Taking a deep breath... Editing the original post... Trying to calm down... Ready... Okay... Let's go...

I know politics is a dirty game. That you will lie about your opponent. That you will be nasty. That you will be rude and crude. That's all just part of being a politician. And it is even worse during election time. I might be relatively new here but I am starting to get that. But there is a line you don't cross. Especially not here in the US. The terrorist rule. And look. I tried to go quiet for a few days. Lay low on politics. A least stay off negative politics. Be positive. Say nice things instead of on constant attack. But no more. Enough is enough. John McCain and Sarah Palin asked for this. So they will get it.

McCain... You are an unethical, fearmongering, unpatriotic, unAmerican weasel without any honor and who doesn't care about his country or the safety of its people.

Sarah... You are the pig and not the lipstick.

Saying that Obama is "palling around with terrorists" is not only a lie, but unAmerican, unpatriotic and just damn reckless with the safety of this country and the people who live here.

Let's just get to the story. The NY Times reported on this more than a year ago. Obama met an American guy who was (allegedly) behind bombings here in the US when Obama was 8. Yes. That's not a typo. Obama was 8. They were not friends, but lived in the same town. Obama even bumped into him last year in the streets of their town. Not only did the NY Times report in that article that there is no "connection" between the two, but the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The National Review all debunked any story that they have a "relationship". Oh, the guy is now a Professor of Education. They did "work together" on a community project in 1995. But so did hundreds of other people. They did not plan it together. They did not do a joint project. They were not partners. They just worked together within a much larger group on a community project. No phone calls or emails exchanged. No personal meetings. No handshakes and hugs. There is no connection. So you would think that would be it... Right?

But not to fearmongering, unethical, unAmerican, unpatriotic, lying McCain and Palin. McCain the so-called war hero who is willing to sell his soul and country to become President. And Palin who is willing to lie through her teeth and spew hatred and lies to the American people to become McCain's partner in crime. His accomplice.

Sound harsh? Let's think about this.

America was attacked by terrorists in 2001. And live under a constant threat of being attacked. Being a terrorist in America has a serious connotation. So you know that it is almost hate speech. It stirs people up. It drives fear into Americans. Remember... America is still at war with terrorists. So, Mister McCain, you are willing to use these words to become President? You are willing to tie your opponent to terrorism through your lies? You are willing to make people hate your opponent because you painted him as associating with a terrorist? You are willing to use the fear of terrorism to lie to your own people about a man who has said nothing but disdain for this guy? You are willing to play with terrorism just to get into office?

You are willing to do anything to become President right? You are willing to sell your country lies and bullsh*t because of your own ego and greed? You are willing to play with the fear of people just so you can run the country? You are willing to sell your own American people down the line just for this? Are you willing to give up the American ideals of honor and truth to be in charge? You are willing to talk just the way terrorists talk just to get your way?

Tell me... What else are you prepared to do? Are you willing to go into another senseless war to stay President? Are you willing to torture more people just so you can stay in power? Are you prepared to clamp down on more American rights just so you can target anyone you want? Are you willing to sink this country just to stay in charge? Are you going to start calling every American who so slightly apposes you a terrorist just to be the main man? Are you going to start treating Americans as terrorists next?

Are you this greedy?

Are you this unethical?

Do you love your country this little?

Do you hate Americans this much?

Do you despise those Americans who disagree with you so much?

Are you so unAmerican?

Are you this unpatriotic?

Have you no honor?

Mister McCain... You are betraying you country by lying to them. By willing to sell them out just to be in charge. Your hatred for Obama and greed to become President has seriously clouded your judgement. To such an extend that you are willing to now play with your own American countrymen. That is unpatriotic at the very least. And unAmerican.

You know who you remind me of? A real terrorist who are willing to put the lives of his followers on the line to get his own selfish way. Your words give comfort to the real enemies of the United States because they know you are willing to do what they are willing to do. Anything. Don't become that person McCain. Now. Go back to the cave you came from and start thinking of this great country and how you can serve it best and not your own greedy and unpatriotic ways that could put their rights in even more danger.

I never liked your policies much. But I know that is the foundation of democracy - not agreeing. Right now I am starting to despise the man and everything you stand for. You greedy bastard. You have no honor. You have no decency. You unAmerican unpatriotic pig. And no matter how much lipstick you wear. You can't hide your true self for ever. We can see who you are. Unpatriotic and UnAmerican.

What you said is not American. What you said is not patriotic. What you said is not in the interest of America. What you said is a lie sold to all Americans. What you said is about your own greed. What you said is fearmongering. What is said was unethical. What you said is without honor. What you said is the type of thing the enemies of this great country and real terrorists will say.

You are a pig McCain. And Palin, you are a pig for repeating it.

www.angryafrican.net

The Republicans are on the verge of an historic repudiation. Not only is our side set to take the Whitehouse, but we may even achieve a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Add to that an even larger majority in the House. We will be in a position to DOMINATE policy for at least the next two years and, if we don't screw things up, much longer than that. It will be like the heyday of the New Deal or the Great Society. We can make things happen.  [But don't forget the last two times we had unified Democratic Government, we did indeed blow it!]

The Republicans probably realize that they have one, maybe two weeks at the most to fight their way back into this race. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for them,  the ISSUES landscape is completely unfavorable to them. They have zero chance of winning an argument over economic policy.   Even their typical staples -- divisive social issues and national security -- seem to be pretty much eitehr dormant  (in the case of the social issues)  or impotent (in the case of national security) in the current political landscape. 

What do they do? Pray for a terrorist attack on the homeland? Even they are not that evil. (Okay,  I can't vouch for them on that front.  But  I THINK  they aren't really that evil. --  Okay, even that's too strong.  I least HOPE they aren't that evil.  But really, you never know with their ilk.  But fortunately,  it doesn't matter. I don't believe in the power of prayer anyway. And they have screwed up so much even if there is a God listening to their prayers, he wouldn't answer.   So let them pray.  It just won't work.)

Short of their desperation prayers being answered,  about the ONLY bullets they have left are attacks on the character and competence and readiness of Obama. These have been shown to be pretty weak bullets -- ask my girl Hilary about that. But that's it. That's all they've got left.
So look for the next two weeks to be a relentless no holds barred negative campaign. We're going to hear all about Wright and Rezko and Ayers. Obama's unfortunate remarks made in SF about folks in rural America are going to be played like a zillion times. 

The good thing about this all is that they are really down to their last bullets. IF they shoot and miss, this thing is over. It could be a rough ride for the next couple of weeks, but if we're still ahead after these next two weeks, we win. Period!

This post is a clearing house for links to posts that flew by too fast, or didn't get the attention they deserved.

If you add a link, please give a brief description along w/ your reasons for why it deserves a 2nd look. ANYONE can add a link here.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't forget to rec this post, even if you don't add anything, or read anything on it...It only works if it gets up to
reader rec, making the posts available for longer.

Thanks, Guys...we've made it a couple of days in a row  and had some good posts linked!

Rolling Stone has a great article outlining McCain in all of his not-so-great glory. I am afraid of this man having the power of the presidency and I hope that people take a deeper look into his deep past when deciding who to vote for, and not just the recent past. Though the article is a bit lengthy, it's very informative and gives great insight into the character of McCain. Please check it out and send on to all those undecideds that need a little more reason to vote against him.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain


OBAMA/BIDEN '08

The AP feed my Internet provider sends me listed the following:

Onus on McCain to Turn Presidential ...

I thought this was a perceptive bit of political insight for AP, especially this season. Of course the complete headline was:

Onus on McCain to Turn Presidential Race His Way.

Plunging more deeply in with the type of negative ads that have lost him the respect of a number of pundits may lead McCain to success, but it's certainly won't do anything to convince anyone he is more presidential.

Clearly, you can use negative ads to scare voters into voting for you, but it doesn't make them like you. It just makes them think all politicians are evil, but you are a little less evil. The voters whose instant opinions CNN monitored Thursday night appeared to me to always respond negatively when the speaker went negative.

I am still hoping to make it until Nov. 4 without medications, but the specter of even uglier ads makes that more difficult.

Hi there, come on in.  Thanks, I really appreciate that.  You ... how was your Saturday?  Wonderful, I hope to hear.  Have a seat, I'll get us a couple of glasses of wine and then I'll join you.  Care for something to munch on?  No, I don't have any chips - unless you count the stale ones with the clothes pin holding the bag closed that I think I bought two weeks ago.  Yea, I probably should.  Except the trash can is full because I haven't bothered to empty it lately.  Oh, well.  I think there's some stuff in the frig that's still edible if someone has the nerve to wander into the twilight zone.

My head hasn't been situated on my shoulders  - you know, turn 'til it clicks into place - lately.  Sorry 'bout that.  Here's your wine.  What?  Oh, bother.  Are you sure you didn't ask for beer?  I know you didn't ... here, I'll switch with ... damn.  Two beers, no wine.  Good idea!  Cheers!

I need soft music, a comfortable place to sit, good friends to talk with and apparently a beer.  And something to eat, just remembered I haven't eaten all day.  Where's Grouch?  I'm way to lazy tonight to cook for you guys and far too scared to look in the frig.  He's braver than I am.  Oh look!  I found peanuts!  Want some?

With McCain and pals readying the expected slime, Obama will likely stay above the mud level, but non-official groups can help out. There is a huge amount of true dirt that can be made to stick to McCain, with enough money for TV exposure and mailings, but who is going to do it?

Anyone know 527s that are readying counter-slime? I'll gladly chip in bucks needed to join the fray.

The McCain campaign never bothered to tell Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) that they were conceding Michigan. She revealed Friday in a Fox News interview -- the only post-debate interview the McCain campaign allowed Palin to do -- that she read about it in the newspaper. (Wonder which paper? -- since she couldn't seem to remember any in her disastrous interview with CBS' Katie Couric.) Clearly, Palin is not even close to the inner circle of the campaign -- she's only the running mate after all.

The Maverick's campaign has no plans to have Palin visit any of the Sunday talk shows -- a rite of passage for any serious politician. Damn, I would have loved to have seen Tim Russert get a hold of this supposed junior Maverick wannabe. I bet it would be similar to his now-famous systematic dismantling of David Duke -- revealed as nothing but the racist he was during his unsuccessful run for Louisiana governor several years ago.

There are no other serious interviews planned for Palin -- at least not at the moment. For the next 30 days or so, she'll live in a cocoon. It will be scripted campaign stops only for Sarahcuda -- in short, Palin has become the favorite prop of the McCain campaign. She'll be wound up and trotted out to rile up the base -- and raise funds -- at whistle stops around the country. Palin might cut a few commercials. She'll sign autographs, wink at the crowd, give a shout out to the kiddies, and flirt with Joe Sixpack -- a full day of mugging for the cameras but no answering of any substantive questions. No wonder Americans sense she's not ready for the job.

It's insulting. Condescending. Patronizing. To the entire nation -- but most especially women. Now, let me be clear here -- I am not a Palin fan. I don't think she's qualified to be Vice President. I don't agree with her on anything -- except for perhaps the fact that the sky is, indeed, blue. But I don't think she's a complete idiot either -- she actually was at the start of a promising political career, before John McCain plucked her from that path of development and thrust her into a situation for which she is not prepared. The choice shows not only McCain's lack of judgement, but his selfishness as well. Clearly McCain is willing to expose the nation to the consequences of an ill-advised choice and Palin herself to all kinds of ridicule -- SNL is only the tip of the iceberg, as we know. Yep, McCain has thrust Palin into situations for which she is not prepared simply because she is useful to him, as a sort of Trojan Horse disguising his lackluster campaign -- and potentially setting back all women in the process. No wonder Palin is especially unpopular with likely women voters -- as revealed by a TIME poll done even before her twinkie performance at the debate.

Sure, Palin is good at memorizing and reciting talking points. She's personable -- when the folksiness isn't faked she has a certain charm. But Palin needs more seasoning. A chance to build her political chops on the national stage -- perhaps through the National Governors Association or the Republican Governors Association. And she likely would have if The Maverick had not interrupted a promising political career. Now, if the McCain-Palin ticket loses -- WHEN the McCain-Palin loses -- Sarah Palin will be nothing but a footnote, a joke, an object of derision. And she'll be headed back to lead a state that -- now that it knows her a lot better thanks to John McCain -- is a helluva lot less enamored of their governor.

There are no shortage of media opinions from the right and the left coming to this same conclusion -- that the McCain's campaign positioning of Palin ultimately hurts her and other women candidates. Some have even called for Palin to step down from the campaign. Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote just last week:

"Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League..."

"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there...If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

In "Sarah Palin, 'Girl' Candidate: Restricted Access Feeds Gender Bias in Coverage," Linda Lowen writes:

"Whether deliberate or unintended, the soft focus of the Early Show interview [with Palin's parents] barely obscures a biased angle that has become media shorthand for the narrative of Palin's campaign -- the plucky, big-hearted, fresh-faced but naive candidate. This simplistic archetype jeopardizes not just Palin in this particular instance, but all women who run for public office who are young and attractive."

In the Detroit Free Press, Rochelle Riley writes:

"She should drop out of the race (no explanation would be needed) and stop making women look bad."

"Her whining about answering a question she wasn't prepared for makes it clear she's not ready for prime time. But her month-long Bumble Across America Tour, during which she has displayed an increasingly clearer level of ignorance about the world and politics, shows she's not ready to represent women. Asking pointed questions of candidates who may become the leaders who run the country not only is allowed, but necessary and prudent. But the more we learn about Palin, the more frightening she becomes. The more she learns about the job and domestic and foreign affairs, the more frightened she should become...Palin is setting the gender back by decades. The next time a woman runs for any national office, her opponents will have sound bites galore from the Palin ditz reel, the last time a woman ran."

It pains me to say it, folks, but the Palin Problem needs to be addressed. I don't want her or her party to win this election -- and maybe her staying on the ticket furthers that Democratic goal. But I also don't want Palin to crash and burn -- selfishly, for the women candidates that will come behind her. And while Palin did not crash in the debate, she did not put all the burning questions to rest, either. I am faced with this awful truth: I'm not sure what's worse -- Palin stepping down, or Palin staying on the ticket. But I do know this much: it would be a cruel, cruel joke -- after Geraldine Ferraro and Elizabeth Dole and Hillary Clinton -- to have the first woman to be a heartbeat from the presidency be someone who simply is not up to the job.

http://thezaftigredhead.blogspot.com

My first racial slur.  How sweet.  Just got called a N***** lover while standing in my front yard by two courageous teenage boys who yelled it while driving by at fifty.  Why would they do that?  Must have been the big Obama sign in my yard.  This has been fun explaining to my six year old. 

Gear up, boys, change is coming...

Sarah Palin's got more than a few problems. She's fast and loose with the facts, she has extreme views on abortion and she's untried and uninformed for the Executive Branch of the United States Government.

So attack her on the issues. Going after her because she winks and says words like "gol'darn" with no apparent irony is just poor sportsmanship - and petty. Somebody posted a comment to a recent blog entry that Palin is stupid. She's not that. Not by a long shot. The fact that someone disagrees with you, or even with the rest of the world, does not make someone stupid. But it can make you fodder for ridicule.

So she hunts moose. So what? This makes her a raving lunatic in the eyes of many. She advocates "predator control" of wolves by licensed hunters. Well, I've lived in Alaska... knew a family who had to move on with their lives after the wolves claimed too many livestock. There's a diff between tech-savvy terminators hunting elk and ridding the area of predators. This latter is called wildlife management. Good grief, I even read columnists attack her as a "baby factory" because she's got 5 kids!

I've been hearing much about how the Obama-Biden campaign is a CHANGE (yes, in capital letters) from politics as usual. Well, the personal attacks on Palin and McCain make me think otherwise. And make me ashamed to be considered "liberal" by so many.

No less a statesman than Joe Biden advised us all to question judgment, never motives. Sage advice. And that does make me hopeful about the Democratic ticket.

And a few more tidbits for you ravenous carnivores out there: Biden played fast and loose with the facts, too, during the debate. McCain does not favor abortion for rape and incest, even though I've seen Internet ads that claim he does. And Palin did not try to censor books in the Wasilla, Alaska library, has never been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, and has never insisted that creationism be taught in schools. We also know that she and Biden feel the same way toward gay and lesbian civil unions. 

You know what? She's got a big family, she's driven, and she's intelligent.

Get over it, already.

Obama doesn't have to search hard to get the money to fund health care even after the $700 billion bailout. The Defense Department owns more than $40 billion in unnecessary supplies. Put them on EBay, maybe?  The Agriculture Department still operates more than 12,000 field service offices more than a century after industry replaced farming as America's principal business. The federal government knows how to add, but not to subtract. 

On this weekend before the second debate, I wonder if McCain will deign to look at Barack during their second showdown next Tuesday? Will he dare to make eye contact? I bet he will, and unlike the first debate, let his disdain show even more openly.

Let's hope the media starts a narrative about how McCain can't decide from one debate to the next what he wants to be, sort of like Al Gore was (unfairly) painted in 2000.

Regardless of McCain's demeanor, I hope Barack knocks the Repub ticket this way: he could hit on the fact that Palin quoted Ronald Reagan in the closing statement in her debate performance. She cited the then-actor's 1961 remark decrying the advent of Medicare, claiming that this presaged "socialized medicine." As if health care for seniors and the indigent were a bad thing. Well, here we are a half-century later, still trying to fulfill the promise of health care for the rest of the population, and this year's Republican model is claiming that the Dems want to bring in "government-run health care," as if Medicare had been a failure, instead of one of the most successful legacies of the Great Society. 

It would be great for Barack to quote McCain's V-P back to McCain, take him down a peg and humiliate him some. If McCain hasn't yet looked at Obama, he surely will then, and angrily.

Does anyone remember McCain's pledge to take the high road and run an "admirable" campaign? I guess when you're losing the battle, that goes right out the window.

Of course, regardless of this, the MSM still seem to think of McCain as a "maverick" or "straight-talker". When really, he once again shows that he is NOT interested in country first.

This is HIS time to be prez. Obama is of no concern to McCain. Everyone out of his way!

So now that he has vowed to take the low road, he just comes right out today and says so. Do you think that the American people will let him do this? Does anyone think that ads and effort spent on Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers will really have an effect on those being driven out of their homes, their health care benefits cut and their life savings going down the drain?

I do not think it will work this year. Neither will the 25 year old GOP playbook of tax & spend liberals. Because that means that McCain by default paints himself with the same brush that Bush has used for 8 years. Everyone knows that has not worked out.

So now we can sit back and watch McCain make an a** out of himself. Besides, who the heck really knows who William Ayers anyway???

Be careful, it may be a diversion, to lull complacency. Much like the Battle of the Bulge.

The most current post that shows up on my "Your Blog" Page is 4 days old and I have posted as late as now.

Anyone else having this same problem?

THANKS!
O¿O

I'm writing because today is the Democratic primary for the 2nd Congressional District in Louisiana, a seat that includes New Orleans and is currently held by Rep. William Jefferson of $90,000-in-the-freezer fame.

There is a lot of enthusiasm here, and some people are saying that Rep. Jefferson may not even make the runoff for the seat (to make the runoff, you have to be one of the top two vote-getters in Louisiana's strange primary system).  We have many great candidates, including New Orleans City Councilman James Carter, Louisiana State Rep. Cedric Richmond, and former newscaster Helena Moreno (who got my vote today).

Now, in all likelihood, Rep. Jefferson will make the runoff.  But he will probably lose in November -- and I think this does stand in contrast to the Stevens' and Young's of the world who survive Republican primaries despite ethical troubles.  Defeating Rep. Jefferson is good for our country and good for the party.

We should know much more after 8:00pm Central time.  Keep an eye out!

So it's becoming more and more clear what Sarah Palin really reads.

She quotes Westbrook Pegler, who Robert Kennedy, Jr. notes had this to day about his father -

"some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow flies."

And she reads The New American, a John Birch Society periodical.

Here are some thoughts here, and here.

But, of course, her speech was scripted for her, and it's possible the article is just a prop.

But, I remain curious. What does the Governor read? Or, rather, what has she read that shaped her worldview, especially her political worldview?

Cross posted at Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

As history has shown, there is a difference between submitting a voter registration application and finding your name on the rolls when you go to vote. With registration coming to a close, Project Vote is conducting emergency efforts to ensure that no one who wants to vote is left out on Election Day.

Project Vote's Registration Repair Program is an intensive and urgent effort to collect and rectify large numbers of registrations that have been rejected by boards of election. We have been working all over the country to obtain disqualified applications and to contact would-be voters to repair applications with missing or erroneous information.

Check www.ProjectVote2008.org to see if your county has disqualified applications

Project Vote offers a Web site to help voters to check if they, their friends or neighbors were rejected by election authorities because of alleged or actual deficiencies in their application. Unless these people have already fixed the problem or filed another, corrected application, they will not be able to vote in November. The lists are available at www.ProjectVote2008.org. Currently featured states include Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Check back often as lists will be updated with more information in coming days.

Given that many of these counties have registration deadlines this Monday, we encourage voters to ensure they are not excluded from the voter rolls. Voters who discover they are not registered may fix the problem immediately by calling or visiting the local elections office to file a new, correct registration. This must be done before the Oct. 6 deadline to ensure all citizens who thought they registered to vote may cast a ballot on Election Day.

For more information on how to file a new, correct application, call these voter hotlines, provided by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: 866 OUR VOTE (866 687-8683) or 888 VE Y VOTA (888 839-8682).

No other organization is conducting such an effort to save registrations that have fallen through the bureaucratic cracks. Several boards of election have been cooperative, recognizing the importance of ensuring that every American who wants to vote is able to vote. In other cases, however, Project Vote is being met with reluctance, resistance, or outright refusal from election boards who seem content to allow thousands of would-be voters to turn up on Election Day and find that they've been left off the rolls.

Note: It is a violation of law in many states to use any of the information on any of these lists for commercial purposes.

Sarah Palin has stepped across the line one time too many.  Its what they would call on the "Chappelle Show" habitual line stepping.  Its time for Debbie Wasserman Shultz or Claire McCaskill or another female Obama surrogate to go ahead and turn this tramp over their knees and spank her ass like the petulant little child she is.  Its not as if there isn't a plethora of good material to use.  At some point we have to draw the line in the sand and say that just because Sarah Palin is a woman doesn't mean she can say what ever in the hell she wants to!

Trooper-Gate, Disability Gate, Earmark Queen, Child Abuser,  Liar, Idiot.  These are just a few of the topics that need to be CRUSHING Sarah Palin for the next 4 weeks of this election.  I mean if we aren't going to attack her we might as well roll over and play dead.  The next thing you know she will be saying Barack Obama is a coward and is going to give up and surrender in Iraq.  Oh wait, I forgot, SHE ALREADY DID THAT with 80 million Americans watching.  My blood is seriously boiling right now and I HOPE that Obama's is as well behind the scenes.  Before I go any further I guess I should address what she said THIS TIME. These are just a few of the topics that need to be CRUSHING Sarah Palin for the next 4 weeks of this election.  I mean if we aren't going to attack her we might as well roll over and play dead.  The next thing you know she will be saying Barack Obama is a coward and is going to give up and surrender in Iraq.  Oh wait, I forgot, SHE ALREADY DID THAT with 80 million Americans watching.  My blood is seriously boiling right now and I HOPE that Obama's is as well behind the scenes.  Before I go any further I guess I should address what she said THIS TIME.

"There's been a lot of interest in what I read lately.  Well, I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago.  Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.'  These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes.  This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in - not my kids and not your kids. The only man who can take on Washington is John McCain."

Now two days ago this DUMB BIOTCH couldn't even name ONE newspaper she has read.  Today she is misquoting the NYT article that actually said the OPPOSITE of what she said.  I know conventional wisdom is saying don't attack her because people will feel sorry for her.  But I also know this and I will probably catch some hell from some people about this but its my believe and I have seen it so its also my experience:  When a woman abuses a man over and over again if that man ever defends himself the people who have seen the whole saga don't harbor ill will towards him most of the time.  On the contrary in fact a lot of the times a man who allows himself to be attacked over a long period of time he tends to be come the subject of ridicule being called weak or henpecked by both men and women alike.  If a Sarah Palin is bold enough to come out her slanderous mouth that  Obama is palling around with terrorist then she had better be woman enough to withstand getting attacked about being a child abuser.  She needs to be ready to get attacked for LYING repeatedly to the American people.  She needs to be ready to be attacked for using our tax dollars like a federal welfare system for her state of Alaska.  But bigger than that WE need to be ready to attack HER and shut her damn mouth.  Its hard to throw punches when you are constantly eating them!

I know that this diary won't change anything but dammit I needed to vent.  I could take it when McCain and his cronies were making these lines.  At least they are out there to try to defend them.  She hides out in a bat cave and only comes out to make attacks.  We need to NUKE  her ass from her hiding place with our OWN attacks and then she will HAVE to talk to the MSM or risk allowing us to shape her narrative.  We need to DEMAND that this happens. 

Many commentators seem, since the Vice Presidential debates, to have agreed upon a single particularly salient adjective by which to describe Gov Palin's thrust and demeanor: folksy.  Even those who have publicly – or implicitly – supported her have settled upon this word, deploying it as evidence of her humble roots.  It is a rare state of near-unanimity that has been reached: Palin – as embodied by her ubiquitous smile and winks, her colloquialisms, and her somewhat inexplicable Midwestern accent – is definitively folksy.What poses a problem to those who invoke it positively is that the word is intended to have a pejorative tenor, a redolence of artificiality and contrived affect.  The general concurrence with which this consensus has been reached – a low, deferential harmony among television, print, and internet journalists – has allowed the word to be attributed to her variously and greatly.  And by some miraculous stroke of rare precision, it is also the perfect word to do so: its connotations of inorganic imitation are as precise as any attempts at judicial pith have been during this election season.  Her appearances have been the acme of antiquated Americana, adorned by her as fashionably as the rest of her complimentary garments.And so amputated become her gerunds, so "betcha'd" her assertions.  Even while discussing the most dire of geopolitical issues and possible measures, her folksiness dominates and a reassuring smile is left to comfort her audience as she portends war with Russia and greater legislative power for the Vice President.  The most genuinely moving moment of the debates – when Biden took issue with her assertion of maternal domination over a full comprehension of parenthood – was met with her by a return to talking point; after having made a suggestion that deeply offended Biden emotionally and perspectivally, not even her folksiness could illuminate for her compassion, and thus she could not she elicit from it any.She did not always come across this way.  In videos of earlier discussions in which she participated – to be found with no great effort on YouTube –, she displayed a notable intelligence and capacity to be articulate, without the sense that her points were cloaked under and weighted down by an opaque carapace of synthetic patina.  Since joining the McCain campaign, however, the features that made her nomination bankable in the first place – her motherhood, her gender, her resemblance to middle America, as fantasied by the Republican ticket – were augmented with the cartoonish facsimile of humility and down-to-earthiness that are now so swollen and on view.  To listen to her speak now, as compared to how she once did, is astonishing, and saddening.  It is as if she has been made to speak another dialect so as to less subtly hint at what the McCain campaign hopes to be her most endearing and sympathetic – and ultimately electorally profitable – quality: her averageness.  They have ballooned what was perhaps latent in her so as to turn these qualities into recognizable stereotypes that Americans would, ostensibly, like to see embodied by their figurehead.  It is as if she Google-translates everything she says from English (Standard) to English (Folksy), if only so as to assure us how truly – how folksily – she means what she is saying.  It is the campaign's cynical hope that the inherent artificiality of folksiness will be given the benefit of the doubt by the skeptical few, and embraced by the hopeful many.

I have not, in listening and reading responses to the vice presidential debate, noticed any reference to what struck me as the most alarming statement made by Governor (may I call you Sarah?) Palin: “But even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world.” Howard Zinn describes the “… notion of American exceptionalism” as that “ the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary…” (http://bostonreview.net/BR30.3/zinn.html). This notion of American exceptionalism, originally intended to qualitatively differentiate the American experience from that of other nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism , has dissolved, particularly in the Bush Administration, into the notion of American superiority over that of the rest of the non-democratic world. This notion is then paired, by the Republican/neo-conservative ideologues and as scripted for Governor Palin in the debate, with Ronald Reagan’s image of America as the “shining city on a hill”: America as the New Jerusalem. American exceptionalism, from the perspective of the shining city on the hill, is an ideological basis for justifying our unjustifiable preventative war in Iraq and the expansion of American empire around the world as a democratic crusade. It promotes a narcissistic national self-image tinged with religious delusion that must see its values where ever it looks, peers down with contempt upon those that do not conform and justifies the use of military violence to impose conformity to those values. This world view of John McCain and George Bush which Sarah Palin shares is both pathological and dangerous. Her acknowledgement of taking this perspective should give anyone pause when considering voting for McCain-Palin.

It's inevitable. Less than a month before election day and trailing badly in the polls, McCain's camp and his surrogates no doubt will launch the most negative attacks of the campaign yet, the Ayers-Reverend Wright variety, only more savage, bestial and most likely false and misleading.
Before those attacks air (and not after), the Obama camp must warn the electorate of their eventual arrival to deaden their effect.
Us bloggers should bring them up every chance we get, so when these nasty attacks air, we can just shrug them off as 'here they are'.
But the most effective way to do this is by Obama and Biden calling them out on the stump, announcing these hideous plans of the other side before they even air, and hopefully people will see them for what they are and backfire on the GOP's faces.

The last 4 polls in Pennsylvania show Obama up between +7 and +15.
The question needs ot be asked... how long until McCain pulls out of PA lik ehe pulled out of MI? Right now, McCain needs to DEPERATLY defend VA, NC, and FL. Ohio aint lookign too good either. PA is a sink hole for McCain at this point.

Joe Biden has cancelled all his weekend appearances in the last hour - apparently to be with his wife jill as they face the probably loss of jill's mother.
The hospice in which she has been staying has apparently told the family to be on 'alert' for the next few days - an almost certain indication that Joe's mother-in-law faces imminent death.
My heart goes out to Joe and his family in this time of sadness and personal loss.

While sewing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President .

The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle."

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, "When you're  driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. "You know she didn't get up there by herself; she doesn't belong up there; she doesn't know what to do while she is up there; and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with."

I thought this was an interesting exchange.

Sarah Palin strikes me as the unintentionally perfect spokesperson for the Republican Party. Look. McOnomics amounts to re-creating the Great Depression. Foreign McPolicy amounts to re-fighting the Vietnam War. Their ideas are really that bad.

Republican talking points are about as repetitive and vacuous as Palin made them sound. Their intellectual philosophy is about as incoherent as Palin's fractured sentences. It's not like she's defending a rich intellectual tradition grounded in history, logic or fact. A well formed sentence from her would practically be a misrepresentation.

However unintentionally, Sarah Palin represents the Republican Party better than anybody.

I'm telling you my dear
That it can't happen here

 - "It Can't Happen Here", Frank Zappa

On Thursday, about an hour before the Vice Presidential debate, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) had the following to say on the floor of the House of Representatives:

The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere.  That atmosphere was not justified.  Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill, on Monday, that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and another couple thousand the second day and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no.  That's what I call fear-mongering; unjustified, proven wrong.

Several reports have appeared on the Internet in the past week about the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry returning to America for domestic duties.  CNN picked up the story in the last 24 hours.

I will also remind you all at this time of Presidential Directive NSPD 51:

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

Make of it what you will.

Who could imagine that they would freak out somewhere in Kansas?
...
Who could imagine that they would freak out in Minnesota?
...
Who could imagine that they would freak out in Washington, D.C.?
...
Everybody's safe and it can't happen here...

Gosh... who could have seen this coming?

NY Times story today:

Democratic lawmakers insisted that the Treasury use its authority to help restructure many subprime mortgages so that at least some troubled homeowners could avoid foreclosure.

But the Treasury’s auction plan will make that difficult. More than 90 percent of all subprime mortgages are part of giant pools, or trusts, which sell mortgage-backed securities to investors around the world.

Before the government would be able to modify any mortgage that was in a trust, securities experts said, it would have to acquire agreement from 100 percent of the bondholders. But a senior Treasury official said the government would probably want to buy no more than half of the securities tied to a trust, which would hamper winning agreement from all investors.

But it's going to be okay, because a staffer for Jesse Jackson, Jr. told CNN that Jackson  "received assurances from (Sen. Barack Obama) that, if elected, his administration will aggressively use authority in the bill to prevent foreclosures and stabilize the housing market."

I'm looking forward to hearing more from the Obama campaign about what he has in mind.

Each week I've been taking polling data from Andrew Tanenbaum's www.electoral-vote.com and running Monte Carlo simulations of the election. I use two different margins of error, a 4% margin that is common to most state polls, and another I computed by running a regression of polling errors in 2004 data compared to the final election results. The 4% margin of error is a snapshot of who would win if the election were held today. The other simulation now uses a 10.6% margin of error, which was an attempt to allow movement before the election.

Obama wins almost all the time in both simulations this week/
4% Margin of Error:
Obama wins 99.99%, averages 340.9 EV (low 269, median 344, high 375)
McCain wins 0.00%, averages 197.1 EV (low 139, median 194, high 269)
Electoral tie 0.01%

10.6% Margin of Error:
Obama wins 97.86%, averages 322.6 EV (low 230, median 323, high 419)
McCain wins 1.99%, averages 205.4 EV (low 119, median 215, high 308)
Electoral tie 0.15%

This is easily Obama's most commanding lead of the year, in both simulations. The 10.6% margin of error clearly overstates Obama's chances of winning, because it is assuming each state varies independently. If McCain makes a comeback, he's likely to do so in most states at the same time.

Needless to say, this week's state polling data were quite favorable to Obama. He's probably moved ahead in Florida (leading in 4 of 6 polls, with one tied, and the other giving McCain just a 1 point lead), and is polling a little stronger than McCain in Virginia (leading in 3 of 5 polls), Ohio (4 new polls split, with each candidate leading 2, but Obaa's leads are larger). North Carolina had two new polls, with each candidate showing a 3 point lead, so that state may well be a toss-up right now (McCain had led by double-digits immediately after the GOP convention). McCain gave up on Michigan, but Pennsylvania has shifted more solidly blue also, where the closest of 4 new polls was a 5 point lead, while another poll showed Obama ahead by double-digits.

And while it didn't affect the 4% margin of error simulations, McCain's leads in some traditionally red states shrunk also, with Georgia, Mississippi, and West Virginia all showing McCain leads under 10%. In the simulations, McCain was more likely to lose West Virginia than he was to win Pennsylvania. Yes, Obama now has more very small leads, but adding up the states where he's ahead now puts Obama at almost 340 electoral votes, so he can afford to lose several big, close states and still win.

It's just a month after McCain was rated as more likely to win than Obama, and there's still one month to go, so it's possible that things could swing back the other way.  Only four states(West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Maine) which last showed a lead of under 10 points didn't have a new public poll this week. McCain's decision to pull out of Michigan implies his internal polling was not favorable.

The state polls don't yet include reactions to Thursday's vice presidential debate, but it doesn't seem like it was the game-changer McCain needs to make this competitive. Obama is now in a very strong position, and while these numbers overstate the chances, he is now highly likely to be our next president.

Sometime actions don't just speak louder than words, they scream truth!  The VP spokesmodel is upset that Team McCain is pulling out of Michigan. 

Why?  Well, first there's the problem that she only found out about it from the newspaper.  Second, that means no one in campaign management was vaguely interested in her input on the decision.  Third, despite her plea to go out and fight, it looks like the campaign simply doesn't trust her out there in the field of a fierce battle ground state all by her lonesome.  And fourth, whatever else you think of McCain's campaign people, they are not babbling idiots; they didn't do this without a lot of careful thinking and they certainly aren't doing it happily ... so it's real hard understand why or what Palin thinks she knows that they don't.

This could make a girl all paranoid.  Like maybe they don't think she can handle any intellectual heavy lifting.  Wink, wink, wink.

The hard times continue for Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who this week pulled up his stakes in Michigan, a state his campaign once thought worth contesting.

In the progressive cyberspace, we find McCain ever-so-slightly better off than the week began, on account of the fact that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, failed to fulfill the dreams of liberals, a dream that would have had her imploding on the podium in a torrent of stammers, a potentiality foreshadowed by her supernova performance in a multi-part interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric.

In March, McCain changed his mind on waterboarding, voting to sustain President Bush's veto of a bill that would have banned U.S. interrogators from the practice; he seemed to be rewarded this week with a metaphorical version of a more traditional water torture, as steady drip, drip, drip of mortifying Palin responses to Couric's questions leaked daily out of CBS over the course of a week. Palin couldn't name the newspapers she read, the Supreme Court decisions she opposed (excepting Roe), explain why Alaskan proximity to Russia made her a foreign policy expert, or give more than one narrow example of John McCain's support for regulation of the financial sector.

Thursday Hnight, facing off with Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden, Palin lived to fight another day, playing the game by her own rules, declaring to Biden that she "may not answer the questions the way you or the moderator want me to." Indeed, observed many progressive bloggers, she answered the questions she wanted to be asked, whether they were asked of her or not.

Earlier in the week, the McCain campaign began making noise about the fact that moderator Gwen Ifill, host of PBS's "Washington Week in Review" and an African-American, was the author of a forthcoming book about race and the Obama campaign. The inference by McCain campaign operatives was one of a lurking bias toward the Obama camp, even though McCain himself said he had no problem with Ifill moderating the debate. But, wrote Greg Sargent of TMP Election Central, the merits of the argument are beside the point.

At bottom, though, debating whether there's any merit in the attack on Ifill is beside the point, because as this is really just a transparent game, of course. The criticism is about trying to spook the moderators into going easy on Palin -- a "time-honored form of pre-debate spin," as [the Politico's] Ben Smith put it.

And, indeed, some commentators suggested that Ifill tossed softballs at Palin most of the night, and rarely challenged either candidate when they strayed from her questions.

Some feared that the novelty of Palin's gender posed perils for Joe Biden and commentators alike.

Before the debate began, famed feminist Robin Morgan, writing at the Women's Media Center site, offered this helpful guide to those covering Palin:

Do investigate Palin's opposition to listing polar bears and other animals as endangered. Do not call her one: no chick, bird, kitten, bitch, hen, cow. Also no produce: tomato, peach, etc.

Morgan also reports that, like Palin, both of John McCain's wives were beauty queens.

In truth, Palinpalooza proved to be a mere sideshow to what appears to be chaos and confusion in the McCain camp. Last week saw McCain claiming to suspend his campaign to return to Washington to broker a deal on a financial bailout bill for which a deal appeared to have been reached before McCain showed up. Once he was on the ground the deal fell apart when a majority of House Republicans balked at what was on the table.

At first, wrote Ben Craw on Sept. 30 at Talking Points Memo, McCain pointed the finger at his opponent, then said he didn't:

To review: yesterday John McCain said in consecutive sentences, "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame"...

In a new interview with ABC News's Ron Claiborne however, McCain says he never blamed nobody...

According to Mark Schmitt, editor of The American Prospect, the House Republicans' rebuke of McCain and the first version of the bailout package is symptomatic of a problem much bigger for Republicans than any immediate concern:

Republican strategist Ed Rollins gave the game away on CNN: "At the end of the day, there's a lot of people thinking about how to rebuild this party, and do we want to rebuild it with John McCain, who's always kind of questionable on the basic facts of fiscal control, all the rest of it, immigration..."

[...]

The Republican coalition since at least Reagan has been a miraculous alliance of Wall Street and Main Street. Populist politics, such as the attack on "elites" now embodied by the enthusiasm for Gov. Sarah Palin, were the vehicle for Wall Street policies, the very policies that led to the crash. The alliance always seemed unsustainable.

Trying to straddle the factions of that "miraculous alliance" may well have proved the undoing of John McCain, according to Edward McClelland, writing at Salon:

McCain has run for the presidency twice, as two completely different candidates. His campaigns and his image have been shaped by the nasty partisanship of the late 20th and early 21st century, an era that may be remembered as the Late Culture Wars.

[...]

Writers loved McCain during his first run for the presidency, in 2000. But eight years later, they think he's a flip-flopping hack.

McClelland's essay comes to us in the form of a review of four books about John McCain, authored, respectively, by David Foster Wallace, Paul Begala, Cliff Schecter and Matthew Welch -- and argues for occasional forays by news junkies into the erudite realm of book reviews.

Addressing more immediate matters, Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones and Tim Fernholz of TAPPED give us the low-down on two conference calls with reporters by the McCain camp.

On Wednesday, Stein detected something of a ringer on a press call with McCain surrogate Rudy Giuliani:

The second question was from someone named Chuck Pardee. Pardee asserted that Tina Fey and many reporters make their living "embellishing the facts." After criticizing the press for treating Sarah Palin unfairly, Pardee concluded*:

"Do you think embellishing the facts is actually what the concerned voter is after? And specifically, Joe Biden seems to embellish and forget facts just to kind of impress people but when you take Sarah Palin she seems to impress others with her quick study without embellishing the facts. In other words do you think people want a straight shooter or do they want the stuff and fluff?"

[...]

Pardee, by the way, is the "founder and president" of Newsbull.com. He has donated the maximum $2,300 to McCain.

TAPPED's Fernholz, on the next day's called, reported a new "aggressiveness" on the part of the campaign:

But McCain political director Mike Duhaime and senior adviser Greg Strimple aren't worried, because they're aggressive -- in fact, everyone's aggressive. The word came up about 50 times in the call, used to describe everything from Obama's liberalism to President Bush! (Amateur psychologists, make of it what you will.) They also promised an aggressive last 30 days, which is no surprise as conventional wisdom is beginning to coalesce around the idea that the McCain camp needs to/will go negative to win.

That's because the polls continue to bode ill for McCain.

Also boding ill for McCain was an ad by Brave New PAC and Democracy for America that was airing on MSNBC, before Fox's Bill O'Reilly started slamming the rival network about it. The ad raises questions on the state of McCain's health, which some viewers found offensive.

In other health-related campaign news, Doug Cunningham of Workers Independent News reports that the AFL-CIO is targeting voters in battleground states with a leafletting campaign challenging McCain's health plan.

And so concludes another wild week in campaignland.

--Adele M. Stan

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about John McCain. Visit JohnMccain.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on McCain. And for the best progressive reporting on two critical issues, check out Immigration.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net.

JohnMcCain.NewsLadder.net is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and NewsLadder Inc. Adele M. Stan is executive editor of The Media Consortium's syndicated reporting project.

The Hillary holdouts at Noquarter have a summit meeting....

What are we doing to help Americans that have worked for years and now find themselfs jobless and homeless I have not heard much about this. where is their Bailout what is our great and mighty Goverment going to do to HELP I'll tell you NOTHING!! I feel as if we should not have excepted the bailout  or at the least enforced a penaty on the CEO's and company heads to sell their personal properity that is what our law requires of the common person going into bankruptuy. These people are simply walking away with millions of dollars and we are allowing it.
OK  Obama, McCain you want my vote then tell me the truth what are you truly going to do.

Due to the monetary blackmail being leveled at the people of the United States by it's financial ruling class and the subsequent banking crisis and stock market drop caused by their unregulated greed, I suppose it's only natural that our myopic press would equate this disaster with the great crash of 1929. I submit it's more likely that this is but a symptom of a wider crisis that should instead recall events from 60 years later.

In 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, it signaled the end for the Soviet empire.  It's rulers had foolishly believed they could spend whatever they wanted - so long as they could maintain military parity with the US, their people would have to wait. But they had actually bankrupted themselves in doing so. Their war of choice in Afghanistan, far from extending their empire and redrawing the map of the Middle East and Central Asia, bogged down into a bloody slog against a native insurgency. It demonstrated not the awesomeness of their military but its severe limits as a tool of political power. Their humiliating withdrawal combined with their obvious economic ability to do anything about it - and to do anything for their own people - accelerated the unraveling of their entire governing philosophy and the Communist Party lost it's grip on power.

Sound familiar? The Bush administration has wasted at least a trillion dollars on a military adventure that that has met none of it's strategic goals. It has provided a recipe to our enemies for future asymmetric warfare and has so degraded our military readiness and reputation as to make future attacks more likely,while emboldening emerging empires. And here's the key: in one of the greatest acts of moral and political cowardice in the history of government, Bush has refused to accept any responsibility to pay for his catastrophic war. Thinking he could stick his successors with the price tag, George Bush bet the farm he could win and get out before the bill came due. This entirely predictable failure of leadership has left us at the mercy of the world financial machinery he used to borrow the money to pay for what he was (rightly!) afraid to ask his own citizens to provide. No matter what lipstick John McCain tries to put on the Iraqi pig it's been a colossal failure and may now do for Republicanism - or worse for American democracy - what Afghanistan did for Communism.

How quickly could our very ability to govern unravel? Even in February 1989, near the end of the Afghan disaster, few in Moscow would have thought - or been willing to admit - that they'd have completely lost control before the end of the year.  Can we avoid the same fate? Certainly not if the Republicans are left in charge. If Obama wins it will still be a very difficult road indeed. But if Progressives are going to continue to claim to be the reality-based community, then I say Obama's embrace of a rescue plan for the financial industry is actually a glass that's half full. Because as abhorrent as many of us find the necessity, recognizing that just because their attempt to blackmail the taxpayers into forking over another trillion or so is an outrageous crime, that doesn't mean they don't have us by balls. If they have nothing else to lose the Republicans and their moneyed masters will surely drag us all down with them.

So here's to hoping the glass really is half full.  That Obama sees that handwriting on it and has decided to grit his teeth, pay the bribe, and get on with rebuilding the country before the Wall of ignorance and arrogance erected by by George Bush, John McCain and the Republican Party crushes us all as it comes tumbling down.

As some of you all know I have become very involved in the Obama presidential campaign.  Every Saturday and Sunday during the day I go door to door talking to voters, getting preferences, and registering unregistered voters.  During the week I make phone calls and work in the office, doing what I can to get Barack Obama elected president.   It was at one of the doors I got to that why I am doing this really struck home. 

I went canvassing last night (the technical term for going door to door) and the last door I knocked on was occupied by a named Terry.  The home was a nice, older style St. Louis house with the sort of landscaping that was once very well kept, but had since fallen into disrepair.  Weeds were growing in the cracks of the cobblestone steps heading up to the house and had it not been for a light on in the upstairs I would have assumed nobody was home.  As soon as the door opened out walked a middle aged man, seemingly a little leery of a stranger approaching his home at 7 o’clock on a Friday evening.  I started my usual shtick of introducing myself, and telling him why I was at his door, to find out who he was voting for and what issues he cared about.  I expected the worst, he scanned me with a very skeptical look and he looked deep in thought.  I assumed coming was some snide remark about how John McCain was our only choice or some falsehood about Obama and his upbringing.  Instead Terry was looking for the right words to express how much we need Obama to be elected president.  He told a story about how he was a foreman for a plant in St. Louis for 25 years.  He was a proud man who worked hard and took care of his elderly parents who lived with him.  At least he could until 3 years ago, when he suffered a brain injury which now impedes his ability to talk clearly and adversely affected his motor skills.  He still takes care of his parents, living off of aid from the government and money he had saved while he was working.  He talked for a long time, clearly nobody had taken the time to hear his story, at least nobody recently.  He is an American, forgotten.

People like John McCain and the republicans tout how big a problem government is.  They say we need to eliminate programs all together and come up with private solutions for all aspects of life.  What a load of garbage.  We live in the greatest country on earth yet we have people who have done nothing wrong, who have worked hard and are proud Americans struggling to pay their utility bills.  We have more wealth that any other nation has, yet we insist that people like Terry are “burdens of the state”, and that a free markets can provide the answers to every question.  Well let me ask you, if we don’t take care of people like him what good is one dollar of that wealth?  Our country wasn’t founded because we wanted no government at all, it was founded because we wanted a government that represented all Americans.  This is what Barack Obama supports.  Right now we have a government that only represents the very rich.  If you don’t have wealth, you have no influence.  This isn’t class warfare, but it is undeniable that we have a tax code that so highly favors the top one half of one percent that we now have the highest disparity between the haves and the have-nots in America since the 1920s.  Republicans call Obama a “socialist” and say he wants big government to run our lives.  Nonsense, he wants a government that works, that cares for veterans and people who have lived their lives in ways that have benefited our nation.  We need change in our nation and we need it badly.  The only way the other side can win this election is if they drive a wedge between the American people.  They want to make us scared of Barack Obama and scared of each other.  While I hate to see how much of my money goes to taxes each paycheck, I know that because I don’t make $250,000 a year yet, under an Obama administration my taxes would actually go down.  If I did make over $250,000 my taxes would go to what they were under Bill Clinton, a time of great economic prosperity in our country.  This isn’t some massive tax hike, it’s a changing of the tax code to make it more fair to the middle class, to give them a chance to make it in America. 

A sign on Terry’s door warned against having an open flame because Oxygen was in use in the house.  He told me not to worry, and his mother puts it on when she sleeps and that it was off during the day.  His nonchalance about something as serious about his mother requiring oxygen was so striking to me.  Few things I have gone though in my life could nearly be as challenging as the daily struggle that he goes though each day to make ends meet. 

Every presidential candidate tells stories about voters they meet and the hardships they face.  It always struck me as incredibly insincere, how could someone running for the highest office in America really care about the concerns of one person?  Well yesterday I learned it does.  Our country is better than this and our nation needs people like us to step up and get it done.

Thank you to everyone who read this.  If you want to get involved let me know and I can get you set up right way.

Best,

Thomas

When I started applying what I've learned about McCain's health care proposals to my own situation, here is what I find. 

As a self-employed person with several pre-existing conditions, I was turned down for coverage in the individual coverage market. 

Fortunately, I live in a state with a high-risk insurance pool that has negotiated guaranteed coverage after my term in the high-risk program expired. 

Unfortunately, my guaranteed coverage costs in excess of $7,000 a year -- yes, that's just for me as a single, self-employed person. The McCain plan would give me a $2,500 tax credit, as I understand it. Big deal. 

Then there are all the co-pays and deductibles, which I'm still on the hook for and which don't seem to have been thought through, unless I've missed something big and appealing in their plan. 

Isn't this just another set of back-door subsidies for the insurance companies to ensure they can continue to gouge people like me who have few options besides being uninsured?

.... because I probably am being that way, but here's my gut reaction to this McCain ad about Obama.

First, I think they're using the old trick of making Obama's skin tone look darker.  Second, the photo of Obama at the start, where he's looking up and to the side, forehead wrinkled, reminded me of someone.  This person is often pictured with that expression on his face.

Since he's in the news these days, if there's an attempt at subliminal (or not-so-subliminal) tweaking, that sort of stinks.  But I'd put nothing past the Rovians.

Barack Obama's promise to meet with Iran without preconditions has had some unintended consequences.

Whether you believe Bush really intended to put diplomats into Iran or you believe the entire issue is manufactured to embarrass Obama, it's clear that Obama's refusal to unequivocally retract his offer of a summit without preconditions is a mistake.

Although Obama has tried to spin his offer to bring it into line with the position Clinton took in the debate, a review of the video of Obama's answer to a YouTube question makes it clear that he was looking at a picture of Ahmadinejad as he listened to the question.  He knew exactly which leader of Iran he was being asked about, and he knew that the question was about a Presidential summit meeting without preconditions.

Obama's failure to explicitly admit that he misspoke and his failure to take an unconditional summit with Iran off the table, has allowed the McCain campaign to use our relations with Iran as a political football.  And it has put Joe Biden in the position of having to lie about Obama's record.

Obama needs to put this behind him.

He should assure McCain that he will not meet with Iran at the Presidential level without preconditions and ask McCain to join him in urging President Bush to put direct diplomacy with Iran and an Iranian mission back on the table.

If Obama and McCain can join in a bipartisan effort to bailout the financial system, they can join in a bipartisan effort to avoid a war with Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZsO7dZ__iw&eurl=http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/

Here is David giving Sarah Palin hell, while Dave talks to Brian Williams, NBC anchor.

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

I will post the second part of the Brian Williams on the first comment section,

Nah, just messin' with ya! 

Sarah has gone to ground!  LOL!

My daughter's elementary school held Student Council elections yesterday.  She ran for Third Grade Representative.

One boy and one girl represent each class.  Her friend Rick had a lock on the boy rep slot.  He was the only boy in the race.

My daughter was facing real competition.  The classroom is divided into four tables, and three of them had a female candidate.  Every candidate got to put up two posters for one day and to make a three-minute speech. 

My daughter and my wife worked on her campaign strategy while I worked on what I would say when I picked her up from school yesterday.  Something like "congratulations" or maybe "Well, now you know how Hillary felt."

Driving my candidate to school yesterday morning, I was cautiously optimistic.  She has been watching politicians perform since she was a kid for Kerry in 2004.  She knows the ropes.

She cut a deal with Rick for his vote and went after the table without a candidate.  She rehearsed her campaign speech.  I got to play the part of one of her friends.  She promised to listen to me.

When she got out of the car yesterday morning, I was feeling pretty good.  One of her signs used a slogan I suggested.  "You'll Be Glad You Did." 

And she was wearing her Hannah Montana T-shirt.

I saw this last night on Countdown and someone put the clip on YouTube...the similarities are kind of scary to say the least...

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

Here's the link check it out!

Many of you are no doubt happy to see Obama's rise in the polls, which I think in a broad sense are due to the economy, Obama's calm performances as a candidate, and consistent message, compared to the McCain campaign chaos, Palin interviews, and the debates. It's a change year.
For the Obama team to rapidly reverse some of the Bush policies, it would be very helpful to have a filibuster-proof margin in the senate. So take a look at these:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/senate%20polls

538 not only shows the surprise gains in North Carolina and Oregon, but now the most recent polls show McConnell's seat is at risk in Kentucky.
Vote from abroad shows the same trend, but is more aggressive in predicting democratic gains:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Oct04-s.html

http://www.pollster.com/polls/2008senate/

Pollster.com has been a bit later to show the same trends, but the news there is essentially the same. There are many more poll sites, but the trends I'm currently seeing look promising for the democrats legislative agenda should Obama win in November. Is it Christmas for the democrats change agenda? We'll see, but it's looking better and better.

At this point there are only two ways I can see for the Republicans to win in November. One would be something very big from Al Qaeda to occur or a Republican move to the hard, hard right.

You don't think they are there already?

In fact they, or at least John McCain, have quite a bit of distance yet to travel.

Read this from Nixon's former speech writer and arch, paleo-conservative, Pat Buchanan:

Philosophically and culturally, we are a divided people. Across the spectrum there are us-versus-them folks who see politics as a zero-sum game between Middle America and a global elite. Below the upper-income brackets and along the center-right are the folks the late columnist Sam Francis, citing sociologist Donald Warren's 1976 study, called Middle American Radicals.(...) In recent years, we have seen the MARs rise again and again in roaring rebellion. But, invariably, when these rebellions occur, John McCain may be found inside the castle walls. In 2007, McCain rushed to Washington to support George Bush, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post in the drive to grant amnesty to 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. A national firestorm killed the bill and almost killed McCain's campaign. A year earlier, a MARs uprising killed the Dubai ports deal. The power elite was stunned by the explosion of outrage over the leasing of six U.S. ports to Arab sheiks. Nationalism remains a more potent force than globalism, and not only in America.(...) These Democrats can still win this race for John McCain. Many admire his war record. But not only is he not one of them, he has taken pride and pleasure in having been their great antagonist. Could McCain win them back in five weeks? Perhaps. Is he willing to do what is necessary to win them back? Probably not. It would go against his instincts and his image of himself. The issues that move these folks are not just the $700 billion bailout of Gordon Gekko's comrades, but the invasion of America from Mexico, the export of their jobs, factories and future to Asia, and the gnawing fear that the country they grew up in is being sacrificed for the benefit of an internationalist elite. In Clinton's first term, McCain stood with the establishment for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO and the Mexican bailout. Middle America opposed them all. In the past decade, the MARs have opposed free-trade deals, and lost, but won virtually every referendum on gay marriage, affirmative action or welfare for illegal aliens. Invariably, the MARs are portrayed as bigots, nativists, xenophobes, protectionists and isolationists, and their leaders as demagogues. In McCain's words from 2000, they are "agents of intolerance." This is fine if you wish to be beloved in this city, but it may be a fatal impediment if you want to be president.

Buchanan's text, with a few names changed, would read exactly like a text by European any neo-fascist like Jean Marie Le Pen, Gianfranco Fini or Jörg Haider. It is the same toxic cocktail.

This is the path that much of the European right has been taking in the last few years in France, Italy, Austria and Belgium... even in Germany and it has been paying them huge dividends.

I think a clearer and more tempting recipe for turning McCain's campaign around would be hard to find. Certainly Sarah Palin would be no impediment. Buchanan's former boss, Richard Nixon, would have done it without even blinking, but will John McCain?
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

Articles about McCain's response to Obama's call for a shared statement - agreeing to a statement but leaving out his intention to publicly say he was suspending his campaign - indicated this was payback for Obama having earlier publicly backed down from an agreement with McCain.

Is the what was being referenced? If so, looks like the plan you outlined was put into play.

I am afraid that we have reached a point where the Republicans have made doublespeak completely accepted, even by the MSM.

McCain engages in it all the time, and he does not get challenged. Look at how, on a daily basis, he now attacks, and blames Senator Obama, and in the very next breath, says stuff such as: now is not the time to engage in the blame game.


The one that annoys me the most is the weak fact checking that the media engages in. They are always swathing at gnats, while giving the hornets free passage.

Take for example Sarah Palin's debate statement  about if global warming is being caused by mankind's activities. The gist of what she said was, she did not know, and that it could be attributed to natural cyclical climate changes.

She then went on to talk up how we have to reduce carbon emissions, and get to the point of using clean green energy, that will greatly reduce mankind's carbon footprint on the planet. She did not put it in those exact words. but that is what she was calling for.

Here is where the Media BS detector should have gone off, but did not.

If Sarah Palin does not know, or fully agree, that global warming is caused by mankind's activities, then why is she laying out a plan to greatly curtail those activities.

Do you see what I mean. If you go to the Doctor, and he tells you that you do not have an infection, and he then writes you a bunch of prescriptions to suppress the infection, that he said you do not have, wouldn't you call him out.

Of course you would. Did you hear Gwen Ifill ,or any of the horde of post debate analysts, do so?
Sarah Palin does not fully believe that burning coal causes global warming, but she wants to stop burning coal so that we can reduce global warming. That is her position, and yet none of the chattering class have said; Huh?

It is fitting that McCain's HQ is in VA, the home of Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy. I am a Civil War history buff and what we are now seeing is the remarkably similar to the last days of the Confederacy and the defensive stand around Petersburg before the horrific week long retreat that ended with peace at Appomattox in April 1865.

If you missed it McCain has withdrawn from Michigan - the Wolverine state, home to  George Armstrong Custer. Yep, the Little Big Horn Custer. What a coincidence. Montana was where it occurred.

RCP now shows Obama with 264 EVs. We all know that the magic number is 270 EV's and there is a situation of what is being called the "nightmare" scenario where we could have a 269/269 tie and that is what McCain is reduced to now, the small chance of trying to tie and win with 1 EV peeled off of ME to avoid the Democratic Congress making Obama President.

Maine? Home of the greatest hero of the Civil War, Joshua Chamberlain, whose leadership of the 20th Maine at Little Round Top at the battle of Gettysburg likely saved the Union.  He was also selected by Grant to oversee the Confederacy's surrender of arms at Appomattox.

Yes Maine of all places. ME and NE are the only states that award EV's based on votes in Congressional districts and McCain is hoping to pick off ME 2, the more republican of the 2 ME districts and get that one EV.

Barack is trying the same thing in NE around Omaha with a big push there - but he has the money to try this insurance gambit. McCain is stretched thin already.

So here we are with 30 days to go and this is what McCain is reduced to:

Obama - 264 EVs, Needs to win ONLY ONE of CO (9), MO (8), VA (13), NC (15), FL (27), OH (20), IN (11) to win outright. Winning only NV (5) gets a tie - 269/269 and a win in the House. Hello 1876 and Rutherford B.Hayes. The NE EV would make it 270-268. Obama has at least 8 direct paths to victory.

McCain - Short of McCain getting any of the states that are now showing blue for Obama he only has one miniscule chance to win. There is literally no chance McCain is going to win PA. NH (4)  is also looking strong for Obama now. McCain thus needs some combo of the Nightmare Scenario as you will see below to eke out a victory:

• Needs to win ALL of the above states but NV(5) and get the Maine EV - He wins 270-268.
• Win all But NC (15) and peels off MN (10) or WI (10) and gets ME EV and voila - 270-268. Of course if Obama peels off the NE EV it is tied.
• Peel off NH and lose CO (9) only - TIE
• Peel of NH and Lose only MO (8), Obama wins NE EV - Tie, McCain wins ME EV - he wins 270-268
• Peel of NH(4) and MN (10) or WI (10) and Obama wins IN and MO - Tie
• Peel off PA (21) and lose NC(15) and IN (11) - Tie
• Peel off PA (21) and lose OH (20) and NV (5) - Win 270-268 unless Obama wins NE EV. If  McCain wins the Maine EV here he wins.
• Peel off PA (21) and NH (4) and lose only VA (13) and MO (8) and CO (9) - Tie

I am sure there are more wild combos of the remaining states to add more here but you see the dwindling options for McCain starkly above. I just do not see him winning MN,WI or PA. NH is an outside but dwindling shot as well.

Of course if Mark is right and Montana (3) goes for Obama then the nightmare scenarios are all moot. Wouldn't it be fitting if the state of Custer's last stand was the one that ended McCain's dishonorable campaign?

PS - If you ever get a chance to visit Petersburg and take the retreat route tour to Appomattox I highly suggest it. Appomattox is a beautiful little spot and a great place to reflect on the history of this great country. Joshua Chamberlain also wrote a book that is out in paperback about the last few weeks of the war, the retreat and surrender or arms that he oversaw that is exceptional reading.

NY Times examines the slim ties between Obama and Weatherman founder Bill Ayers.

Wing nuts have tried to make hay out of the connection, but as this NY Times article establishes, there is no there, there.

I am an unrepentant, unapologetic 60's radical of the Sons of Gandhi school--I thought the Weathermen and others who advocated violence for their cause had become the very thing that they opposed. And I saw it, first hand--a large Weatherman once picked me up by the throat, my feet dangling, for suggesting that violence only begat violence. He was proving the truth of my claim. It was cold comfort. With the passage of time, I have become even MORE convinced that Gandhi and the Dalai Llama are correct. Still-I never thought we would change the world. Buddhism is 2500 years old. The Prince of Peace has been dead for 2000 years. Look around you. How many of your friends and neighbors are centering their lives around the pursuit of peace, love, and understanding? A few. As John Lennon sang: 'nothing's going to change my world...nothings going to change my world...Jai Guru Deva. Om."

Still--I do understand the frustration, hopelessness, and anger that fuels the violence--I just happen to think it's an insatiable gorge--and that Picasso made a more significant impact by painting a picture: Guernica--which has launched thousands of discussions about the subject matter of the painting. The paintbrush is mightier than the sword.

"Home, home, on the range..."

Michigan and Pennsylvania pullout claims by Senator McCain's campaign may just be a ploy to get Senator Obama to stop advertising in those states (believing he's ahead, why spend more money).

I sincerely hope Obama stays alert and live in those two States - as well as his own State of Illinois.

Al Gore lost his own state -- assuming they'd vote for him either way.

Secretary of State Mike Coffman, one of two GOP statewide elected officials and now running for a Congressional Seat has now deemed 35,000 (out of 120,000+) new registrations invalid due to a clerical error or interpretation of instruction in providing residence status AFTER THE FACT!

In short the CO voter registration form asks for a driver's license number, state-issued identification number, or social security number as proof of identity (link to form here) 

The Secretary of State's office is now telling voters they must have checked a box which indicates they do not have a driver's license or state ID card, in order for the social security number to be sufficient. 

  The sentence in the form states:

"Check here if you do not have a driver's license or state-issued identification card".  It does not say "at all" or "with you". 

This sentence of course is vague, and could be interpreted by each registrar differently.  When people have been trained (like me) to do voter registration by his office for many months, they have been told the box only needs to be checked if the person does not have a driver's license or state identification card AT ALL.    On the Secretary of State website, there is a link to a PDF document titled "Registration Information for New Voters".  After a list of documents allowable for establishing identification, it continues:

Or you may provide one of the following numbers without providing a physical copy of the number:

Valid Colorado Driver’s License number

 Valid Colorado Department of Revenue Identification number

 At least the four last digits of the voter’s Social Security number

 

According to reports, the Secretary of State's office has recently deemed up to 35,000 (this was told to me last night from the El Paso Democratic Party Chair) of these new registrations invalid, despite the fact they have been completed as instructed!   There are many reasons why persons didn't have their driver's license on them. A)  Imagine you run some errands with your spouse and your spouse drives, so you don't bring your driver's license with you.  B) Or, you could be taking a walk, working out at the gym, shopping, etc. C) You meet a voter registrar with a clipboard somewhere, and they offer to help you register to vote.  D) Or you don't have your driver's license with you, although you do have one at home, and you put your social security number on the form instead (a number unique to you).  The registrar collects all the necessary information, asks you to sign and date the form, and gives you a receipt with his/her signature.    According to Secretary of State's Coffman's new interpretation, the form is invalid if you are honest and do not check the box saying you do not have a driver's license (because you do - it is just not with you).  If you were dishonest and said you didn't have a driver's license, in order to use the social security number option, you may get away with it.    Of course pending lawsuits are spreading.  MEANWHILE, voter registration in Colorado ends at the close of business on Monday, October 6th.  Mail-in ballots, the choice of most of the new voters registered this year, are scheduled to be sent out October 6th, as well.   The national press can contact him at his campaign office at (303) 791-6453 or info@coffmanforcongress.com or the elections office at (303) 894-2200 ext. 6307 elections@sos.state.co.us .

foot.

Where is the news media on this?  Perhaps McCains second favorite reason why people should elect him (did you know he was a POW?) is that, the first time a spending bill comes across his desk with pork, he will take out his veto pen, he will make them famous, and you will know their names.

Except that he won't, and he just showed that in voting for the pork-stuffed bailout/rescue plan.  Each member of Congress has, in effect, the exact same choice with respect to each piece of legislation that comes for a floor vote as the president:  vote up or vote down.  Congress tried once to give the President the opportunity to veto specific line items in spending legislation, but the Supreme Court struck it down (at the behest of Rudi G.) in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).  (During a primary debate, McCain promised to bring back the line item veto.  Then someone on a major news station pointed out that it was stuck down as unconstitutional, and he hasn't brought it up again.)  Thus, under the Presentment Clause, a President can either sign the bill -- as hammered out by Congress -- into law, or kill it.  There is no third option.

And that's why McCain's vote on Wednesday is so telling.  The bill was full of pork (by his own admission), and he voted yes.  Why?  Because, according to McCain, there were bigger issues at stake in this legislation.

But that is precisely why presidents sign into law bills with ear marks and other provisions they don't like.  And there is no reason to think McCain will reach a different conclusion when faced with a similar choice in the White House.  So the next time he pulls out his sharpie (as if any president has ever signed or vetoed any law with a sharpie -- wouldn't it run through?), I really hope someone is there to call bull-hockey-mom on that pledge.

I can't seem to find it anymore but Barack Obama use to have a animated video demo on his site that showed folks how to either register to vote or how to vote (can't remember which it was) using little block (round headed) people.  It used the same coloring of his website, shades of blue and white.  It was really pretty cool.  It was also educational.  Even a first grader would have understood it.

Anyway, my point here is, this same designer/design should be used by Obama to explain the Bailout/Rescue bill that Congress and President Bush just passed.

He could explain how things got so bad, then explain how this extra money being spent might help to stop the bleeding.

This could be used by both his Senate position as well as his campaign for President -- it's related to both.

For the campaign however, he could use the video/demo as a tool to not only show how the bailout might work, he could show his plans for the future.  Such as fixing the bankruptsy laws, giving tax breaks and another stimulus package, etc...

While it may be totally different then your usual campaign ad (he could make it a 3-5 minute ad that ends up on YouTube for FREE advertising), it will also grab the attention of many in the media and show his desire to not only help us but help us to understand the situation we're in.

I'm hoping somebody else here has seen this video/demo on Obama's site and that might know where it's at now?  I'd love to get a copy of it.

Since Biden had to be on his best behavior to refrain from any comment that could be construed as sexist I found the sexual overtones of Palin's correction of the phrase "drill, baby, drill" said with her most come-hither smile an affront. We already have the Rich Lowrys of the Right wing drooling from just her winks. Palin is the Mae West of politics when this country need an FDR. Advertisers say sex sells. I guess that was McCain's only hope. Country first? What a joke.

Thank you fellow writers:  I may not always agree with you, but I love your passion and your ability to see to the heart of issues, often better than paid pundits.  Thank you for writing eloquent and cogent letters to the editor.  Thank you bloggers who toil at your posts.  Thank you fellow commenters who rage and joke and find solidarity in joys and sorrows.  For:

    This post is a paean to language and to the people who make language work - as a means of fostering a civil society, understanding its problems, and proposing solutions.

I love a sentence that makes sense.  I love a paragraph that gets to the heart of the matter.  I love the give and take of language as people work together, like kicking a ball down a soccer field, whether for fun or for a noble goal, such as we have embarked on this election season.  I love getting up in the morning and reading the editorials and the op-eds and letters to the editor.  And feeling a sense of solidarity.  It used to be just the solidarity of knowing that others were reading and thinking and paying attention to national and world events.  But blogs now permit us to interact and thus we writers have banded together and become our own pundits, our wishers of Happy Birthday and sharers of songs and poems and videos.  But mostly, I love that sentences make sense.  That comments follow one upon another.  That language enables the building of communities both large and small, whether virtual or real.

And why do I love that and praise it this morning?  Whence comes this joy of a sentence?  Suddenly?  Seemingly out of nowhere?

Years ago I wrote a piece called "The War on Logic."  And the gist of that post was that republicans, in their drive to hide their "governance" - a bunch of lies thrown as pablum to the masses while exercising near dictatorial powers - had gone to war on logic.  They couldn't really gain office by saying out loud what was really going on or what they actually intended to do if elected.  Nor could they govern truthfully.  No, it all had to done by subterfuge, by confusion, by sentences and words strung together that did not make sense, that made "crazy" instead.

Time has passed.  Those who went to war against logic have apparently undone themselves.  Somehow the weapon has worked against them - like a Trojan Horse they brought inside to live with (and die by).  And the republican party seems to be in a process of implosion.  Their very effort to dominate politics and business and war and science and religion seems to have backfired.  And they're awash in a painful process of seeing their houses of cards, built with packs of lies, crashing and dissolving right before their eyes - if they would only take off the blinders and the denial and throw away the sentences and phrases and slogans that make no sense.

When I was in first grade, under the firm hand of Miss Parker, she tried to teach me to read using the "Look - Say" method.  She didn't teach phonics.  It wasn't her fault.  It was a new method, you see.  They wanted us to learn each word as if it were like a Chinese character.  (We even spent time drawing little boxes around each word.  You can try it at home now.)  Of course they had to teach us to write the letters and make words of them, but they didn't connect that to the reading process.   So here I was, a 6 year old, who had been talking up a storm for many years already.  My parents had spoken to me in sentences that made sense.  And I spoke that way too.  But the reading book said:  "Look.  Look.  See.  See."  And that did not make sense to me!

Luckily we moved the summer after that.  And within weeks of being presented with the phonics method, VOILA!  I could read!  And the books I read had sentences that made sense.

I think we are in a process of "recovery" here.  We're being exposed to the B-Guys (Barack and Biden) who speak in full and clear sentences.  Beautiful, wonderful, inspiring sentences!   They make sense to the folks who work at Target.  And the folks at the university.  Union workers are making sense out of every word.  Teachers may feel newly inspired.  And a generation of college students will grow up with sensible sentences.  And politicians who speak to them in language that expresses truths, however painful, which call for things like sacrifice and patriotic paying of taxes and working selflessly for a nation which takes care of its citizens and works together with other nations as fellow citizens in a fragile world community.  I can hardly believe it!  It's like being set free from a concentration camp of nonsense!  And we're hearing the truth now.  The sun is shining on the dark, dark days we must now face, and deal with - in order to go forward.   No, Sarah, history matters.  And language matters.  And sense matters.  Thank God for sentences that make sense!

I read some lovely letters to the editor this morning.  And some lovely op-eds.  And editorials.  And I urge you to go and have the fun of reading them yourself.  I read mine in the New York Times.  But I bet you can find sensible sentences of equal beauty in other newspapers.  And on blogs.  And at Target.  At the university.  On your block.

I love a sentence that makes sense.  And I'm reaching out a hand of gratitude to all those who have toiled for so many years against the deluge of nonsense purveyed by our very government and hypocritical politicians trying to sway us with propaganda and clever phrases full of lies.  We're at war here.  There's still a long battle ahead of us.  We have to work our way through all the nonsense and the evil purveyed by lying words.  Lies that have torn at the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  Lies that have ripped civil society apart.  Lies that allowed greedy bankers and arbitragers and god knows who else to build other packs of lies into houses of cards - leaving people without homes and without retirement funds or jobs to fund them.  Lies that have sent money and goods and jobs off-shore.  Lies that have created so much havoc we have years of muck-raking ahead of us

But boy is it good to feel the sunshine!  Boy is it good to hear a sentence - that makes sense.

I shook Barack Obama's hand in February.  I looked at him with tears in my eyes.  And all I could say was, "Thank You."  I think he understood my gratitude.  He saw my eyes swimming with tears.  He saw my desperation.  My long years of waiting.  For a leader who would speak the truth.  Who would call us together again.  Who would inspire us to be less selfish.   To live by the Constitution.  To pay our taxes as a patriotic duty.  To stop at the stoplights. And obey the other rules of the road and of the land.  To care about equality and justice.  And to treat all Americans equally.  And all nations as neighbors.  And their citizens as no less worthy than we.  And he looked me in the eye.  We had a moment of understanding there.  He and I.  I didn't need to bother him with words.  He had already told me all I needed to hear.  He spoke in sentences that made sense.

In a another sign of the depth of mismanagement and trouble in the financial sector, the American International Group announced on Friday that they had already used $61 billion of the $85 billion emergency loan they received from the Federal Reserve only two weeks ago.  The company, which claimed it needed the money in order to buy time while they sold off assets, has not yet begun to dispose of those assets.

A.I.G.’s chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, said in a conference call on Friday that he expected the company would also participate in the $700 billion bailout the president signed this week.  He said the additional capital might help to ease the company's financial burdens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/business/04insure.html

(Disclaimer. Blog writer supports Obama.)

For Illinois Senator Barack Obama, and those endorsing and supporting him to be the next president of the United States, it's been a long and winding road to paraphrase a great song by a great band.

I myself first really became aware of Obama when watching him do a one hour interview on the Charlie Rose Show about 2 and a half years ago. I'm far from an intellectual but there are few things I admire more than intelligence. That is a reason I tivo and almost never miss Charlie Rose's interviews. No one is better at that than Charlie and he has many of the best minds in the world sit at his desk.

After seeing his interview with Senator Obama there was no doubt in my mind that he was one of the most brilliant persons I'd ever listened to. Brilliant and personable, which as we all know is the winning ticket for a successful political career. Obama may not be a world leading expert in any one particular field but what was impressive to me was how many issues he seemed to have a tremendous grasp and understanding of.

I don't know if I heard someone else suggesting it or if it just came to me after hearing Barack a few more times but within a few months of that first interview I heard him do I began to believe that he would be a great person to be the next president.

Now here we are, thirty days from the 2008 presidential election and I must say. Senator Obama is not the candidate I thought he'd be... he's EVEN BETTER than I thought he'd be.

I'm one of these folks who thinks they're smarter than about 90% of the politicians I normally listen to. I know that's not true but again, like many of us I'm sure, when listening to most Washingtonians I often end up scratching my head. With Senator Obama I also often end up scratching my head but with him it's because I'm amazed at how he can have such a comprehensive understanding on such a wide range of issues.

I enjoy attempting to write an occasional poem from time to time and I hope you don't mind too much if I share one about the good Senator from Illinois I wrote a few months back.

"Without Washington, Jefferson and Franklin perhaps America would have never been born, without Lincoln perhaps America would have disintegrated, without Roosevelt perhaps America would have been conquered, without Obama perhaps the greatness of America would have been lost forever." <span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >-- by Steve Everett on April 20th, 2008.
</span>
Back to the blog. You know, I really had my doubts if Obama could get past the powerful Clinton machine. A very capable candidate herself in Hillary and by her side one of America's most successful and popular politicians in the twentieth century. But as we all know he did. Now here we are closing in on voting day.

There have been in the past and there are now many Republicans I respect but I have to say the Republican presidential ticket in my opinion is beyond pathetic. The reality is that although much progress has been made recent polling still shows that about 5% to 7% of Americans WILL NOT vote for any black person running for president but despite that Obama continues to move up in recent national polling.

Add to that 5% to 7% that won't vote for him because of his color and I'd guestimate that another 2% to 4% probably wouldn't vote for him because of his name so for Senator Obama to be leading is really miraculous.

Most encouraging of all for Obama supporters may be the recent move in his numbers at intrade.com which historically has been an even more accurate predicter of elections than the pollsters. As of Saturday morning at intrade Obama was at 67 and McCain 32.

Win, lose or draw on November 4th I'm fairly content that I've done about all I could do in support of the Illinois Senator. I've written several blogs a week and also published a video site DailyDoseOfObamaVids.com. I've donated a lot of time because I believe this election is that important for our nation.

Kind of ironic that we now have what most agree is the worst administration in American history but then this fellow Barack Obama comes out of nowhere really and I believe he could very well put together what historians will someday say was one of the most successful administrations in American history.

Thirty days from now the nation and the world have an opportunity to cheer together. Obama is supported by our international friends 4 to 1 over his opponent. To my fellow supporters of Senator Obama I say let's work harder than ever this last month of the campaign.

Let's get FIRED UP AND READY TO FINISH!

--
Cross posted to <a href="http://www.steveeverettrandomthoughts.com/">Steve Everett Random Thoughts .com</a> and <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/user/Steve%20Everett">Daily Kos</a>.
--
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/SteveEverettRandomThoughtscom" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml"><img alt="" style="border: 0pt none ; vertical-align: middle;" src="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/images/pub/feed-icon16x16.png" /></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/SteveEverettRandomThoughtscom" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml">Subscribe free</a> to the Steve Everett Random Thoughts RSS daily blog feed.

       There are 4 1/2 weeks to go before the election. At this point, one can usually find a number of seats held by one party or the other which are lost causes. I cannot name one Democratic House or Senate seat, either with an incumbent or open, which is a no hoper or even on the verge of being a no hoper.

         Now, there are a number of Democratic seats where there are tough races, but I do not believe that even the most dispassionate analyst will categorize any as being a no hoper or on the verge.

        On the other hand, one can make a long list of Republican seats which are no hopers or on the verge of becoming no hopers. My list of the later would include in the Senate, VA, NM, CO, NC, NH and Alaska. [There are others where I think the Democrats has a strong chance and will win, but they are not Republican no hopers or on the vergers.] In the House my list of no hopers or vergers inlcude: Davis open seat, Musrgrave, Saxton open, Foeselli open, Walsh open, Renzi open, Young (AK), Weller open, Hayes (NC), Feeney, and Diaz Balarts (both).  There are many others that I think the Democrats will win but they are not no hopers or vergers. [I freely admit that the list above is subjective and open for disagreement or addition..]

    Now can anyone name a Democratic no hoper or verger?

      A further note, this is where the Democratic money advantage come itno play. The Democrats can (and are) pushing money in where needed amd playing offence where as the Republicans, even with help from the scum of Freedom Watch and similar groups, have to write off seats.

Sorry about all the links, but there is A LOT out there on the relationship between Tom Brokaw and John McCain and McCain's Campaign.

Always wondered about Brokaw, based on the following perhaps Obama would be MORE than justified in asking IN PUBLIC about the bias of Tom Brokaw.

If you decide that you want to send TOM a note expressing your concern you can do that HERE

Also take a look at this LINK

Most of the following is from BuzzFlash's
Media Putz of the week.

Lately, there is a growing concern over Tom Brokaw that makes me wonder whether Brokaw wouldn't be better off stepping aside as moderator of the nest Presidential debate.

Brokaw ended a segment on a recent Meet the Press as follows.

"In fairness to everybody here, I’m just going to end on one note. And that is that we continue to poll on who’s best equipped to be Commander in Chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Gentlemen, thank you very much".

Crooks and Liars, points out the following

"See, here’s the problem, Tom.  I have the latest NBC/WSJ poll taken September 19-22.  Guess what?  THOSE NUMBERS AREN’T IN THERE.  Pulled out of thin air, or an orifice of your choice.  In fact, in the MSNBC.com political coverage of this poll, the headline read: Obama Up 2 in NBC/WSJ Poll.  So where exactly are these numbers, Tom?  If you go to Gallup, the lead is even stronger (50 to 42%), which is pretty close to the numbers you attributed to McCain".

As of that wasn't enough to make you just a little paranoid,  look at Brokaw's association with the McCain campaign.

In The NY Times, profiling of Brokaw before the town-hall format presidential debate, noted that Brokaw met with the McCain Campaign to diffuse the right-wing rhetoric against the network.

His mission, he said, was to assure the candidate's aides that -- despite some negative on-air commentary by Mr. Olbermann in particular -- Mr. McCain could still get a fair shake from NBC News. Mr. Brokaw said he had been told by a senior McCain aide, whom he did not name, that the campaign had been reluctant to accept an NBC representative as one of the moderators of the three presidential debates -- until his name was invoked.

"One of the things I was told by this person was that they were so irritated, they said, 'If it's an NBC moderator, for any of these debates, we won't go,' " Mr. Brokaw said. "My name came up, and they said, 'Oh, hell, we have to do it, because it's going to be Brokaw.' "

Not quite enough for you? Well, there's a little more.

From the same piece in The New York Times, Brokaw "had "advocated" within the executive suite of NBC News to modify the anchor duties of the MSNBC hosts Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on election night and on nights when there were presidential debates."

Regardless of where you stand on whether Olbermann and Matthews should have been moved, the move was made in great part due to political pressure in the middle of the campaign. If Brokaw did so at the behest of the McCain campaign, or McCain himself, who Brokaw does admit to knowing socially (Brokaw doesn't know Obama socially), then his journalism credibility is damaged, not Olbermann's or Matthews'.

MoveOn.org demands an apology from Brokaw for citing the false polling from Meet the Press. And now there is growing concern over whether Brokaw will be a fair and impartial choice to moderate the town hall style presidential debate next week.

Not that Brokaw could have been Russert, but his work on Meet the Press shows a startling lack of follow-up and aggression, which is a clear contrast to the style Russert, and Meet the Press, were famous for doing.

Brokaw was the milquetoast anchor of the Big Three in the 1980s and 1990s. Never the great reporter such as Dan Rather nor did he have the curiousity and worldliness of Peter Jennings, Brokaw was always the favorite son of the corporate media. He liked The Greatest Generation and wrote about them. He never stirred the pot, but never did anything great either.

And he could have gone off into the sunset with his reputation relatively intact. But his clear partiality for the McCain campaign.

Has anyone noticed the striking resemblance between Cindy McCain, Vicki Iseman (the telecommunications lobbyist, remember), and his old Brazilian flame, Maria Gracinda Teixeira de Jesus? Quite frankly, I find it disturbing...

As we face the worst job market since 9/11 and the worst housing market since....(1991 or the 1930s?), it's going to take a lot of work on economic policy to dig us out of this quagmire (which is where all Bush presidencies seem to leave America).

Others have likely commented here on this topic, but I got to thinking about who McCain and Obama have ready to deal with these problems, after reading this today from Krugman:

One thing’s for sure: The next administration’s economic team had better be ready to hit the ground running, because from day one it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Perhaps it wasn't so surprising that, given the Obama campaign's great organizational skills, it was quite easy to find info on who is involved in Obama's economic decision making. Finding info on McCain's team took a lot more work.

For this latest financial crisis it is pretty clear who is getting better depth and expertise in their economic advice:

The Obama Financial Crisis Team

Warren Buffett, Paul O’Neill, Bob Rubin, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Dan Tarullo, Laura Tyson and Paul Volcker

So, that's:
3 former Treasury Secretaries (2 Dems, 1 Rep)
1 former Chairman of the Federal Reserve
1 former Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers
1 former Presidential Advisor for International Economic Policy
1 former Chief Economist of the World Bank
and, of course, the world’s most successful investor.

McCain's Economic Advisory Core

There has been scant info on any recent additions to McCain's advisory team, especially as far as who really is being consulted. This is a list of those with specific financial industry or monetary policy expertise who have been in the news as McCain advisors.

John Thain, CEO of Merrill Lynch,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Congressional Budget Office director,
Martin Feldstein, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan,
John Taylor, Stanford University professor and former Deputy Treasury Secretary,
Donald Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics (who primarily has a background in options trading).

Holtz-Eakin is the main advisor and it seems that it his association that has brought in Taylor, who is one of the only higher profile advisors with finance/monetary policy expertise that I can find a report of actually having met with McCain recently. Another report also notes recent consultations with Feldstien and Carly Fiorina (whose background is Marketing, not Finance!?!?).

The only larger list of advisors I have found for McCain is one that dates as far back as last summer, but few of these names have appeared in the news.

Obama's Centrist Team is Well Respected

No less than the Weekly Standard has called the Obama team "Centrist."

Bloomberg also had a nice report on the core team doing a lot of the day-to-day grunt work putting policies together. They describe it as follows:

"Three academics -- Austan Goolsbee, 37, a University of Chicago professor and columnist for The New York Times, Jeffrey Liebman, 39, a pension and poverty expert at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and David Cutler, 41, a Harvard health economist -- form the core of Obama's economic team.

`Top-Notch Economists'

``They're all top-notch economists,'' said Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor and former chief White House economist for President George W. Bush. ``Their views are left of the political center, as one would expect, but only slightly.''

A trio of seasoned Washington hands bolsters the academics: Karen Kornbluh, policy director in Obama's Senate office; Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington, and a former senior economic adviser in the Clinton administration; and Michael Froman, the chief of staff for former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin who now works with his old boss at Citigroup Inc."

The full report is here.

McCain "Displays No Consistent Economic Principles"

The Weekly Standard also has a nice piece on McCain's economic team, circa February 2008. One of the most interesting observations about McCain is that:

"McCain's method in domestic matters no less than in foreign affairs is military: He surveys a set of facts, identifies a villain, fixes him with his steely gaze, and then goes after him...."

"What's unsettling is that you can never predict who the next bad guy will be. No consistent economic principles can be extracted from McCain's grab bag of policy positions, and no amount of textbook baloney about the free market, deregulation, and limited government will deter him from bringing his malefactors to justice. McCain's economics aren't ideological but improvisational--a campaign with shifting fronts, running on indignation."

McCain Campaign's Economic Advisory Team a Complete Failure

However the McCain camp has organized and utilized its economic advisory team, it is quite clear that the team has completely failed in keeping Candidate McCain up-to-date on the state of the economy and crafting his economic message and policies. McCain's revelation of his ignorance on the state of the economy on September 15th marks the point of collapse in his poll numbers and will likely mark the beginning of the end for McCain/Palin.

The team's failure to understand the health and direction of the economy was illustrated not only in McCain's line that, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" but in the very words of one of his only advisors with private sector experience in the financial markets, Donald Luskin, who claimed on September 14th that:

"Things today just aren't that bad." And went on to claim that the most likely forecast is that "we're on the brink not of recession, but of accelerating prosperity."

With advisors like these is it any wonder that John McCain, by his very words and actions, is daily providing the evidence and argument for why he is completely unfit to be President of the United States?  

For that effort, let me just say - as a former McCain '00 donor - Thank You John McCain!

  

Not too long ago, I wrote a piece of satire claiming that Palin and Biden had abandoned the traditional debate format in favor of a duel to the death.  In it, I wrote that the last kink to be worked out would be the weapon of choice:

Biden favors bare knuckles, while Palin would prefer hunting rifles. Presidential candidate John McCain has suggested a compromise in which each candidate uses the weapon of his or her choice--Biden’s fists versus Palin’s Remington.

Having had the chance to watch the debate, I think I was wrong about whom the VP candidates would attack, but I got right what weapons they would use.  I can't escape the feeling that McCain, watching the debate, must have gotten a nosebleed from all the hard punches that Biden landed.  But through it all, he acknowledged that the man he was attacking was a military hero and a dear friend.  Palin, on the other hand, stopped just short of calling Barack Obama a traitor, and seemed to wonder why Biden would associate with such a fiend.  Where Biden landed frequent hard punches, Palin was going for targeted lethal force.

For all of that, however, I'm not too worried.  The thing is, as nasty and baseless as Palin's attacks were, they were nothing new, and Obama has survived much worse all along.  Biden's attacks on McCain revealed some surprising vulnerabilities, whereas Palin's attacks on Obama made one wonder if he really is invulnerable.

It's midnight on the East Coast, man, Troopergate can wait for tomorrow. 

and from  South-Central LA.

Think about it for a second.

Would that level of incompetence, inadequacy, lack of respect and brazen confidence be even remotely tolerated by the white majority?  Would David numbskull Brooks be crowing about how resplendent she was?

Would there be ooohs and aaaahs of how fresh she was, how "folksy"?  

[Isn't "folksy" just another way of saying "ethnic while white",  politely?  And isn't "ethnic" just what MSM uses to mean "colored" when speaking of a black person?]

Think about the picture of say, a young African-american woman who spent six years in five schools barely getting a journalism degree, who has a husband who belongs to a group that advocates secession, has five kids, with the eldest having a baby out wedlock at seventeen, and the youngest baby suffering from some disability.

Yes, think about a black Sarah Palin, and understand why it is Barak has to have an  excellent ivy league schooling, be the first in his law school class, be the first black to become Harvard's Law Review President, be a brilliant politician, have above average 3-point shooting skills, have sizzling charm and smooth oratory and an ability to infuse people with hope, have superb managerial and organizational skills, and work *twice* as frigging *hard* and then, dimly, distantly, get grudging acknowledgement that he's qualified to be President, after getting ridiculed for being all "elitist" (just another term for the outrageously offensive "uppity").

He just does, because in this country, there are no black Sarah Palins, not even on the remote horizon.

What is on the horizon, however, thankfully, is the first African-American President. The first black President.  I can't say it without getting chills up my spine. 

I cannot imagine the sea-change that this country is about to experience.  What a profound line in the sands of history!  Nothing will ever be the same again.  May the  ghosts of  our brutal past lay to rest.

And let there be tears, tears, tears, ... as so many personal and moving diaries on this site in recent times have provoked.

It's going to be a new day in America, and I can only hope for the best, for a future in which there are no Sarah Palins, black or white, metaphorically speaking.  Let the Baraks of this country prosper....

Just a few thoughts ...

My 76 year-old mother finally got the cast off of her left arm yesterday.  She broke her wrist when she fell about six weeks ago; the second fall on that same night caused a huge gash in her right arm.  Not the first falls, not the first injuries or emergency room trips.  The stitches are gone, the wounds have healed.  She's fine.  Until she falls again because they can't seem to regulate her blood pressure.  Too high means a risk of stroke, too low and she gets dizzy.  I hope for the best and worry constantly.

Someone I love is in the hospital after a terrible car accident on Wednesday.  Concussion, stitches, internal bleeding and incredible pain.  My thoughts are constantly there since I cannot physically be.  I wait for updates and worry constantly.

Someone else I love is extremely angry with me.  There is value in the depths of the anger even while there is confusion in my heart as to the content.  My crime is simply that I have dared to write on TPM.  I dream of the day we can reconnect and worry that we won't.

So, I don't worry as much about the debate.  I don't worry as much about the "bail-out".  I don't worry as much about whether Palin winked too much or Biden smiled too broadly.  Sometimes real life just gets in the way of command central.  It reaches out to tap you on the shoulder ... then when you turn it slaps you in the face with all the strength in the universe.  Takes a lot to stay on your feet.    

From the earliest days of democracy in Europe and later here in United States of America, philosophers, politicians and powerful businesspersons clearly recognized the threat of “the tyranny of the majority” and thus cleverly instituted a number of systemic checks on democracy.

The end (and intended) result is that the political voice and vote coveted by the masses continues to have no more than the slightest ripple effect on the ocean of modern democratic politics. A majority of the people can indeed voice their opinions, but it’s really an elite few who have the most say.

The nearly $1 trillion bailout approved by the U.S. Congress this week is the latest in-your-face proof of this undemocratic imbalance of power. The passing of the massive business rescue package also reveals what the American government and its real constituents truly think of the American public.

One poll after another revealed that the majority of Americans were against the financial bailout. Nevertheless, despite “average Americans” inundating them with email, faxes, letters, phone calls and protests urging them not to approve the bailout, the U.S. Senate and House of Representative passed the legislation because they’re answerable to higher authorities.

As the economist Dean Baker stated on September 30, “Running around talking about the Great Depression is not serious. This is just silly scare tactics, and it reflects the contempt that these people have for the public. The public overwhelmingly is opposed to this bailout. The elite is almost unanimously in favor of it [because] it’s a handout to Wall Street.”

As happens far too often in our “representative democracy,” the elite few again maneuvered and manipulated Congress as though Congress was a prostitute obsessed with avoiding an onslaught of lethal pimp-slaps.

If there’s anything that this whole national ordeal has made compellingly clear, it’s that there is as great a need for lobbying reform as there is for any other kind of reform; for democracy can only be said to be held in chains and not just in check when it’s such a routine matter for our “representatives” to blatantly flout the will of the many under incessant lobbying pressure from the elite few.

The time has come, and is long overdue, for the American people to put down “the tyranny of the minority,” too.

iAMrj * richard jones

I see the GOP and McCain's camp is getting desperate again.  Senator John McCain the once upon a time "HONORABLE" man is now getting into dirty politics.  He's using babies and videos of babies to win an election.

For a man that claims to "rather lose a war, then win an election", he sure has 'changed'. 

Babies Senator?

You need to use babies in videos to win sir?  Is that really where you want to lead this nation sir?

Perhaps that's what you meant all along sir.  Perhaps this is your new definition of "CHANGE"?  Use anything and everyone to win the election.

Senator you apparently have forgotten how it felt to be treated like dirt during your campaign in 2000 up against George W. Bush.  You've apparently decided to charge up the hill even if it means walking on the bodies of the injured.

Well, perhaps it's time to get a little 'dirty' ourselves.

Senator McCain, how many babies did you kill while bombing in Vietnam?

How many men, women and children died because you ended up caving and giving information to the enemy?

Or have you forgotten your 'little' indiscretions?

This post is of little moment, so don't bother to recommend it. Just an idle thought about how sometimes history does repeat itself.

Thom Hartmann is reading 1932 NYT articles and seeing similarities to the present.

I am sitting here watching Citigroup and Wells Fargo about to get into it over who is going to be sued for tortious interference on the Wachovia takeover.

Its like Penzoil/Getty/Texaco all over again, except the investment banks are going to be different.

Wachtell Lipton is the same...in any case.  Whatever happened to Skadden Arps?

Well, <i>plus ca change...</i>

This post is a clearing house for links to posts that flew by too fast, or didn't get the attention they deserved.

If you add a link, please give a brief description along w/ your reasons for why it deserves a 2nd look. ANYONE can add a link here.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't forget to rec this post, even if you don't add anything, or read anything on it...It only works if it gets up to reader rec, making the posts available for longer.

Thanks, Guys...we made it Thurs/Fri and had some good posts linked!

I almost fell off my chair laughing...

Here's Lowry's post (Keith quotes it in its entirety...this is just to show it does exist!):

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=

Here's Olbermann's take on it (It's on worst person, starts at 1:32):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27015683

It's got to be one of the funniest clips on Countdown ever!

This is a review of the GOP-connected legal counsel possibly behind the defamation lawsuit against blogging outlet.

FEC data shows a "Mathew G. Davis" assigned to Michigan Department of Corrections communications office.

These are not statments of facts, nor allegations of any misconduct or criminal activity. For discussion purposes only.

During Palin's closing statement during Thursday's debate as well as another interview with Fox on Friday, Palin talked about getting around "the filter of the mainstream media".  We got to see some of what that looks like during the debate.  It means that when asked to explain her position on an issue, she feels free to ignore the question, and fill her time espousing talking points on any subject she feels competent enough to blather on about.  If only she could get past those pesky pundits who feel compelled to point out her falsehoods, inaccuracies, and non sequiturs.  
She also spoke of increasing the power of the Vice Presidency.  I thought that was just a gaff on her part when I heard it, however after contemplating her desire to bypass any media filters, I have to wonder if in her heart she may in fact want an imperial vice presidency/presidency.  Why not crave the power to bypass all criticism, and cogent examination of herself, her policies, and her thinking.  It would certainly help in the case of that 'darn' troopergate investigation.  Perhaps she would thrive in a totalitarian society where all citizens think alike, or at least fearful of expressing dissent.  

by RW Spisak

Governor, America really does appreciate a pretty face. And all the extra effort you put in to memorize those sham talking points. That must've been "hard work" doing all that rote memorization. Joe Biden, always a gentleman, didn't need to point out that all that bobbing and weaving standing near him didn't mean that he had a political equal on the stage. Or that he was facing any-kind of worldclass international leader.

Ms. Sarah try as she might to get all those rovian talking points out, may've had cute going for her, but all that cutsie winking at the camera, and all those "you betchas" won't help when your negotiating with Vladamir Putin.

VEEP DEBATE Continued

****
So, earlier today, I knocked out what was intended to be an absurdist satire of conservative talking points called "The Bridge to Everywhere We Want To Be".  And as is normal for my blog on this site, as I noted a few entries back, technical errors congealed from the very ether and I ended up with not one but two separate copies of the entry going up, neither of which was formatted in a way as to be particularly readable.

And, of course, this being TPM, I do not have the capacity to go back and correct any of those problems.  Once posted, the badly formatted, unreadable entries were, in all their embarrassing non-glory, a permanent addition  to my TPM blog, showing me in the worst possible light toa mainly apathetic, but still orders of magnitude larger than otherwhere, potential viewing audience..

Over at my blog The Miserable Annals of the Earth, of course, the same entry posted perfectly and, even if it hadn't, well, I could easily correct any errors that might have inadvertently crept in over there, should I so desire.  But, of course, few know or care about that blog over there, while I have far more portential readers over here... which, naturally, is why it so fills me with anguish when these things happen over here, and which is why I swore a month or so ago that I wasn't going to even bother trying to publish over here any more.

I doubtless should have stuck with that resolution, but, well, we all enjoy attention, and I happen to think my writing deserves a little more of it than it normally gets over at blogspot.  So... here is one more attempt at publishing "A Bridge to Everywhere We Want To Be" on TPM, in a hopefully readable format... and I cannot tell you how much I wish TPM would allow me to either see what a blog post will look like before I publish it, or go in and re-edit it after I publish it and see that it is entirely screwed up... why, exactly, is that so hard to do?

Well, never mind.  Once again, here goes nothin'...

* * * *

Let's face it, because facing it is what we Americans do best, no matter what it may be, or where, or when, or why --

Sarah Palin knocked it out of the park last night.

Which, admittedly, makes it harder to face, unless, of course, she knocked us out of the park too, which she did, so there we are, right next to it, and therefore, facing it. Facing it hard, facing it well, facing it strong, as Americans do, as Joe Sixpack and hockey moms everywhere in this fine land from sea to shining sea always do, and will, and have, since time immemorial.

Yet, in the end, this is not the most important thing. Sarah Palin isn't President yet, although she'd make a fine one, and will, one day, God willing and the creek don't rise. But that is for the future, not the dim dead past that Obama and Biden keep trying to fruitlessly invoke, instead of looking forward to a new era of change and growth and progress and keeping government on the side of the little guy while getting it out of his way and off his back at the very same time.

No, the only thing that matters, the only matter of importance, the only vital question we have to answer, is this:

If Obama or McCain had been King of America since 1908, would we better off... or worse?

And is that, you know, absolute king, or more of a titular figurehead, like they have in England, except they don't, because they have a Queen?

These are important questions, and the answers are important answers, and here is all any sane person can say about any of this --

If McCain had been king, absolute king, his whim is law, his word is binding, his very breath is as the breath of God, that kind of king, here in America since 1908., we would clearly be better off, because McCain is honorable, he's the original maverick, he's one of a kind, he was a POW, he's like Gandhi, if Gandhi had weapons training and a bayonet collection and a really hot wife. He's like Ronald Reagan, without the Reaganesqueness, he's like Calvin Coolidge, with a little less nostril hair. He's everything we want, he's everything we need, and if he were king of America for the last century, then we would be everything exciting that we think we should be.

There's no arguing with that assertion, there's no disputing its basic, fundamental truth. The America of King McCain, the USA that would exist after a McCain Century, is the American Dream brought to life, ten thousand points of light all glowing like beacons in a shining city on the hill, for the rest of the world to raise their envious eyes up to and yearn for, from the depths of the cold stinking caves we would have long since bombed them back into.

But suppose Obama had been king for the last ten decades? What images spring to mind, what emotions are evoked in our innermost hearts, what fears and vacillations and vicissitudes would fill our brains with dread and our souls with shrieking horror then? It's like a mirage, a dream, a dark, screaming nightmare we could never awake from, an unending cascade of vividly gruesome dioramas, each more loathsome than the last. But one stands out to me, and it's one I will share with you now --

Had Obama been King of America for the last hundred years, Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster would never have created Superman. It's inarguable; in a culture dominated by Obamania for decades on end, there would be no driving need for two young Jewish guys to create a Caucasian alien with superhuman powers -- or, if they had, they would certainly not have designed a costume for Superman that had a cape.

Why? You need only ask yourself, does Obama wear a cape? Has he ever worn a cape? No, and no, and no again. And given the enormous impact all kings in America have always had on the fashions worn by imaginary cartoon characters, we can only assume that in an Obama-dominated America, even if Superman were to exist, he would have no cape.

It therefore follows that in an Obama led USA, no small child of any generation ever pinned a towel or a blanket around his or her neck and then ran around the house with their arms held straight out in front of them screeching "Whoosh! Whoosh! I'm SUUUUUPERMAAAAAANNNNN!!!"

Can you imagine it? Can you envision it? Can you picture this dreadful apparition in full Technicolor in that little goldfish bowl you call your mind? In this horrible nightmare of an Obama world, you never pinned a towel around your neck and ran around pretending to be Superman. Your grandfather never did it, your father never did it, your brother never did it, your cousin never did it, your kids will never do it, NO ONE has ever done it.

Because in Obama land, there is no Superman.

Or if there is... he has no cape.

It brings a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat; a grit to my teeth and a clench to my toes; a twist to my stomach and a shudder to my spine.

Maybe you want to live in that world. Maybe lily livered pansy gay marriage promoting abortion hugging liberals would LOVE that world. Maybe that's a world where they can all join hands and sing 'Kumbaya' and never never never send a terrorist to Gitmo. Maybe. Maybe giving up Superman, or at least his cape, and the innocent joy of millions of children running and leaping and whooshing about, is a small price to pay for left wingers to live in that sort of dirty hippie neo-socialist tax and spend utopia.

But that's not the world any real American wants to live in. Not a patriotic American, anyway. Such a world can never be, must never be, and shall never be. I know that. And in your heart, you know it too.

Sarah Palin knocked it out of the park last night, and knocked us out of the park right along side it. And Superman has a cape, and always will.

That's all I know. And it's all I need to.

Well, I have had just about enough of the McCain campaign getting a pass from Obama on this one: suddenly to cover up their tracks on saying that the fundamentals of our economy are still strong up until just 2 weeks ago, Obama and Palin keep saying that WE are misinterpreting McCain. He actually *meant* the American workers!

What!? In this context, fundamentals = workers?? There is not a single economist that refers to workers as fundamentals!

No one is calling them out on this. Not the MSM. Not Obama. Not Biden. Because they have not called them out on this, it has now become part of their stump.

McCain was NOT speaking about American workers and he must be held accountable for that.

2 alternate campaign ad ideas called "central front":

1. "Who convinced John McCain that Iraq, and not the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, is the central front in the war against terrorism?"
[clips of terrorism experts like Richard Clarke saying Afghanistan-Pakistan is where the terrorists who attacked and are planning and capable of another attack are hiding out etc; clips of McCain asserting that bin Laden himself thinks Iraq is the central front]
"How much weight will Osama bin Laden's words carry over US counter-terrorism policy if John McCain is elected President?"

or

2. [animated depiction of US troops surrounding bin Laden's cave in Afghanistan, bin Laden and his deputies nervously silent and praying inside, then a sudden pullback of troops (think the scene of orcs pulling out of Mordor to meet Aragorn outside the black gates) as Bush announces invasion of Iraq, bin Laden peeking his head out of the cave to see no sign of US forces, rejoicing]
"John McCain cites Osama bin Laden's assertion that Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorism as proof that US forces must stay in Iraq indefinitely.  Is bin Laden really the best person to make that determination for us?"

It's a minor episode, probably, but Palin's "can I call you Joe" during the opening handshake takes the cake for snarkiness, which is saying something considering her overall tour de force. What was Joe supposed to say, "No, you may not"?

She had spent the prior weeks stupidly quipping that she'd been hearing about Biden's Senate speeches since she "was in second grade." Now she wants to call him"Joe"? Whatever happened to respect your elders?

Did you know over 3 million votes were not counted in the 2004 presidential election?  and most of those votes were cast by minorities.

Bush won NM in 2004 by over 5,000 votes but over 30,000 votes were not counted...

I just happened across this link in a comment thread where someone was talking about various ways service men and women were being prevented from voting. 

Here is the first Link where the headline reads that Carl Rove has already fixed the 2008 election....is that the real reason McCain pulled out of Michigan?

Here is another Link to RFK Jr.'s 'Is Your Vote Safe' in which he talks about 30 some odd ways that voters are getting kicked off the roles etc. and says that democrats really aren't doing anything to stop or prevent the things that are being done.

So give me a reality check if you have one...

Otherwise, I say we all start screaming about these things right now.  Spread these links.  Write lots of blogs and articles.  Do some research if you are so inclined.

I am open to effective suggestions but please no 'do nothing' comments.  I am one of those 'there must be a way' kind of people.

I understand that we have to bring out enough votes to win in spite of voter supression but I also think it's time we start doing something to change this and kick some dust up!! 

We are responsible and complicit when we do nothing...

And I have already learned that this TPM community has some brilliant people in it and often kick things off to the MSM. 

I am not shy, well, yes I can be, but not as the actvist... so I would love to be flooded with ideas about what we CAN do about this despicable, criminal, nasty, BS!

Half-Baked Alaska says, "We'll Be Good Administers!" [sick]

Yep, she said administers.

TPM Reader DK has a post ONE MORE FOR THE ROAD on the front page.

As Palin herself explains to Fox, it [why she crapped her Couric interview] was because she was "annoyed"

But it's OK.  She'll surround herself with generous layers of flack who'll patriotically protect us from the effects of those, ummm, annoyances.

They've already promised her all the meds she'll ever need.  It'll be like a long holiday.

In the Focks News vid:

Q:  Do you have any differences with the Bush-Cheney administration in terms of the power of the executive?

A:  We'll do our jobs in the executive branch as administers.

Timings:
0:18 question starts
0:23 answer starts
0:41 brain fart

McCain's campaign has been a shambles, but the strangest move has been to turn Sarah Palin into an actress.

Go to YouTube and search Palin Alaska Debates.  Watch some video of her during those debates and other posted videos of her speaking before small groups of Alaskans.  Her accent is dialed way back.  There are no you betchas, no gosh darns, no winks.  Her viewpoints aside, she comes across as a capable speaker, an administrator.  If she would have spoken like this during the Biden debate, McCain might be picking up independents and moderates.

Instead, McCain's camp created a sitcom role for Palin:  Hockey Mom Goes To Washington.  During the Biden debate, I could see her slip between Hockey Mom voice and her normal candidate voice.  To make her "one of us," McCain's camp dumbed her down for prime time TV.  Palin overplays the Hockey Mom role, but with ratings like that, she takes home the Emmy.  And come November, McCain and his team, in large part due to Palin's performance, simply goes home.

Cheney in lipstick indeed:

GOP lawmakers file appeal to halt Troopergate case

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Six Alaska lawmakers filed an emergency appeal Friday asking the state's Supreme Court to halt an investigation into abuse of power allegations by Gov. Sarah Palin before the findings are released next week.

The independent investigator conducting the probe plans to turn over his conclusions by next Friday to the body that authorized the it, the Legislative Council. The six Republican lawmakers, none of whom are on the Legislative Council, claim the investigation is being manipulated to damage Palin before Election Day on Nov. 4.

Good thing the McCain campaign is blowing all their resources in Alaska!

Its nice to see that if we give her enough time and a nice easy interviewer she can produce an approximation of an answer.  Does she get a do over with every diplomatic negotiation?  Note the excuse, she was "angry" with Couric!!! for crying out loud all Couric did was follow -up a couple of times and mooseburger was liek a lost sheep.

Put the woman on Meet The Press or any live show.  No Notes, no mulligans.  This is just an embarassment.

Several months ago I wrote what I consider to be my most personal, and my best, post here at TPM.  It was hard to write it, scary to post it, but the recommends and beautiful comments it received were more than worth it, and the fact that my chosen topic got "out there" was gratifying, to say the least.

I tend to write very personal stuff here at TPM.  It's my way of writing, it helps me get things out of my system, find my style, and discover my strengths and weaknesses.  I like having the ability to get your feedback, maybe touching you at the same time.  And yeah, at times, when I'm feeling bitter about something I read in the news, I write an angry post, not caring what you might think, not caring whether I make the Rec list.  Sometime, I just have to get the feelings out, come what may.  Sometimes I argue with other bloggers and commenters, and sometimes I regret it and other times I don't.  But the fact that I feel I can be myself here is, for me, one of my life's rare treasures these days.

The post that I mention above, though, received such beautiful comments from so many of you that I was touched enough to share both the post, and your comments, with one of my sisters, by providing the link to my post rather than sending via email or a Word doc.  She, too, was very moved by your feedback, and felt very proud of me.  So proud, that while visiting our mother one weekend while I was not there visiting too, she showed my mother this website and introduced her to my blog -- without asking me first.  I found out later when my mother told me that she too, was very proud of me, and impressed by my open and honest writing style, and awed by the beautiful comments of my fellow TPM posters.  My sister later apologized for having not asked my permission first, but I let it go. 

Had my sister not pointed my mother to TPM, my mother probably would never have known that I blog here.  She doesn't make a habit of visiting liberal blogs, and I had never really thought of showing her my post.  But it didn't occur to be to feel upset with my sister, and perhaps that was my first mistake.

I did warn both of them that I write posts they won't always find touching or impressive.  I warned them that I post things they might find objectionable.  I made a point of only sending them links to the posts that I felt they would find suitable.  It never occurred to me that they would start visiting TPM on a regular basis, seeking out my posts.

Two days ago I wrote a personal-story post about my family, no different than so many others, and I don't even think it made the rec list.  I didn't care.  I forgot about it a day later, to be honest.  I was all caught up in yesterday's debate instead.

So imagine my surprise when, today at work, I received an email at my work addy from my mother, entitled, "Your blog".  In its entirety:

Lis - I am very angry after reading your latest blog entitled "Republicans are nice, but dumb" - so angry that I feel I better calm down before commenting on it.......will cool off and write again.........

WTF?  I didn't even remember what I'd written in that particular blog, and just zapped off a reactionary email in response:

You don’t have to read my blog if you choose not to. I wasn’t writing it with you in mind if that helps. I write for my liberal friends at TPM.

I then logged into TPM to find my objectionable post, started to read it, and then realized why my mother might be angry.  My first thought:  OMG, she reads all my posts!  OMG, all my feelings about her and my family that I sometimes feel when I'm angry are right there, for her to see!  I immediately jumped into 14-year-old-guilty-teenager-mode, and wanted to hide under a rock.  So I sent off another email that simply said:

Sorry, I got that one confused with another. I’ll stop writing about family matters.

And then I went and got lunch, and ate at my desk while surfing TPM and HuffPo and RCP like I always do at lunchtime, and then I went outside for a smoke, and started stewing over the emails back and forth with my mother, and I found myself getting very angry.  Angry with her, and especially angry with myself for feeling guilty about something that I don't think I should feel guilty about.  Luckily, things got busy after I went back to my desk so I didn't have a chance to dwell on it for the next few hours.  Not until later in the afternoon did I consider closing my account at TPM and starting a whole new one, with a generic avatar and name my mother and sister wouldn't recognize, in order to continue being myself here.  But then I realized-- hey!! --  I'd no longer be myself here, would I?
So then I opened up my last "sent" message to her and forwarded a new reply back to her, hours after writing and telling her I would no longer write about family matters:

However I now feel censored and I’m not completely comfortable with that either. Perhaps I should never have shared any of my writing with you and [my sister]. I was proud of some of my blogs and pleased that [she] was impressed enough with my writing to share my blog with you, but now I see that it was a mistake. I have made friends there, have a small following, but now I have to worry about what I write in case you or [my sister] should go in there and read my stuff. OR, lose my signature avatar and my username and post as a new character, losing my history there and my following.
Perhaps I can ask you to no longer read my blog, then? There must be some sort of compromise here, I would think. I am an adult woman with inherent freedom of speech, and while you might not agree with the facts as I present them, nor with my views and beliefs, I am not sure I can, nor should I be expected to, curb my writing style simply to please you.
I will have to think on this further. Thanks for letting me know your feelings.

 

I truly wish that I had sent that last message first, but alas, I'm extremely reactionary, as many of you know. And it took me hours before I got the nerve up to read through every word in my objectionable post, and in all of my comments, and for the life of me I can't see what in hell made her so angry in the first place, other than that I didn't mention that she was the one who gave me money to get home from California and I failed to mention it.  If I am the only one in my family who feels that we all walk on eggshells around one another when it comes to big important issues, then maybe I'm the one who's walking too gingerly.

Needless to say, I haven't heard a word from my mother since she sent me that very first email.  I imagine it will be a few days before I get a response.  And that's fine, because I too need to cool down before writing again.
I didn't invite her to my blog, I invited my sister to read one post.  I warned the both of them, once I'd been "outed" so to speak, that they might not agree with what I have to say here.  Therefore, I don't feel I should do anything more, except continue to be myself.
I'm a liberal with issues and I have a blog.  Get over it, or stop reading my blog.

 

From Psychopathy page at Wikipedia:

Factor1: Aggressive narcissism

1. Glibness / superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning / manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Shallow
7. Callous / lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
9. Promiscuous sexual behavior

Okay. It's only a research instrument. Those silly scientists.

In Arizona, we tightened up on illegal immigration and the hiring of them.

 

 

Click here for PDF

October 3, 2008 (LPAC)--In response to the shameful and immoral capitulation of the U.S. House of Representatives today, in passing the Paulson bailout bill with a vote of 263 to 171, American statesman and economist Lyndon LaRouche stressed that this vote was accomplished by fraud.

When the Congress, including both major Presidential candidates, told their constituents that the bailout was necessary, they didn't mention that among the major institutions lining up to be bailed out are foreign interests, LaRouche said. British, Dutch, and Spanish banks are all lining up to demand hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayers.

"They lied,'' charged LaRouche. "And when the average citizen confronts his Representative on this fraud, the politician will just say, 'We lied. They told us we had to do it, and we lied.'''

As LaRouche laid out in his Oct. 1 webcast, the result of the bailout will be to bring on devastating hyperinflation, and an explosion within the American population, akin to that which characterized the French Revolution. "Don't you see the hatred you are building up against Washington, in the people of the United States?'' he asked.

In the wake of the Congressional vote, motivated as it was by fear, LaRouche urged citizens to rally to his leadership. We're in this devastating crisis today because people did not rally to my HBPA and other positive actions back in August 2007, LaRouche said. Don't be provoked into irrational actions. Rally behind the leadership which has the remedies--and force them through now.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/10/02/larouche-webcast-now-more-ever-big-four-transcript.html

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Vice Presidential Debate:

Joe Biden Vs. Betty Boop

The writers can take the day off at Saturday Night Live this weekend, because comic relief won’t be necessary. Mark Twain himself couldn’t have provided better satire than the reality of last night’s vice presidential debate. The face-off between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin had the surrealistic air of a movie that combines a human actor with a cartoon character. It should have been billed Joe Biden versus Betty Boop--or Biden v Boop, if you will. But I have to begrudgingly tip my hat to Ms. Palin, even if I have to mix my metaphors, because she was forced to face Zorro with a wooden sword, and due to her fancy footwork, she almost pulled it off.

I also have to give credit to the McCain campaign. They set the stage well to mitigate a pending disaster by complaining that the moderator, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill, may have had a conflict of interest because she wrote a book on a new generation of Black politicians that included a chapter on Sen. Barack Obama. Of course, they didn’t make a big issue of it–after all, that would have precluded any journalist from writing a book that included any national politician during an election year–but they did make enough of it to possibly give Ms. Ifill pause before pursuing any of Ms. Palin’s cutesy, non-answers with aggressive followup questions to probe her grasp of the issues beyond superficial talking points. Who said desperation can’t inspire a stroke of competence?

The ploy allowed Palin the luxury of simply acknowledging that a question had been asked, then completely ignoring the content of the question, and then replacing it with a prepared talking point instead. At first Palin was perceptively nervous, not sure the ploy was going to work, but as the debate went on and she saw that she was getting away with, she became increasing confident, even bold, until she eventually announced, "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also." After getting no objection from either Ifill or Biden, from that point on, it was off to the races–it was almost like having her trusty teleprompter again.

Thereafter, it was as though she and Biden were in different realms of reality. While Biden responded to the questions with a seriousness and a depth of understanding, Palin stood there being cute, winking at the camera, giving "shout-outs" to third graders, and responding to whatever talking point she chose to pull from the ether.

A lesser gentleman than Sen Biden would have advised her, the next time you avoid substance with one of your cutesy responses, I’m going to throw up all over this stage. But she probably would have simply looked at him and said, "I’m the mother of a special needs child. I bet you didn’t know that, did ya?"

Another example of how Palin avoided having to deal with the substance of a question, was by giving a one sentence answer, then instead of substantiating her response with facts as one would expect, she’d go off on a flight of conservative philosophy instead:

Question: Has this administration's policy been an abject failure, as the senator says, Governor?

Palin: "No, I do not believe that it has been. But I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden. I respect your position on that.

"No, in fact, when we talk about the Bush administration, there's a time, too, when Americans are going to say, "Enough is enough with your ticket," on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game.

"There have been huge blunders in the war. There have been huge blunders throughout this administration, as there are with every administration. But for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going.

"Positive change is coming, though. Reform of government is coming. We'll learn from the past mistakes in this administration and other administrations. And we're going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside.

"That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers. But I know, Senator Biden, you have respected him for that, and I respect you for acknowledging that. But change is coming."

Ah, what?!! Could somebody repeat the question, please?

We’re bogged down in Iraq, thousands of Americans have been killed or sustained life-changing wounds, our military readiness has been all but destroyed as we’re facing a second war in Afghanistan, our treasury has been ravished, we’re facing the largest financial crisis in the history of mankind, and the country is deeply in debt to two of our most dangerous potential enemies, and how does she answer the question of whether or not the Bush administration has been an abject failure? She says, "Americans are going to say, ‘Enough is enough with your ticket,’ on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game." Through her eyes, Americans are not going to be disgusted with the McCain ticket for continuing to support Bush’s failed policies, they’re going to be disgusted with Obama, for pointing out that Bush was wrong.

Her response reminds me of a woman who’s been caught committing adultery, then when her husband confronts her with it the next day, she tells him that he’s going to destroy their marriage if he doesn’t learn to stop dwelling on the past. The problem with that philosophy is if you never look back, you never learn anything; but the beauty of it is, you’re never held accountable for your actions–and Republicans need that accommodation desperately, because if the American people ever start looking back, their through.

If the American people ever start looking back, they’ll notice that the same policies, the same names, and the same corruption is recycled by the Republican Party every generation. On October 29, 1929 the Republican Party ushered in the Great Depression under President Herbert Hoover, and it took Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, to bail the nation out; then on October 19, 1987, under Republican, Ronald Reagan, the stock market fell 508 points due to the excesses of Reaganomics. Then, again, due to the continued freewheeling fiscal policies of conservative Republicans, between 1986 and 1989, spanning the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Sr., the FSLIC had to pay off all the depositors of 296 institutions with assets of over $125 billion.

Then in 1988 Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $1.3 billion. It was headed by Neil Bush, brother of George W. The investigation alleged that he was guilty of "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." The issue was eventually settled out of court with Bush paying a mere $50,000 settlement.

Then there was the Lincoln Savings and loan scandal in 1987, involving John McCain. The scandal was very similar to the one that is currently playing out on Wall Street. He was one of a group of senators dubbed "The Keating Five" involved in a scandal by the same name.

In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors' savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.

After having received over a million dollars from Keating in illegal campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, and other gratuities, the Keating Five--Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Dennis DeConini, Alan Cranston, and Sen. John McCain--attempted to intervene in the investigation into Keating's activities by the regulators. Later, they were admonished to varying degrees by the senate for attempting to influence regulators on Keating's behalf. Charles Keating ended up being convicted for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, for which he received 10 years by the state court, and a 12 year sentence in federal court. After spending four and a half years in prison, his convictions were overturned. But prior to being retried, he pled guilty to a number of felonies in return for a sentence of time served.

So you see, Gov. Palin, looking backwards is a very important part of moving forward. That’s also why we’re so interested in "Troopergate", and we’re looking so hard at you. So don’t get too comfortable, because we’ll be getting back with ya.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

Just a thought on Sarah Palin's mentioning of the "redistribution of wealth in this country." You know a lot of wealth was redistributed to the wealthy in this country by the stagnation/freezing of worker's wages. This was accomplished, in a way, by deliberately keeping the minimum wage low. A lot of employers use the minimum wage to base their workers salaries. If it is kept low, so are everyone's wages, especially in health care and manufacturing. So in my opinion a lot of workers were "cheated" out of their share of the good economic times. They have not benefitted from their actual labor, without which, that wealth could not have been generated in the first place.

She reminds me of myself when I was younger.

According to Sarah she was annoyed with Katie Couric because she didn't let her tell Americans how Obama would raise their taxes and McCain would lower them, and how McCain would save health care.  Well, son of a gun and spit on my shoe!  She is goin' all around Jack Robinson's barn! 

Well, she has the McCain campaign to thank for that:  Sarah, we don't know ya.  You haven't let us get to know ya either.  You have stayed away from reporters, and so Katie was tryin' to give us a window into who ya are...wink, wink!

So, with all respect, your negative comments about Obama carry no more weight than some guy we find ourselves sitting next to at the bus stop until you let us know who the hell you are and where you're comin' from. 

So Katie was right, and you were wrong.  Until you show us that you have put any effort and thought into issues that actually affect our country, we'll wait for ya to get back to us!  Wink! Wink!
(adjusts rack unobtrusively while checking blackberry)

Everything and everybody is eating at poor Johhny. He's losing the election and he knows it. He's low on campaign funds and he knows it. People are criticizing him, even the editors of the Des Moines Register. He is constitutionally unable to accept criticism. People are questioning his honesty. E.J. Dionne today called him a liar. Johnny knows he's not honest, but he hates it when others point it out to him. Everyone who watched him hug George Bush for eight years (after what Bush did to him in Carolina) knows that he has a loose relationship with truth and principles. Lastly, he has a propensity for forgetting what he has said and then contradicting himself, sometimes in the space of a couple hours. He then lashes out at those who would contradict him. That is very suggestive of either or both early stage dementia or chemical addiction. If what's eating him keeps eating him from now to November 4th, and I think it will, there won't be much left of him. And the world with be a somewhat better place.

As a psychologist I tend to see things from a slightly different perspective.  To me the Paulson plan clearly comes out of a state of panic on the part of its author.  I have worked with a number of people who have led secure, anxiety-free lives and have then had to cope with the sudden onset of severe anxiety due to a crisis.  Having little or no experience dealing with this emotion, these people tend to panic, and when they do they revert to fairly primitive modes of thought.  Panic reactions are often characterized by an overwhelming need to regain as much control as possible as immediately as possible, without concern for any other factors.  This is also what characterizes the Paulson plan:  it was a demand to do something extremely large right away, regardless of any problems that the action would cause.  The essence of the plan and its presentation also was this:  “You must give me enormous resources and absolute power over them and must do it immediately or else we are all doomed.”  If that doesn’t describe the thought processes of panic nothing does. 

I would also point out that news accounts mentioned that Secretary Paulson at one point in the negotiations seemed to be suffering from dizziness, and some were afraid that he might have needed medical attention, but he recovered quickly and continued working.  This sounds just like an anxiety attack to me.

It disturbs me to come to this conclusion because I believe Secretary Paulson was doing a pretty good job before he presented his plan.  When FDR became president he realized that he had to stop the contagion of fear that had spread throughout the country and took steps to do that.  Secretary Paulson has done the opposite, spreading the contagion and adding to a state of panic which has made proper consideration of the problem and its possible solutions impossible.  

to get the housing market restored within the next decade.

I support this move. I agree that it has to be done.I am not sure that it will work, but we had to try.

I view this bill as more of a placebo treatment, than an actual solution. It is still all based on the trickle down principle: if we purchase a large portion of the fat cats' bad purchases, then they will trickle down the money we paid them, to the little guys.

I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. Here is why:

Why will they rush to give a lot of credit, to people who can not get it now, after they have been burned with a lot of bad credit, and just have lucked out by offloading it to the government. Are there requirements in the bill that forces them to lend the money, trickle down, if you will. or are they free to opt to treat it as profit, which will improve their stock profiles and quarterly earnings reports.

I have heard a lot about limiting the golden parachutes for the CEOs, but what about their stock options rewards. Do they get to keep them. If they do, then that would tempt them to hold on to the new cash influx, improve their assets profile, and thereby boost the value of their stock options. Is there anything in the bill that prohibits them from doing that.

As for all those housing mortgages that the government will be taking ownership of. There is no way that those homes are going to return to their full market values within the next ten years.

The reason why I say that is: Supply and demand. The reason why there was a housing bubble is because too many people, who should never have been ruled financially qualified to own a home, got one, and now have left those homes empty. So you now have a situation where supply far exceeds qualified demand. On top of that, getting a mortgage  approved will be almost impossible. Only those with the best credit ratings will be capable of being approved,  and the vast majority of those people already own homes,  and if they wish to move, they will not be able to sell their current homes.

The housing market is going to be in the doldrums for at least a decade, and only those with impeccable credit ratings will have any chance to get a mortgage.

I support the bill, because we had to give it a try, and maybe it will provide a modest placebo boost to the economy, but that is the best we can hope for. It is not going to change the dynamics of supply and demand, and we are stuck with far too many houses on the market, compared to the qualified demand numbers.

Having seen Sen. Biden drop all kinds of gaffes, I was looking a narrative like this after the debate.

Sarah Palin showed she is a hockey mom and Sen. Biden didn't respect a regular person and was talking down to her. Blah, Blah, Blah.

I expected Sarah Palin to do well and repeat her talking points from her memory with a smile. She did that and did anyone really think she can't repeat talking points?

After hearing her response to a specific question from Couric on supreme court decisions, no one should think she has a problem with speaking. She goes on with her answer not caring about the fact that she is not answering the question or her answer is not making sense.

Expectations for Biden is he will screw this up. No one thought he doesn't know the poilcy details. So for me if the debate didn't include any gaffes from Sen. Biden, its a huge victory for Democrats.

PS : I'm not big fan of winking unlike Rich Lowry

It's a damn shame that we can't post graphics here, so for your Friday afternoon happy moment you'll have to go to this diary at Daily Kos and check out the screen-grab from today's Washington Post ad:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/3/155145/046/127/619244

It appears that the McCain campaign's PR people are as careless as their factcheckers!

Ha!

Hi Josh,   Have you heard of the Enneagram of Personality?  It is a personality typing system used in business and elsewhere that is a very sophisticated model of human consciousness and behavior.  There are nine types of people:  three are classified as anger types, three and fear types, and three as image types (sadness is the issue for image types).  John McCain is, not surprisingly, an anger type - the type whose anger is not repressed or suppressed, but is active and prone to spill out uncontrollably.  Type Eight, which John McCain is, is all about control, domination and avoidance of control by others.  In general, Eights are lusty and can also be bossy, brash, aggressive, intimidating, confrontational and impulsive.   Doesn't that sound like McCain?   Other famous Eights include John Wayne, Roseanne Barr and Sean Penn.  Political leader Eights include FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was also an Eight.   You can read more about Eights generally and McCain in particular here, here, and here.   Do you want to have fun?  Of the above three triads - anger, fear and image - where do you think Barrack Obama fits?

Dear _____________:

I'm glad you took my advice and watched both the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. While you may have gotten enough information for a terrific civics paper, you also got an important lesson on "real" life in this country. Learn from it.

In America, it is true that you can be practically anything you desire. And yes, you will have to work very hard for it. Harder than some of your friends. Your parents already told you that. But rarely do you really get to see what they were talking about play out right before your very eyes. You did last night. Learn from it.

When your parents demand that you speak clearly and in well-formed sentences, with proper syntax and without the slang, without the "you knows" and the "likes", they're not just being hard on you. They want the world to see and understand someone capable of articulating a coherent thought. When they chide you to stop listening to that music, turn off the TV and read a book -- big thick books with no pictures -- it's because they want you to learn how to think, not just repeat the last thing you heard.

You live in world where certain people -- this election cycle they have been called "regular" people -- can get by by doing less. Let's be honest: the standard for Gov. Palin's success was set so low last night, that failure for her was impossible. She could fumble her way  through poorly memorized talking points, substitute phony beauty pageant charm for substance and come away a winner. You will not have that luxury.

Gov. Palin could spout nonsense in the white man's version of ebonics -- "get down to gettin' down to work," "give a shout out" to some classroom in Alaska -- "talk straight to the American people" in the most circuitous language ever delivered on a debate stage and get away with it because, in addition to being someone's definition of "cute," she is also white.

You betcha, I said it.

And if you watched the post debate "analysis" last evening and today, you saw white person after white person defend the indefensible. She was nervous, they said. She was folksy, they marveled. She connected with "us," they told you. And in this case "us" is not you. Had you or I or Barack danced through a debate like this, we would have been laughed not just off the stage, but out of the race.

Got that? You don't get to play "Debatin' With the Stars," doing flat-footed versions of the quick-step, jive and tango, and score perfect tens from biased judges.

Sarah Palin was given every benefit of the doubt, every available point for not drooling on her suit jacket, not farting loud enough for the microphone to pick up, not getting lipstick on her teeth. She earned extra credit for the beauty queen kiss blow to her "First Dude," for winking at the audience and not falling off her high heels. You would not be judged so lightly.

You must answer every question put to you, and anticipate every question that isn't. She can choose to not answer any. Ever. You must be on pains to have your facts and figures straight. She is at liberty to make hers up as she goes. She is free to lie at will. You are not. Um hum, I said it.

The expectations for you are always higher and harder and always changing. Barely graduating from decent state school is not enough. You need those "super student" credentials on your permanent record, and the better the schools you attend the better for you. But remember, in this topsy-turvy, "up is down" world, being a good student will be held against you. You will be called "arrogant" and "presumptuous" and "elitist."
When you speak carefully and thoughtfully, you will be called "professorial" and "articulate" or "an orator," as if those are bad things.

The Sarah Palins of the world will be hailed as brilliant for doing mundane things mundanely. You will not. You will be asked to give them a break, give them a pass, overlook their obvious failures while not getting any breaks or passes yourself. (And seriously, you don't want their breaks and passes. The cost is way too high, especially for your own self-esteem.)

The soft bigotry of low expectations is not your burden. You cannot get by with a pussycat purred, "That's hot." You cannot slip into presidential politics by winning Miss Congeniality or winning American Maverick. Your bar will always be set high.

Remember what you learned last night: You must be two or three times as good to earn half the credit. She only needs to show up. Quietly breathing through her nose is optional.

But everything you achieve, you will have earned. Fair and square.

If affectations were authenticity, Sarah Palin's debate performance would have been Oscar worthy. If flirtations were facts, Sarah Palin could transform ennui into an astute entry in the encyclopedia. If muddled mutterings were metrics, Sarah Palin could be a mathematician. If serendipity were substance, enlightenment would emerge from Palin's equivocations. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. If audacity were hope, John McCain and Sarah Palin would be our saviors. Look, by virtually any means of measurement, the performance of Sarah Palin during last nights debate was an insult to voters and a mockery of our political process. While I realize Republicans want to support their ticket and hold the White House, the fact that any American could ignore the utter inanity of her performance last night...and cast a vote for the McCain-Palin ticket...is an affront to the integrity of our democracy. To grant legitimacy to tactical cynicism is to empower the reckless acts of those who would sacrifice our society for their own exigent egotism. The only salient conclusion one can draw from John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is that he may be the most dangerous man in America. Make no mistake; John McCain's life is the epitome of insolence and self-indulgence. Sarah Palin's selection is simply the exclamation mark. With that said, John McCain is merely a symptom of a far more endemic illness. John McCain embodies a segment of our society that is willing to sacrifice rationality and reasonability for the pursuit of power and profit. Were that the limit of this egregious era of enmity, I might reconsider this recitation. The gravity of this moment doesn't afford that luxury. John McCain and Sarah Palin do not represent the heart and soul of America...they are impostors who wrap themselves in the superficial rhetoric of patriotism, righteousness, and religiosity. They do this by denigrating and casting doubt upon those qualities in others. It takes the form of narcissistic negation designed to deny worth to those who refuse to check their cerebral capacities at the door and adopt their mindless mantras. When I witness the chanting of "USA, USA" or "Drill baby drill" at a McCain rally, I don't hear the collective cries of informed and evolved individuals; I hear and see the summary suspension of identity for the comfort of canned incantations. The fact that this lockstep submission to simplistic circumlocution is being glorified in the disingenuous gesticulations of Governor "give me a frickin' break" Palin is an insult to true patriots, the resolutely righteous, and those who respect religion enough to forego flaunting it as if it were the latest fashion. Yes, John McCain served his country in the military...but the measure of a man must be his motivations...just as is the case with regards to the service of one's God. If patriotism or religion is employed as the means to manipulate others, neither is noble or noteworthy. To understand this concept, and its relevance in discerning the essence of John McCain from the caricature he has carefully crafted, I highly recommend reading <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain">the recent article in Rolling Stone that traces his less than laudable biography</a>. As I read the article, I found myself recalling the story of Forrest Gump. While there may be symmetries in these two men's situations, they begin to diverge at the moment one delves into an examination of the purity of happenstance versus the cunning of calculation. While this exercise in illumination is intended to inform as to the integrity of the individual, it becomes especially insidious when a number of the observers can no longer apply objectivity in identifying the insincerity of the protagonist's executions. Ironically, the juxtaposition of fiction and fact only serves to amplify the premise of my argument...a belief that America is on the verge of becoming a tragic caricature of itself...prosecuted by icons hatched from the thin air of our illogical imaginations. To understand the inevitable outcome of this diminishment-by-denial brand of obfuscation...carried out by and for the McCain-Palin candidacy...take a look at its full and frightening manifestation in <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=">Rich Lowry's summarization</a> of the "performance" of Sarah Palin, posted at the National Review. <blockquote> A very wise TV executive once told me that the key to TV is projecting through the screen. It's one of the keys to the success of, say, a Bill O'Reilly, who comes through the screen and grabs you by the throat. Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it. </blockquote> Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the moment at which projection becomes an acceptable substitute for substantive competence and principled character, the moment at which reality has been rejected? The fact that this analysis...deliberately divorced from the fundamental consideration of John McCain's judgment in selecting Palin...can be put forth by Lowry and embraced by millions only exacerbates the erosion of rational thought. As I read Lowry's inanity, it seemed as if this election was being reduced to the kind of manipulations one might expect to witness when a scantily clad vixen engages the unbridled libido of an adulterous husband on the prowl. Ah, yes, nothing better than pecker politics. Not only is this the epitome of a sexist oversimplification, it suggests the Governor is simply an object used as the means to an end. The cynicism is shocking. That brings me back to John McCain and Forrest Gump. You see, the trajectory of the life of Forrest Gump was best exemplified by the flight of a feather in the wind...whereby the unintended acted upon the soul of an innocent. On the other hand, Sarah Palin is an offshoot of John McCain's path...a path that is akin to the clever carpenter cutting corners to build a house of cards...whereby his suspect soul is little more than a hypocritical hologram that puts Palin forth as the purposeful act of a sullied snake-oil salesman. In the progression of the pathology I'm describing, Sarah Palin is merely a distraction offered by the disease in order to further its spread and prevent its detection and destruction. The Rich Lowry's of the world are its toxic foot soldiers and the voting public is its intended victim. In the end, it is insufficient to diagnose the source of our sickness and excise it from our body politic. Absent an aggressive intervention aimed towards inoculating the entirety of the organism, the unseen outposts of our oncology will continue to multiply. Treatment must be comprehensive. The return to rational health must include the rejection of those who would willingly drink the elixir and subscribe to the suggestions that it is an essential element of our identity. Those who consume the potion called Sarah Palin at the behest of John McCain and his minions do so at their own peril. Once the pathogen gains a foothold, prevention will prove futile. America is on the precipice of a pandemic. Those of sound mind and steeled judgment must speak out against the allure of inauthenticity. Sarah Palin is poison. John McCain is pushing and promoting that poison. Stand up and demand that America purge itself of this vile virus. Restoration is coming...rejection is the cure. <a href="http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/10/mccain-palin_the_audacity_of_audacity.php">Cross-posted at Thought Theater</a>

This clip http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/mccain-how-about-sarah-pa_n_131717.html

reminded me of something....

Oh yes! 

Try this, at about 6:15 in...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26YRd5fW66k

To help everyone understand the consequences of Sarah Palin becoming President of the United States, I invite everyone to imagine situations where she might find herself should that circumstance arise.
What would she say in her first State of the Nation Address?  Is winking allowed?
How many Presidential Press Conferences would there be and if there were any what would she say? "I'll have to get back to ya on that, Charlie"

I have this image of President Palin addressing the UN and the simultaneous interpreters leaping out of their booths in complete frustration. 
Then there is the pardoning of the turkey at Thanksgiving.

We all saw Sarah Palin glancing down at her podium repeatedly during the debate.  Here's why:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/sarah-palin-debate-flowch_n_131607.html

In reference to DK's recent post, I want to highlight the part where McCain's foreign policy adviser said "it sorta speaks to the long experience he has had in the region -- in the most positive terms.'

"Most positive terms."  Really?  Do they want to go there?  I may be wrong, but according to the Rolling Stone article on the great hero, McCain was married at the time . . .

Maybe these are two separate times, can anyone verify the timeline?

I briefly wondered, why the first words out of Palin's mouth were, Can I call ya Joe?. That struck me as slightly odd, but then again, it was Sarah Palin. So, I chalked it up as her either trying to show herself as a regular gal, or her trying  to establish a control position for the debate. You know, Pitbull (Alpha dog) Palin.

The debate began and I though no more of it. That is, until she sprang that, "Oh no, say it ain't so, Joe!", line. A reference to an old newspaper headline regarding a baseball insider betting controversy. Was Palin's rather unusual opening request to call Biden by his first name actually part of a set-up to spring a patented Palin one-liner? If she hadn't received Biden's permission at the beginning she would have risked looking presumptuous or even disrespectful. As it was, the line still fell flat. 

 

hello all, thx for visiting my profile, Here is my main blog