he looks to people who can see how he looks.

I do not believe that he was intentionally playing the race card. I think that, in Berlin,  he was attempting to highlight the historic nature of his nomination, but then he got sloppy and used the same language to slip into decrying the Republican attacks on him.

That was a big mistake. His staff better get their act together. The candidate is on such a hectic schedule that he does not have any time for reflection and contemplation about the impact of such words. His staff better be doing so. On this occasion they did not. They better not let it keep happening.

This is elementary folks. The first black nominee for President should not be making any allusions to his skin color or race.  Senator Obama started out knowing that. His campaign staff are supposed to make sure that his speeches do not contradict that.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/143513.html

This guy doesn't care about the issues at all.....

I have a child with autism who enjoys watching certain sections of videos repeatedly.  He really likes it when I mimic the voices of the characters in the videos.  There is a section in Bug's Life where one of the ants asks the question, "You mean to tell me that our entire defensive strategy was concocted by clowns....(later in the the same dialogue Flick says, "The bird will work!"  If you substitute Surge for Bird and McCain for Flick you have the McSame storyline.

Let's look at the Gallup poll out yesterday that showed that a significantly larger percentage of Americans believe the surge has worked. The number has more than doubled from a few months ago.  The media never mentions one or two important components of that success.  I will.

1.  (From Factcheck.org) We are paying Iraqis, some of whom were formerly hostile insurgents, to police areas and fight terrorists. In late 2006, some Sunni Iraqis began to turn against foreign terrorist groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq. This is generally referred to as the Sunni Awakening or the Anbar Awakening. The U.S. military acted on this trend, according to the Congressional Research Service:

CRS: In the course of the “troop surge,” U.S. commanders have taken advantage of this Awakening trend by turning over informal security responsibility to 91,000 former militants called “Concerned Local Citizens” (CLC’s) or “Sons of Iraq” in exchange for an end to their anti-U.S. operations.

But the Army says that these individuals are not merely sitting idle. Commanding General of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq David Petraeus elaborated on their role in his testimony to Congress in April, saying the Sons of Iraq are "under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads." He went on to say that they have "contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons and explosives caches."

And of course, these contracts come at a cost. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. is paying about $16 million dollars a month to members of the Sons of Iraq. Petraeus emphasized during his testimony that the "savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence — not to mention the priceless lives saved — have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts."

Nonetheless, there is movement to shift these costs to the Iraqi government. In May, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a measure prohibiting the U.S. from funding reconstruction efforts, such as the Sons of Iraq, that cost more than $2 million. And Petraeus says that "over 21,000 [members of the forces] have already been accepted into the Police or Army or other government jobs" and moved over to their payroll.

2.  Using statistics to lie. .. I've recently read but can't find the original reference to the pentagon's report omitting the number of people (US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians) killed by IEDs from the number of combat related deaths.  OF course the surge worked we're not getting shot at we're just getting blown up. IEDs aren't combat related deaths or casualties. Tell that to the families of dead soldiers and those soldiers who survived their IED injuries. If any one out there would like to help with that reference please do so. I'll find it eventually.

'PRAISE THE ONE': New McCain Ad Attacks the 'Divine Obama'... Developing.

After scrupulously ignoring the story for years, the media now is declaring "solved" the long-dormant anthrax attack investigation - after a "person of interest" in the mysterious 2001 case apparently committed suicide.

The overdose death of Fort Detrick researcher Bruce E. Ivins has brought back to life dim memories of the diabolical bio-weapon plot, in which anthrax-seeded letters were sent to Congressional leaders and media figures. Apparently, Ivins' death also has confirmed that he committed the act. According to the Washington Post:

"A federal grand jury was preparing to indict a Maryland bioweapons expert for his role in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and terrorized the country, according to two sources familiar with the investigation."

"Prosecutors were considering whether to seek the death penalty against Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who worked at an elite U.S. Army bioweapons laboratory in Fort Detrick. Ivins died Tuesday in an apparent suicide."

The Post, in a remarkable replay of its rush-to-judgment with an earlier suspect, has just about strapped Ivins to the execution gurney and jammed him with the pin; remember, there are only "reports" of an imminent indictment. To its credit, however, The Associated Press, is not so resolute:

"The Justice Department has not yet decided whether to close the investigation, officials said, meaning it's still not certain whether Ivins acted alone or had help. One official close to the case said that decision was expected within days. If the case is closed soon, one official said, that will indicate that Ivins was the lone suspect."

As long-time anthrax attack watcher Ed Lake notes: "Is that just an interpretation from reporters?  If the case is still open, a reporter might write such a statement even if the truth were that Ivins' role in the attacks was minor."

The mailings occurred only a few weeks after the horror of 9/11 had left the nation distraught and wary of further terror attacks. In addition to the five persons who died, several were hospitalized after coming in contact with the "weaponized" disease spores; the case disrupted postal services nationwide, and many public buildings including Congressional offices were shut down for testing.

Ivins, a Fort Detrick bio-weapons researcher, has not been promiently mentioned in previous coverage of the story, but his death apparently is enough to answer any and all questions surrounding this most enigmatic chapter of recent history. From the Los Angeles Times story, filed last night:

"The extraordinary turn of events followed the government's payment in June of a settlement valued at $5.82 million to a former government scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, who was long targeted as the FBI's chief suspect despite a lack of any evidence that he had ever possessed anthrax.

"The payout to Hatfill, a highly unusual development that all but exonerated him of committing the anthrax mailings, was an essential step to clear the way for prosecuting Ivins, according to lawyers familiar with the matter.

"Federal investigators moved away from Hatfill - for years the only publicly identified "person of interest" - and ultimately concluded that Ivins was the culprit after FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006.

"The FBI's new top investigators - Vincent B. Lisi and Edward W. Montooth - instructed agents to re-examine leads or potential suspects that may have received insufficient attention. Moreover, significant progress was made in analyzing properties of the anthrax powder recovered from separate letters that were addressed to two U.S. senators."

Hatfill had been all-but convicted in the press for the attacks, with the Post's coverage leading the lynch mob; it was not a proud moment for the Fifth Estate. The leak of his name underwrote a close - too close - cooperation between government and media in the opening days of our "War of Terror" era. After it became clear the case against him was dodgy at best, virtually all media coverage of the investigation abruptly stopped.

Accounts of Ivins suicide imply he'd been under treatment for depression, but how long remains unclear. In any event, most stories confirm that he was getting the full Hatfill crucifixion treatment from the FBI. The Times story quotes a colleague of his this way:

"He didn't have any more money to spend on legal fees. He was much more emotionally labile, in terms of sensitivity to things, than most scientists. ... He was very thin skinned."

I'll bet a full-on FBI brace - complete with surly agents tossing the homestead and bum-rush interrogations - would make just about anyone "thin-skinned."

There are some very mysterious, very dark aspects to events that occured in late-summer, early-fall seven long years ago - and the anthrax attack case is one of the most screwy. At first glance, the letters seemed to point a finger at Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who's deep attraction to chemical/biological warfare was well-known as early as the 1980s. We had been told in the decade prior to 9/11 that he had an active anthrax weapons project cooking along, and the fatal letter attacks help lay the groundwork for the American invasion that would topple him 18 months later.

This must be pointed out: The attacks were suspiciously propitious for those campaigning for the Iraq War. As with any mysterious incident we must ask, "Cui bono?" - "Who benefits"?

As for the new developments, Lake points out: "I certainly hope that we learn more about the evidence in this case.  There is absolutely NOTHING about evidence in any of these news articles."

His site is at: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/#comments

 

 

(Cross posted at 1,369 lightbulbs.)

The Wall Street Journal - yes, the same one now owned by News Corp head Rupert Murdoch - published a column today by Daniel Henninger that, in our meme-obsessed political media, should gain some real traction. Especially since it raises a far more important question than any they've been discussing in the few days.

Daniel Henninger wonders aloud whether John McCain is stupid:

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation...

What I'm asking is, does John McCain have the mental focus, the intellectual discipline, to avoid being out-slicked by Barack Obama, if he isn't abandoned by his own voters?...

The one thing -- arguably the only thing -- the McCain candidacy has going for it is a sense among voters that they don't know what Barack Obama stands for or believes. Why then would Mr. McCain give voters reason to wonder the same thing about himself? You're supposed to sow doubt about the other guy, not do it to yourself.

Yes, Sen. McCain must somehow appeal to independents and blue-collar Hillary Democrats. A degree of pandering to the center is inevitable. But this stuff isn't pandering; it's simply stupid. Al Gore's own climate allies separated themselves from his preposterous free-of-oil-in-10-years whopper. Sen. McCain saying off-handedly that it's "doable" is, in a word, thoughtless.

(Watch the video segment included with the online article, found here.)

While calling for all guns on deck with his recent, virulent and vitriolic attacks, John McCain has accidentally pointed them at himself.

His negative advertising was expected well in advance by the Obama team. While they did their damnedest to exploit Obama's fairly innocuous "dollar-bill" statement (and Obama should've known better to even crack the door open), they'll get a day's action out of that, tops. Plus, the media's already noted that Obama said something even more explicit several weeks ago - the "did I mention he's Black?" comment - and seems to have collectively shrugged its shoulders. (Here, the race-baiting of Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to have finally produced something positive - the collective exhaustion of the media with regard to race.)

The all-negative, all-the-time approach of the McCain campaign only serves to highlight the fact that Senator McCain's candidacy is an increasingly empty one. As much as the racist Pat Buchanan tries to smear Obama by saying that a mere response to a negative ad is evidence that the ad "works", he provides us a useful measure to evaluate Obama's foreign trip. If Obama's trip was so ineffective, as the Republicans claim, then why has McCain put Obama so frantically on full blast?

Granted, some of the polls show McCain's drive-by is bearing some fruit. But what does this mean for his overall campaign? Sure, demonizing the Democrat is sure to win back some of those GOPers that had been hesitant to support him and still may stay home on November 4. And as Salon's Joe Conason notes, his deal with the very devils that destroyed him in 2000 began long ago. But what about the independents, or the aforementioned Hillary Holdouts that he seeks to woo? Is this at all a smart strategy for the long-term? As Conason notes, even his beloved "base", the media, is to the point of pleading with the Arizona senator to be the guy they fell in love with again. No one seems to know what the hell is up with this guy:

For many of the journalists who regard John McCain as an unusually honorable politician, listening to his increasingly dishonorable campaign rhetoric is a painful and puzzling experience. They are openly wondering what has driven him to denigrate and even smear Barack Obama in a style more reminiscent of McCain's old enemies in his own party than the straight-talking maverick. They want to believe that he has not really changed, and that somehow these lapses can be blamed on someone else. Like a spouse in a bad marriage, they have yet to face up to the fact that he actually changed years ago -- or to ask if he was ever the man they once thought he was.

McCain's ahead in the short term, but it looks as though this may be damaging to him in the end - especially since Obama was smart enough to pre-empt this stuff long ago. So was going so desperately negative a wise strategy?

Considering that McCain's honor is his selling point and not his Bushist policy, how could it be?

Henninger agrees:

The forces arrayed against Sen. McCain's candidacy are formidable: an unpopular president, the near impossibility of extending Republican White House rule for three terms, the GOP trailing in races at every level, a listless fundraising base, doubtful sentiments about the war, a flailing economy.

The generic Democratic presidential candidate should win handily. Barack Obama, though vulnerable at the margin, is a very strong candidate. This will be a turnout election. To win, Mr. McCain needs every Republican vote he can hold.

And even that may not be enough. Smarten up, Senator.

(Or better yet, don't.)

Last week I was fortunate to have one of my questions asked of John McCain at CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. My question was for McCain to define victory in Iraq. The answer he gave was long and circular, including one of his conditions for victory was the U.S. pulling out of Iraq - in other words he thinks one of the signs of victory, how we'll know that we've won, will be when U.S. troops leave. Of course that begs the question, how do we know when to leave? When would be the polite time? And why are we now relagated to house-guest status, when once we were the leader of the free world?
 
I heard from a mother of a some sevice men recently and she expressed to me that her sons, both of whom have served in Iraq, don't want to go back (mulitple tours, years of their life gone, careers thrown off) and that the Iraqi people do not want us there. Not quite the message McCain and Bush have been trying to hammer into the American pysche I think.

The most ludacris of all of McCain's conditions for victory was the idea of a "normal" country, that when Iraq is more like a "normal" country we can leave. What exactly is a normal country and when will some Americans really realize that we don't fully understand the culture over there. For example, look what happened to the Palestinians - they get democracy, hold an election, and guess who wins? Hamas!

The problem with Democracy is you can't always predict what the populace will do. McCain's condition for victory denies the possibility that the Iraqi people will choose to go a different path on any number of issues - which then begs the question of what happens if we don't like what their eventual idea of "normal" is...

Living abroad as a child I got to experience different cultures and understand that how one community does something may not translate into another. Something I think McCain's foriegn policy (or lack there of) ignores.

If you want to see my response to McCain go to:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-54079

In a different thread talking about Obama's numerous achievements as a US Senator, much was said about the success rate of the multiple bills he sponsored or co-sponsored.  It was apparent that several of the people posting there weren't aware of the obstruction tactics employed by the Republicans, earning them the title of the Most Obstructionist Congress in American History.

Stopping any legislation for anything that might benefit this country, or the people of this country, is a badge of honor to Republicans. No way, you say?

"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us. Democrats are taking the blame for not getting anything done."

(R)Trent Lott, Roll Call, April 18, 2007

Sounds like a badge of honor to me.  And one this Republican is pretty proud of, to boot!

Let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

Oliver Willis wrote the following (be sure to watch the video):

* Senate Republicans have obstructed almost every bill in the Senate - even ones with wide bipartisan support.

* So far, in the first half of the first session of the 110th Congress, there have been THIRTEEN cloture votes on motions to proceed - each one wasting days of Senate time. (110th Congress, Roll Call Votes #44, 51, 53, 74, 129, 132, 133, 162, 173, 207, 208, 227, and 228)
* In comparison, in the first sessions of the 108th and 109th Congresses combined, there were a total of FOUR cloture votes on motions to proceed.

EIGHT times Republican obstruction tactics slowed critical legislation

* Fulfilling the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (Passed 97-0, Roll Call Vote #53)
* Improving security at our courts ( Passed 93-3, Roll Call Vote #133)
* Water Resources Development Act (Passed 89-7, Roll Call Vote #162)
* A joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq (Passed 89-9, Roll Call Vote, #74)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 69-23, Roll Call Vote #173)
* Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Passed 64-35, Roll Call Vote #228)
* CLEAN Energy Act ( Passed 91-0, Roll Call Vote #208)
* Funding for the Intelligence Community (Passed 94-3, Roll Call Vote #129)

FOUR times Republicans blocked legislation from being debated

* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked comprehensive immigration reform (Rejected 45-50, Roll Call Vote #206)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

FOUR times Republicans stopped bills from reaching a vote

* Senate Republicans blocked funding for the intelligence community. ( Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)
* Senate Republicans blocked raising the minimum wage. (54-43, Roll Call Vote #23)
* Senate Republicans blocked ethics reforms (Rejected 51-46, Roll Call Vote #16)
* Senate Republicans blocked funding for renewable energy (Rejected 57-36, Roll Call Vote #223)

TWICE Republicans blocked bills from going to conference

* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations (6/26/07)
* Senate Republicans blocked appointing conferees on ethics reform ( 6/26/07)

ThinkProgress added this one: 

– Conservatives blocked a vote on funding for the intelligence community (Rejected 41-40, Roll Call Vote #130)

And from Politico: 

Indeed, this Senate may break the record number of filibusters for a two-year session in just 12 months. Democrats have filed 58 cloture petitions in the Senate this year, which is a procedural move that forces an end to a filibuster.

Republicans are currently blocking an energy bill and an expansion of children’s health care and won’t sign off on funding bills for most of the federal government.

Democrats, of course, argue that Republican obstruction this year is different than Democratic obstruction of previous years.

Democrats mostly blocked conservative judges, while the GOP is filibustering everything, they say.

To illustrate their case, Reid on Wednesday asked for consent to bring up an uncontroversial bill dealing with research for Lou Gehrig’s disease, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected and tried to add Iraq funding to the bill, to which Reid objected.

“Throwing around the word ‘obstruction’ doesn’t get us there alone,” said Rodell Mollineau, a spokesman for Reid.

“It’s talking about our efforts to address real issues that affect voters on a daily basis and Bush Republicans doing everything in their power to block our efforts. Housing, gas prices, health care, the war in Iraq, these are issues that resonate outside of the Beltway.”

And be sure heck out McClatchy's chart, showing obstruction from the 88th term through the 110th terms here.  

Think about this when it comes time to cast your vote.  For your local elected officials might be the ones responsible for stopping this country from moving forward. 

I am at the stage where I feel every vote for a Republican seeking office is a vote against moving our country forward and hopefully out of the many disasters this administration and their Republican protectors have put us in: Iraq, the economy, the severe devaluation of the dollar, free-for-all deregulation, not dealing with the tragedy of returning American veteran's and the care they need, I could go on, but most of you already are too well aware.

Oh, and let's not also forget that more Republican's are in dirty, hot water now than ever in history.  The less-than-honorable Ted Stevens (R-AK) became the first American Senator to be indicted.  Many are under investigation (ten times more than the number of Democrats currently under investigation).  Don't get me wrong, EVERY dirty elected official should go, no matter what their party affiliation, but the sheer number of Republicans who are dirty is stunning.

Stop by TheZoo sometime for our daily dose of reality.

And do Recommend this post should you feel it is worthwhile.

Need a break from screaming and ranting over this week’s campaign nonsense? Are you in search of substantive food on which to mentally chew, versus the empty calories that have been foisted upon us?

If you haven’t already, read The Curious Mind of John McCain in today’s Washington Post. What excellent insight it gives about him. For those of you who don’t have time to read it, here are tidbits:

1) The article quoted from McCain’s book “Worth Fighting For” about why he ran for President in 2000: “I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president…. In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”

So much for McCain serving a cause greater than himself. As an example of how his ambition got ahead of his principles, the article cited his flip flop over South Carolina and the Confederate Flag - a decision McCain himself admitted was one of his worst.

2) Here is an excerpt about McCain’s interest in economics: One [expert on financial services] who met with McCain earlier this summer to discuss the subprime lending crisis said McCain spoke about it only “in platitudes,” relying on populist political talking points. McCain did not seem to understand economics, or to be interested in the subject, said this person, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the meeting.

Is this the person we want in charge of our economy?

3) The article shares some of McCain’s thought on the Iraq and Vietnam wars: McCain can be impatient with complicated answers to questions he considers straightforward, with gray when he sees black and white. For example, he sees no gray outcome possible in Iraq: "In war," he has said, "there is no such thing as compromise; you either win or you lose." But he has not defined victory in Iraq, and many wars have ended ambiguously. McCain's commentary on Iraq often echoes his descriptions of the Vietnam War. He can make both sound like classical military confrontations and rarely mentions their political complexities.

Do we want a President who lacks patience and fails to see nuance in complex issues?

The article is well worth reading because it goes beyond Britney, Paris, celebrity, and paper currency. Rather, it offers more profound reasons to reject McCain.

As much as I agree with both Matt and Ta-Nehisi’s assessments about the desirability of black Republicans - namely that it would benefit African-Americans and the country as a whole if there were more black Republicans* - I think that Matt might be understating the degree to which history does play a significant part in the African-American community’s commitment to the Democratic Party.

Not only are black people aware that it was the Democratic Party which supported the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, but they are very aware of the fact that it was the Republican Party which embraced segregationist Democrats, and which has actively stoked racial resentment as a means to win elections.  I’m willing to wager that many black people who otherwise would vote Republican don’t, because of the perception that voting Republican would be essentially rewarding the GOP its use of tactics which, if not racist, were dangerously close to crossing the “racist” line.

That said, I don’t see the current ratio of black Republicans to black Democrats changing any time soon, especially since Obama is the Democratic nominee.  If Obama wins the presidency, then the Democratic Party will have essentially “renewed its contract” with African-Americans, and will almost certainly continue to receive an absurdly high percentage of the African-American vote in presidential elections.  But, there still might be room for growth in local and congressional elections; I think many black people would vote for a black Republican if that candidate approached the black community with real respect, and a real desire to build a dialogue and solve problems.

And yes, I realize that having more Republicans in Congress would damage the Democratic agenda, but as Paul Frymer shows in his book Uneasy Alliances, the kind of electoral “capture” that the Democratic Party has over African-Americans leaves the later too vulnerable to being taken advantaged of by the former.  Moreover, just as having more women in Congress has increased the importance of women’s issues on both sides of the aisle (they are actually debated as opposed to being dismissed), I think having more black Republican congresspeople will encourage Republicans to think seriously about the impact of their policies on African-Americans.

There are two obvious question though: when will that happen?  And how many black Republicans will it take for that to happen?  As it stands, because Republicans literally have nothing to lose with regards to the black vote, they’re more comfortable taking advantage of racial resentment and pursuing policies which have a disproportionate negative impact on African-Americans (like the War on Drugs, for example).  As long as that is the case (and as long as Democrats continue to pursue policies which are at least somewhat beneficial to African-Americans), few black people will run as Republicans, and fewer black people will vote for Republicans**.

*I’ve actually mentioned my desire for more black Republicans before, in this post.

**This is another reason why Ross and Reihan’s attempt to broaden the Republican commitment to working class voters is important; doing so opens up the opportunity for making real inroads into the African-American community.

***And because I quoted a verse, here is the actual song, “Black Republicans” - Jay-Z & Nas.”

Yesterday, on Hendrik Hertzberg's blog he outlined how "Frank Luntz, the Gingrichian pollster and word technician" went so badly off message on Hannity & Colmes.  Luntz dared to praise Obama:

LUNTZ: You have to give Obama credit for having the ability, the poise, and the presentation skills to be able to capture the hearts and the passion of almost two hundred and fifty thousand Berliners—and this is a guy, of course, who is just a candidate for President of the United States.

Hannity goes apoplectic and proceeds to twitch, froth and flop around, unable to grasp what rift in the universe caused Luntz to spew such nonsense on his show.

The court said Miers and Bolten had to testify, and executive branch must provide an inventory.

Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld

Bolten and Miers are/were assigned to the White House. The DoJ emails show the White House staff does communicate with DOJ, and DOJ emails include some White House communications.

Leahy wrote a letter to Mukasey asking for a review and repudication of all memoranda previously withheld. Leahy contends the court order means nobody can adequately hide behind the "executive privilege claim":

Mukasey must revisit the "opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas" [and] ""overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims"

Some may be concerned the court will not get an adequate response. There is a backup system.  Relevant information appears to be electronically stored on this file:

https://vault/enterprisevault

b writes: "enterprisevault is email archiving software from Symantec"

Technetron observed the provided emails contained contemporaneous notes, suggesting the emails provided were not from the electronic archives, but had been previously printed. Here is one search:

12) On March 11,2008, a Senior Attorney at OIP contacted the Justice Management Division requesting a remote access point in the Justice Consolidated Office Network that allows OIP to search e-mail messages of certain record custodians in the Senior Leadership Offices. This was done in order to most efficiently search the e-mail records ofthe custodian in OLA who had indicated he had responsive e-mail.

13) On March 12 through 14, 2008, OIP conducted an e-mail search in the Enterprise Vault of the OLA custodian who indicated that there may be responsive e-mail records. Those e-mail messages that appeared responsive to plaintiffs request were printed for further processing and review by OIP's IR Staff.

Here are some sample header IP numbers to review when searching for "MBB" or Mary Beth Buchanan within the DOJ emails. 

Some have not shared their research requests believing the President would never disclose the information.  Use this comment thread to provide information:

If you have specific information requests, feel free to post them here, and we can consolidate them for an independent review.

If you are aware of other information requests posted on the internet, feel free to point to them in this comment thread.

Here are some samples of what may be useful and of interest to others conducing these new searches after the court order re Bolton/Miers:

1. Autodin

The autodin references. Has IntelLink used to hide inforfmation about the US Attorney firings, or WMD-related propaganda?

2. SIPR

7390 discloses the White House use of SIPR Net, a classified communication system. Look in the DOJ emails references to these DoD-like classified communication systems.

3. Inadvertent Disclosures

Copies of IT communications mentioning technical/coding challenges like this, which discloses other important time-event information.

4. CC Copies

Records sent from DoD to the White House, which included DoJ on the CC/BCC list. Here is a sample from DOD PA, referencing someone who transferred from DoD to the White House.

Something else to consider are the follow-up questions, which would generate internal email traffic. Arguably, because these emails/discussions are related to illegal activity, they would fall outside privilege under the crime-fraud exception.

There's an example of an interchange, asking for subsequent answers, and (implicitly) additional staff communications:

SEN. SCHUMER: All right.  Let me ask you this. Let's - - because we'll get some of these answers  in writing about outside involvement and what specifically happened in the Bud  Cummins case. It sure doesn't smell too good, and you know that and I know  that, but maybe there's a more plausible explanation than the one that seems to  be obvious to everybody.  But let's go onto these questions. Did the president specifically  approve of these firings? 
MR. MCNULTY: Ium not aware of the president being consulted. I don't  know the answer to that question. 
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Can we find out an answer to that? 
MR. MCNULTY: We'll take it back. 
SEN. SCHUMER: Yeah. Was the White House involved in anyway? 
MR. MCNULTY: These are presidential appointments - - 
SEN. SCHUMER: Exactly. 
MR. MCNULTY: - - so the White House personnel, I'm sure, was consulted  prior to making the phone calis. 
SEN. SCHUMER: Mm-hmm. Okay, but we donut know if the resident himself  was involved, but the White House probably was.  When did the president become aware that certain U.S. attorneys might  be asked to resign? 
MR. MCNULTY: I don't know. 
SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. Again, I would ask that you get back to us on  that. 

When we get the responses, we can compare them with other searches, and the DoD emails, SAS25, and the torture memos/emails.

The LA Times reports that a federal anthrax research scientist commits "apparent" suicide.   Conspiracy theories are frustrating, but...
On his talk show last week, Thom Hartman explained a pet theory- it goes like this:  During the orchestrated fear-fest after 9-11 the  only two people in a position to stop the passage of the Patriot Act were Tom Daschle (speaker of the house) and Pat Leahey (chairman of Judicial committee).  They were both leaning toward contesting it.
They were the only congress members to receive anthrax envelopes.
Now, a couple days after a federal  judge rules that congress can indeed subpoena white house officials (Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten) the principal federal anthrax research scientist  commits "apparent suicide"  with no note..
It is tempting to believe that  shortly after 9-11 there was a knock on his door, and a couple of agents told him- "give us some anthrax and forget this ever happened".  And,  as things begin to unravel,  somebody wanted to be sure he forgot. 
Reminds me of the "apparent" suicide of Dr. David Kelly, the British weapons expert who contended that Blair et al had intentionally overblown Saddam Hussein's WMD stash.
Has anybody checked to see if the last mechanic to touch Paul Wellstone's plane is still alive?
I hate conspiracy theories.

The republicans have voted down the bill to fund our troops...this is really insane...The reason for voting against it? That the congress has to hand over the OCS to oil companies for drilling.

According to the republicans, until this is done, they will continue to filibuster all bills in front of them.

I could, but I won't. Cheney is coming to my town this afternoon to raise money for the Alabama Republican Congressional Delegation. .In fact, he has probably already wasted a bunch of taxpayer money by clogging up the interstates and other highways with his envoy.

To counter this behavior we have set up a Chase Cheney for Change page to support Alabama Democrats and especially AL-03 challenger Josh Segall.

We have only raised $235 and I feel we should be doing much better. Please chip in $5 or whatever you can afford.

1. This is about a number of Democrats that say Cheney coming anywhere to fundraise is ridiculous. Strength is in number of donors not the amount. The republicans are going to have 100 people at no less than $250-500 a pop. That event is not open to the public and is at a very exclusive and historically racist Country Club.

2. Shoal Creek =  From the article Shoal Creek founder Hall Thompson was quoted in the Birmingham Post-Herald in June 1990 as saying his club would not be pressured into accepting blacks as members.
"The country club is our home, and we pick and choose who we want ... ," Hall said at the time. "We have the right to associate or not associate with whomever we choose."

*Are they making a statement by having the event here?  Am I reading into this? Am I not making enough out of this?

3. Read Mooncat's diary for more on this race and Segall. You will be impressed.

4. While the Republicans are bringing in a Washington insider, Mike Rogers campaign manager is saying

"While Mike Rogers is campaigning on constructive, common sense solutions, Josh Segall is running a failing, negative campaign that voters aren't taking seriously," said Rogers' campaign manager Tripp Skipper. "Segall can make all of the false claims he wants about Mike Rogers' record, but nothing he says will cover for his northern Ivy League roots or extreme liberal friends bankrolling his uninspiring campaign."

5. Let's show Mike Rogers and Tripper Skipper that we are going to Chase Cheney out of Alabama and that he is not popular anywhere.

What is McCain really inferring by his association of Obama with Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan? It’s not merely being a celebrity, for his campaign could have chosen George Clooney, a liberal Hollywood hunk, or Brad Pitt.

No, these gals are just frivolous, airheads, the kind who suck up more media airtime like that frivolous two-book writing, Harvard-trained, University of Chicago lawyer professor, first-term senator from the Land of Lincoln. He’s like numerous other blondes in America pop culture: Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Anna Nicole Smithe or Pam Anderson, all airheads, all frivolous, some gold-diggers.

Women like Lohan and Hilton are, after all, the essence of trophy wives; nice to look at, but you don’t take them seriously.

There’s nothing serious about this guy Obama. He doesn’t inspire people; he ain’t cool like the Senator McCain, who has a war record and years in Congress.

Obama isn’t a real nigga, black man; the kind that America fears but is used to: Mr. T. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Le Bron James, Samuel Jackson, These men exude some kind of niggatude that make them a known entity, and useful. You may hate them, but they are the black devils you know rather than the Obama devil you don't know.

Obama? He’s slim and sleek, which makes him suspicious in the eyes of some of the electorate who may not vote for him because he ain’t fat. He’s has nice smile, too.

In a word, a bimbo. No, two words, an Obama bimbo.

Is the McCain campaign really unaware that Britney Spears is currently suffering from a mental breakdown? Or are they like the rest of us only too aware of the fact that she is suffering from bi-polar disorder and has been hospitalized on 5150 involuntary psychiatric hold orders on at least two occasions as a danger to herself?
 
The sad fact is that Britney Spears is seriously ill and it is hard to believe that the level of media attention she has received over recent years has not at the very least contributed to her condition.

The premise of the McCain ad was at best juvenile, an attempt to subliminally link a black man to two white women known for their promiscuity. In the context of US politics it can only be considered a coded racist message. The Klu Klux Klan was built on the claim that the only thing a black man was interested in was raping white women. Two can play at that game.

Many US politicians use race to sell their campaigns. Some like McCain and before him Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond and the rest use it to send coded messages to racist supporters. Support for the Confederate flag, speaking at the CCC convention (nothing to do with the KKK you understand), opposing the MLK federal holiday are all means to that end.

But no previous US politician has run a campaign that has been so callously indifferent to the entirely precdictable results of their action as John McCain has. It's not just the unscripted gaffes (bomb bomb Iran) that might lead to war, it is the deliberately scripted events such as his Baghdad stroll that predictably lead to the deaths of 21 Iraqis. Now they are using a young woman suffering from a severe mental illness in their race baiting ad.

x-posted from OrangePunch

By Steven Greenhut

With Permission

According to local pastor Wiley Drake, the 5.8 earthquake that hit Southern California on Tuesday was not just one of those typical seismic events that take place with some regularity in these parts, but it was "Another queer quake trying to get California's attention." Apparently, the Lord is mad about the legalization of gay marriage in the state. He can't be that mad, given that the quake didn't cause any death or much destruction, but Rev. Drake offers a warning: "We had better listen. 5.8 this time what is next!?"

Drake is something of a caricature of a religious right figure, so it's not fair to depict his crude opposition to gay marriage as typical of that found in Orange County's conservative evangelical communities, but ultimately most opponents of gay marriage rely on their Scriptural interpretations to justify it. Foes of gay marriage are backing a November initiative, Prop. 8, which would insert these words in the state constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

Evangelicals make various arguments against gay marriage and for the initiative. For instance, the pro-Prop.-8 Web site, "ProtectMarriage.com" argues that the court's ruling "has far-reaching consequences." Here are the consequences: "schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between 'any two persons' rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of 'marriage.' This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it."

Those hardly sound like far-reaching problems that demand a constitutional change. The public schools already teach a great deal of buncombe, and few kids are likely to be permanently scarred by anything new they will be taught. What other kind of marriages will be allowed? Polygamy is bizarre, but already takes place ... and there's no reason for the state to be involved in banning that. I doubt there will be any rush of people soon wanting to marry their labrador retrievers. And -- most important -- I don't see how state sanction in any way restores or undermines marriage.

I've been married 25 years to the same lovely woman, and the relationship between, say, two gay men who might live next door has no impact whatsover on my marriage, my family, my relationships. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I believe marriage to be a sacrament -- but it's not my place to impose my religious views on others. I'm from the "it's none of my business" school of thought when it comes to the relationships other adults choose to engage in. If, for instance, my priest announced that he would be holding gay marriages, then I'd have something to say about it. But that's a purely sectarian affair. As conservative columnist Charley Reese pointed out, "[I]f the state recognizes a contract -- which is all marriage amounts to, in secular terms -- it by no means sanctifies anything. No one accuses the state of sanctifying sales contracts."

The state is not a moral presence. The state enforces contracts, period. Churches should be the ones that determine the rules of marriage for its members. Reese echoes my thoughts exactly: "It is a confounded mystery to me why some people get all excited about homosexuals and lesbians getting married. As I've said before, if you are against gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person."

But the religious right sees this issue as a way to get the ground troops motivated for the political season. Most of the Christians I've argued with about this issue make strained arguments about gay marriage undermining societal values and other points similar to those made on the "protect marriage" Web site. But before long they always end up making religious points: homosexuality is a sin; the Bible condemns it. Those are legitimate religious views, but not relevant to public-policy discussions.

If we're going to play that game, then instead of banning gay marriage, we ought to start by banning divorce. Jesus had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality (even though the Old Testament condemned it, and the New Testament talked about sexual purity). He had a lot to say about divorce. In Luke 16:18 Jesus says, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

I have no interest in a theological discussion of divorce here, either, given that the state, again, should have no role in such matters. But if one wants to make a big deal about homosexuality based on biblical precepts, why start with an unclear teaching when it would be easier to start with some clear commands. A Wall Street Journal article in April 2007 by David Instone-Brewer of the biblical publisher, Tyndale House, made this point: "Why are evangelicals so willing to accept divorce among their political leaders? It seems, increasingly, that political leaders look like evangelical church members. The divorce rate among evangelicals is actually as high as that of the general population." Some studies put the evangelical divorce rate above the rate of divorce for atheists and agnostics.

My point: It's the "Other People's Sin" syndrome. It's easy for the Christian Right to rail against homosexuality. Most of us are not interested in participating in such relationships, so it's easy to rail against those who are. But few Christian leaders want to ban things that they and their congregants struggle with.

The best answer is to keep the state out of these personal decisions. Gay marriage will not destroy anyone's family, and it's certainly less destructive to individual families than rampant divorce. Now that gay marriage is legal in California (thanks to mostly Republican judges, by the way!), the seismic plates will not shift any more than they already are prone to shift.

Christian leaders should, by their personal lives and actions, show society how to live rather than by lobbying the government to pass more rules telling them how they must live. But it's a lot tougher walking the walk than talking the talk.

Chino Blanco

Obama does not need to do negative ads.

He needs to push a new tag line ---

To escape talking about the issues Americans care about, to escape saying "They have the same policies as George W. Bush," they are going to talk tabloid news.

My friends, I'm sad to say the "straight talk express" has become the "low road express." Now, let's start talking about how to fix the failed polices of the Bush years that John McCain wants to continue...

As most of you know, I am a very big Obama supporter. This does not, however, make me a "kool-aid drinking Obamanut cultist," much as some would like to label me as such. I have not been without my fair share of criticism against Obama when it has been warranted. But recently, I have found very little at all for which I could find criticism for him.

His overseas trip went beautifully and he has been consistently and brilliantly responding to the McCain campaign and their baseless, negative attacks. So, what is Obama doing wrong? Or rather, what is McCain doing right?

Even having to ask this question is worrying to me, but I cannot help but ask it right now. Despite the fact that conventional wisdom would dictate that McCain's campaign is in shambles and getting desperate, the numbers are not reflecting the same.

Polls have been showing an ever-closing gap between the two candidates. Ok, I can brush that aside. I don't put a lot of faith in polls. But what does worry me is when I see an ever-closing gap on the Intrade Prediction Markets. I have studied Prediction Markets excessively and almost obsessively at times since the beginning of the Primary, and it worries me to see Obama's numbers dropping and McCain's rising. For the first time since Obama clinched the nomination, he has dropped below 60%.

What's going on here? I certainly cannot see anything particularly wrong with what Obama has been doing. I am thus forced to believe that McCain's spin of relentless negativity is actually having an effect.

This scares me. As Greg noted yesterday,

The new CNN poll finds that 40% think McCain is attacking Obama unfairly, while only 22% say Obama is attacking McCain unfairly.

If these numbers are correct, then one would think that McCain would be taking a hit, not Obama. Or am I mistaken?

Whatever it is, it has me slightly worried.

So . . . Shecky McGaffe is giving a speech at the Urban League today.  Will it be a respectful discourse on disagreements with Sen. Obama on education policy.   Nah--that was so yesterday.

Instead, McGaffe is going to take his best 'poking stick' and poke & prod the audience.  Now, why would Shecky do such a thing?  What does he have to gain from being intentionally confrontational towards the audience?

It's the reverse Souljah. 

Pick an audience full of black faces; people that aren't going to vote for you anyway, intentionally provoke them in the hope that they will boo you, & fire up the fixed news, Limbaugh-base with images of black people booing the Republican nominee.

All part of the Steve Schmidt plan to racialize the election and mobilize the wing-nut base.  Why else would McOld take this particular tack:

"You'll hear from my opponent, Senator Obama, tomorrow, and if there's one thing he always delivers it's a great speech. But I hope you'll listen carefully, because his ideas are not always as impressive as his rhetoric," he says.

"If Senator Obama continues to defer to the teachers unions, instead of committing to real reform, then he should start looking for new slogans," he says, according to the prepared remarks.

My guess is that Schmitty has finely calibrated the remarks to be just critical enough to potentially draw a response but not so critical that they can't do their innocent: "what . . . is the 'chosen one' above criticism shtick".

I must say . . . I'm very much enjoying this 'honorable campaign'.  Good thing we have such an honorable candidate as the Republican nominee.  I'd hate to see what they consider ugly.

from AP  Daeteline Bogusta, Georgia:  Sources close to Barrack Obama's VP vetting team say that the campaign is currently vetting John McCain as a possible running mate. 
     McCain is seen as a potentially good VP choice in that it's assumed a high percentage of McCain voters understand the Republican Party can't be rewarded for nearly a decade of corruption and war.  These McCain voters would likely vote for him in the VP slot.  The Obama campaign also believes McCains presence on the ticket will bolster Obama's foreign policy credentials. 
    One sticking point, sources say, is that McCain seems reluctant to take anger management classes and refuses to commit to not punching holes in White House walls when he doesn't get his way. 

We know now that John McCain has successfully completed his transformation from the "maverick" to the "clone". I'll be honest. I've never really liked McCain and the reasons were amorphous. There was something about his self-aggrandizement as the guy who wasn't afraid to stand up to the leaders of his own party that just never rang true to me. And his constant references to his long years of service to his country both in and out uniform wore thin really fast. His use of his years of imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton were used as a political prop to be trotted out on cue. He always came across to me as smug and self-righteous with the unspoken idea that the country owed him big time.

It is true that he managed to alienate a good portion of the Republican base with some of his positions and statement that were heretical to conservative orthodoxy. But when pushed, he almost always fell in step with his Republican senatorial brethren. The maverick image he strove so hard to project was in reality, I think, just another clever tool in his own political bag of tricks. His goal for the longest time has always been the presidency and the maverick side was to establish his bona fides with the independents and some Democrats, and the good little soldier was to maintain his Republican in good standing status.

Sometimes he didn't quite maintain that delicate balancing act and wound up being smacked down by his own party. The most glaring and infamous example was during his campaign for the republican nomination in 2000 and found himself on the receiving end of the Rovian attack machine in full bore. At the time, his reaction to the smears and lies was one of absolute anger which he gave vent to on a number of occasions. It took a long time before he could bring himself to embrace George Bush both literally and figuratively. But again it was out of political expediency.

It has been said that those who seek the highest office in the land must have a fire the belly. But it can either be the fire that drives the seeker towards greatness for America or the fire that envelops the seeker with in a conflagration that destroys one's principles and self-respect.

It seems to me that McCain is being consumed by the latter of those two fires. And he has been blinded by the brightness of the flames and has had his soul seared by the intensity of the fire. How else to explain the John McCain we now see before us?

It's going to be a long, hot summer in more ways than one. Not only will the heat be from the stoking of the flames of racial prejudice but also from the heat emanating from a man self-immolating.

Shortly after becoming his party's presumtive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama began presenting America with a modification to his political persona. He began emphasizing aspects* of his philosophy that have displeased his more left-leaning supporters -- some of whom are no longer supporters, others of whom have gone from enthusiastic to disgruntled -- in order, we are told, to firm up his support "in the middle."

This tactic has proved counter-productive.

Check the numbers at electoral-vote.com in the five most important battleground states. Comparing polls taken shortly before 20-Jun**, when he announced his support for the FISA "compromise," he has lost ground in four of the five, and gained neglibibly in the fifth.

According to Quinnipiac, his lead in Florida has dropped from four points (16-Jun) to two (29-Jul).

In Michigan his three-point lead on 9-Jun (Rasmussen) is now (22-Jul) a four-point lead (Quinnipiac), a gain of just 1 point.

In Ohio, Sen. Obama enjoyed a 6 point lead on 16-Jun. This lead dwindled to just two points by 29-Jul. (Both Quinnipiac.)

In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac shows Sen. Obama's lead dropping from twelve points to seven in the 16-Jun to 29-Jul period.

And in Virginia, we have Rasmussen showing that his one-point lead evaporated between 12-Jun and 16-Jul.

One might make a good point by noting the slim nature of most of these margins, but these are the five most important states, and if Sen. Obama's intention was to increase his popularity in swing states, this is not a trend that indicates any success whatsoever. In fact, we now have five data points suggesting that he has failed.

 

* As I see it, Sen. Obama began emphasizing his "moderate" nature via these issues:

-- Support for FISA.

-- Support for the death penalty even for certain non-homicides.

-- Weakening public perception of his stance on choice WRT late-term abortion.

-- Agreement with the Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment.

These are not the only positions which which left-wingers might have problems. His statements regarding Pakistan and Jerusalem might also raise some hackles, but these were made before the period under examinaton here.