I've become more and more disgusted with Gov. Palin as I keep seeing news accounts of her continued in-fighting with fellow veterans of the defeated McCain campaign.

It appears that she still doesn't realize she was never anything more than a gimmick. A last ditch effort to win the White House by a campaign that knew the proverbial writing was on the wall and their only hope was to start chucking Hail Mary passes early in the third quarter!

She is not currently and never was taken seriously by serious people on any of the grave matters of national policy that critically need to be addressed.

In short, she was and remains a joke.

A bad joke.

The kind of bad joke that is often repeated  in order to make fun of the person who thought that it would be funny. "Can you believe he/she thought people would laugh at THAT? What an idiot!"

Based on the tone of her attacks on her opponents I don't feel she is entitled to any kid gloves or benefit of the doubt now. She knew what she was doing so I don't feel any pity for the utter fool she is currently making of herself. In that sense, the constant back and forth over just how much of a buffoon she really was and remains is sort of entertaining. It's just that this dog and pony show has gotten really old, really quickly.

Gov. Palin, for your own sake: Please, just fade away quietly into the background.

You were not a realistic national candidate and you're less of one now than you were before. Save yourself and your family the further humiliation and just go back to obscurity in Alaska. Based on the levels of continued support for a corrupt and disgraced Senator, you'll fit right in!

p.s. Anyone else find it hysterical that this candidate who was allergic to reporters during the campaign seemingly now can't get enough of them?

President Barack Hussein Obama.

I would say more but I can't.

I said the same thing a little while ago about the Palin effigy hanging incident.

So naturally, I feel obliged to post the same thing about this sad incident.

As was noted in the discussion on my last post, I don't deny for one second the obvious difference of historical implications raised when the effigy is a black man rather than a white woman. However, as I also noted the larger point about what should be out of bounds and beyond the realm of acceptable political discourse remains.

For those who disagreed with me, do you feel different about an Obama effigy being hung in a noose?

Truly depressing stuff on Frontline tonight.

Can't say enough about the truly heroic job our troops are doing in the 'forgotten' war. To me the saddest part is that this is really just heating up. We're gonna face the music there real soon and the options are bad, worse, godawful, horrific, and downright unspeakable. I don't even want to think about the whole 'destablizing Pakistan' permutations!!!

My (Our) only hope is that a new Obama administration takes a comprehensive and sensible review of our entire middle and near east strategy and global force structure. Hopefully they'll be capable of making some difficult decisions that might be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat and salvage some semblance of a decent resolution.

I'm not holding my breath though...

I know why Drudge has this image of an effigy of Palin hanging in a noose plastered all over his webpage. It's a very transparent attempt to suggest a double standard at work in the MSM since this hasn't garnered the attention a comparable image of a certain someone on the Democratic ticket would have. I know that. But you know what? He's right.

I think Palin has shown herself to woefully inadequate for the office she is seeking. Her policy positions are so pitiful and poorly explained that one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when listening to her attempts to explain them. Considering Senator McCain's health history and age, her qualifications are a serious concern. However, this type of distasteful stuff has no place in our national political discourse. None. I don't find the humor or 'it's Halloween season!' arguments compelling. It's an explicit and public demonstration of the potential murder of one of the candidates for Vice Presidency. Our country has a history of political violence. As such, such public demonstrations should be denounced by all as way out of bounds. Just as there are limits on free speech such as the proverbial screaming 'fire' in a crowded theater, public demonstrations depicting violence against our political leaders should fall into the same category.

I know that there will be many on the left who don't agree with me on this but I'd put this question to them (although I know this is the reason Drudge is trying to make this an issue, it doesn't mean he isn't right on this one): would you feel the same if it was Senator Obama?

As a further example, I felt the same way when some of the more extreme anti-war folks were doing violent acts to effigies of Bush and Cheney.

I think one of the biggest lessons of this political campaign has been the necessity to elevate our level of political discourse in this country. I think placing such things outside the bounds of acceptable discourse would be a proper step in that direction.

I'm sure there are many who will strongly disagree with me and I would welcome your comments since I think it's an important topic to discuss. Considering the history of actual violence against political figures in our country I think it very reasonable to set firm boundaries on the depiction of fictional violence against them and the concept of double standards simply shouldn't play any role in that determination at all.

It's cliche I know but the fact that something like this could even happen is one of the more amazing aspects of American democracy. In less than three weeks there will be an election and yet both candidates can get up in front of so many power players (and cameras!) and crack jokes about each other is pretty amazing considering the stakes.

McCain was certainly in his element but I think Obama put in a surprisingly strong performance as well. I thought the jabs at Guiliani were absolutely classic!! McCain seems a little peeved at Olbermann, no?

I find the juxtaposition of the roast to the substantive tone of the debates to be fascinating. We not only expect competence but humor from our presidential candidates. 

When I read a conservative writing the following:

"OK, that's over. And so is the McCain campaign. He was more aggressive than he's been so far, and he came close to landing some blows on Obama. But he never really connected, and for the most part this debate was as platitudinous as they all have been. McCain came off as sour, agitated and petulant. Obama -- man, nothing rattles that guy. McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping "You can't handle the truth!" Jack Nicholson moment, I felt. At one point, I thought: Which one of these men would I want in the White House when the 3 a.m. phone call comes in?"

I felt like the argument that Hillary's kitchen sink approach would make Obama a better candidate was fully vindicated. My apologies to anybody with whom I argued otherwise at the time.

I've been a long-time supporter of Obama in this campaign but tonight I really felt for the first time that people who weren't or who were very ambivalent to him would have had a moment just like the one described above where they just imagined which of these two men they would want in charge during a crisis. I think everyone has commented on just how angry McCain really seemed tonight. He managed to not jump across the table but barely. Just barely. His veins were popping and he was clearly taking deep breaths (some caught by the mic) just to calm down. If a presidential debate gets you THAT upset, what about a real crisis where lives or our nation's safety is at stake?

I feel that quite a few people thought 'whoa, at 3am that crazy bastard might nuke somebody!' and maybe, just maybe had a thought similar to this one expressed much earlier in the campaign by Retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, who has been a Republican his entire adult life, but who now supports Obama, put it this way about facing a national security crisis: "When everybody else goes nuts, the president of the United States needs to get cooler and cooler."

There can no longer be any question that McCain doesn't fit the job description and for quite a few Americans who were on the fence about whether Obama does, I think tonight really will settle it. One of these men felt 'Presidential' and had a certain calmness that would bode well when the shit hits the fan while the other quite possibly WAS the shit hitting the fan!

Again, thank you Hillary for framing the question in such a clear way and though it didn't play out the way you intended I think having the question put in that way was a service to the voters tonight.

Note, I have absolutely NOTHING to substantiate this theory other than my distrust of the Republican election campaign operatives. 

After reading this newsweek article about suspicious donations to Obama's campaign in excess of legal limits the thought occurred to me that this might have been a shot in the dark dirty trick by an overzealous republican operative to create a controversy that could be used to attack Obama late in the campaign. Theoretically, anyone could have made the contributions so there's no reason why it couldn't be true.

Again, I have nothing to base this on other than my feeling that the Rovian element of the Republican side will stop at nothing to win, up to and including fraud to discredit the opposition.

I'm sure I'm not the only thinking such things...

Please forgive me if I don't buy this BS about film footage of McCain's release in Hanoi mysteriously showing up and appearing on the anniversary of 9/11. That's the most blatantly transparent bullshit campaign propaganda you can imagine. It's a scandalous (but will NEVER be called that in the mainstream) politicization of the memory of a tragic day in our national history and a clever means of breaking the promise of not campaigning on this solemn day.

And no, I also didn't miss the connection that Palin's first 'interview' will take place on the 9/11 anniversary either. If she needed to wait two weeks to do an 'interview', somehow she couldn't wait another day? The network couldn't demand it not be used for such a blatant and clear political role on a day such as this?? ABC and all the other networks should be denounced for such propaganda. 

The worst part is that there is NO chance of this being called out by any major media outlet. Just imagine if you will, if an analogous situation had occurred for Obama. I don't think the phrase 'screaming bloody murder' would even begin to describe the uproar that would have ensued.

After reading this article about Michigan republicans being up to the tried and true traditional republican suppress the vote tricks with a new twist, it made me think of what I had written after the last election on the subject of voting in America and ways it should/could be improved.

Even though it's a few years old, I think most of it is still rather applicable and so I'll post it without changes or edits:

Voting and Democracy in America After reading another article about the 'under-the-radar' recount in Ohio, I had a few thoughts about ways to improve the voting process in America's national elections. This post is a bit long but this is an issue near and dear to my heart (as it should be of every citizen of this nation).

1) Make Election Day a national holiday.

A lot of the problems alleged during the past two presidential elections could be avoided by this simple change. Long lines and people leaving them without voting so that they can get to work would not be as big an issue as it currently is. Besides, shouldn't the world's oldest democracy celebrate the event which makes it so special?

2) Institute national standards for the process of placing, collecting, storing, tallying, and verifying of votes.

After the many issues which have surfaced in recent elections throughout the country, this seems to be a no-brainer. Why should the voting experience of a citizen in one part of the country be different than that of another citizen in a different part of the country? In a nation where due process and equality before the law are such fundamental tenets of governance it simply doesn't make much sense for the MOST VITAL aspect of democracy to be left to the whims of each local municipality. This is even more striking considering the many historical examples of various municipalities using this ability to the benefit of some citizens and to the disadvantage of other citizens. To be clear: each and every vote in each and every area of the country should be placed, collected, stored, tallied and verified in exactly the same way each and every time!

3) If electronic voting machines are to be used, the operating computer code should be open-source, each vote should produce a voter verifiable paper receipt which is stored securely on site, and no machine should be connected to networks allowing them to be controlled remotely.

This follows from the previous point in that whatever method is used it should be used exclusively and universally. But the use of electronic machines for voting brings about several specific issues regarding the veracity of the machine itself, the computer code operating the machine, the redundancy of the process, as well as the security of the network if it is on one. These are issues relating to any use of computers but are much more important with regards to voting machines because of the stakes involved in elections and the necessity in preventing any perception that the votes counted by the machine have been manipulated.

From a security standpoint, the use of proprietary software to operate the machines and to count the votes is simply unacceptable. Why should a citizen trust the company operating the machines? Trust should not play a role at all. The security of the software should be dependent on the fact that it is open for all to see and examine as well as the fact that computer security experts can vouch for its robustness and soundness. This can only be done if the underlying computer code is made available and placed out in the light of day. Related to this point about the software operating the machine is the physical security and control of the machine itself. Once it is slated to be used in an election and placed onsite at a ballot location, the responsibility for maintaining and servicing the machine should no longer be in the hands of the company that made it but rather whatever authority is conducting the election. This should continue after an election and until all counts, recounts and potential challenges are completed. The basic point here is that once a machine is denoted to be ready for 'prime-time' it should be viewed as off limits to anyone who is not an official representative of the authority which is conducting the election. This means no last minute 'updates' of the software or post-election maintenience of the machine. Remember, the point is as much about perception as it is about actual security. The whole process can be completely secure and still be perceived as fraudulent because of a few poorly thought out policies and procedures.

The next point flows straightforwardly from this one, which is that each vote tallied by the machine should produce a paper receipt which is verified at the time of the vote by the voter and then stored securely so that it can be confidently retrieved if a recount is necessary. This also appears to be a no-brainer. With all the potential ways the security of and confidence in the voting machine can be undermined, this is a simple and effective way to provide a backup in case of any problems. It also has the additional benefit of significantly increasing a voter's confidence in the integrity of the vote as they will leave the polling booth feeling certain that their vote was recorded correctly and will be counted.

The final issue is covered by the preceding points but it seems helpful to point it out separately. Having voting machines connected to networks and able to be controlled remotely is simply a bad idea. The potential security hazards vastly outweigh any potential benefits. Why?
The basic reason is that it opens the vote to the possibility of cyber attacks by all sorts of bad actors from kids playing a prank to more serious threats such as agents of foreign nations, terrorists or criminal gangs. The incentives for such attacks vary greatly and may even be farfetched but the integrity and security of our national elections is of such value that to even allow the possibility of such attacks would be a grave mistake.

4) Change the rules governing elections so that the person in charge of the authority running an election is a nonpartisan individual.

This is not to say that only independents are able to run elections. Anyone who is qualified (regardless of political affiliation) to do so should be able to with one exception: they should not be active participants in any partisan efforts on behalf of any candidates and their associated political parties during the course of or immediately preceding the election. This should be looked upon in the same context as it is in the judicial community. If a judge or justice has a conflict of interest or what may appear to the reasonable person to be a conflict of interest, the generally accepted practice is for that judge or justice to recuse themselves from hearing or participating in a particular case.

For an individual to be in charge of conducting an election in a particular jurisdiction AND be the chairperson in charge of a candidate's campaign in that same jurisdiction would appear to be a conflict of interest to any reasonable observer. How can you impartially run an election AND be in charge of winning that election for a particular candidate at the same time without having conflicting interests? This is not a partisan issue, but rather a process and procedural issue. It would also stand to reason that jurisdiction would be irrelevant in this context. If someone was in charge of running an election in New York state but also in charge of a the campaign of one candidate in a neighboring state it would still appear to be a conflict of interest to a reasonable observer. This practice seems to be generally accepted but it lends a significant tainting effect to public perception of election results. This is even more true in such a highly charged partisan atmosphere as currently exists.

*******************************************************************************

While I don't believe that any process or procedure can be made perfect. I do believe that the process of having elections in America is currently broken as it is not doing the three things it must in order for our democracy to be as great as it can and should be. Those three things are:

1) Making sure that all eligible voters can vote.
2) Making sure that all votes cast are counted.
3) Making sure that all citizens believe in the integrity and fairness of all elections held.

Taking the four steps outlined and explained above will go a long way in improving the situation and making America the great democracy that it is supposed to be.

I was reading the following list about McCain when it suddenly hit me that what this site is missing is a constant drumbeat of equating McCain with just plain pitiful awfulness. I get the feeling that too much of the dialogue recently has revolved around our own infighting.

It's time to start hammering away at the opposition!

Starting with this list, a few things jumped out at me that suggested they would be good fodder for ridicule:

6. He was addicted to the TV show "24."
Hopefully, he was able to separate fiction from reality.

7. He carries a lucky penny in his pocket.
Scrooge McDuck and his lucky dime...??

8. He played Scrooge in the POWs' staging of "A Christmas Carol" at the Hanoi Hilton.
This stuff writes itself!

13. He describes himself as "a person who is mostly normal."
What percentage is 'mostly'?
51%?
75%?
95%? As in 'mostly' Bush...

17. He doesn't like to be alone.
Awww...Whatsa matter? Poor Baby can't change his Depends diapers? Is he afraid of the dark too?! Does little Johnny need a nightlight?

21. He doesn't e-mail. He doesn't surf the Web. He likes to read the newspaper in print. He's attached to his cell phone.
Shouldn't there be a disqualification clause in the 21st Century that if you can't email, you can't be president? At least we wouldn't have to worry about any 'missing' emails like the Bush administration!

That's just a start.

Add your own ridicule of McCain here!

Democrats, Independents, Republicans distraught with Bush and Cheney, lend me your ears!

This is your time to party! It's your moment!

The convention presenting the ticket that is going to take the White House and change the direction of the country is happening in Denver right now. Let's take a moment to celebrate that fact.

Forget about the differences!
Forget about the real or imagined gripes!
 
Just think about the shared values and beliefs. Think about the uplifting aspects of making your country and the world a better place.  Think about what you personally can do to help that process. What sacrifice can you undertake to make this great country even greater?

Think about the big issues facing the nation and the world.
A quick sampling (in no particular order):

- America's reputation and relation with the rest of the world
- Economic reform and regulation
- Healthcare reform
- Retirement benefits
- Environmental Protection and Climate Change
- Women's rights
- Supreme Court and Federal Court Judge appointments
- National Infrastructure
- Alternative Energy
- Equal Opportunity

I know, I know. That's not ALL the issues, I didn't mention this or that... That's not the point! Think about those issues and the others you mention. Think honestly and deeply about them. Ask yourself, who really represents or come closest to representing your values and beliefs about those issues?

If you're like me and you've spent the last eight years utterly demoralized and embarrassed at the direction our country has taken, there's only one answer.

If you're like me and you've spent the last eight years yearning for some common sense and pragmatic realism on big issues that transcend just one economic class, one party, one race, one interest group because they affect us ALL, then there's only one answer.

If you're like me and you've spent the last eight years thinking how nice it would be go back to a time when the President was either the smartest person in the room or one of them, there's only one answer.

If you're like me and you spent the last eight years wondering what it would be like to have leadership that was intellectually curious about big ideas and honestly thought deeply on an issue before reaching a decision, then there's only one answer.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that answer is NOT the ticket featuring a candidate who boasted that he agreed with Bush 95% of the time!!!

95% of Bush is not going to help our nation fix and move beyond the problems caused by 100% Bush!

No, if you've been waiting for a change in direction for our country and you want to turn the page on the discredited and bankrupt Bush administration, the answer is to support the democratic ticket in any and every way you can. It's time to close ranks, circle the wagons, and lift this ticket up until they take the White House. This is the time to do something about all those doubts, worries, concerns, fears, tears, questions, and pain you experienced under the Bush administration.

We CAN do better!

Look at the big picture, think about how bad it has been and just how bad it could become. Don't let it happen.

Support Obama/Biden '08 with all the energy and vigor you have. Get them in office, and do everything you can to help them govern effectively once they're there!

If not for yourself, do it for your children and your grandchildren. Give them a better future than the last eight years and what it's continuation under McCain would portend. American history has shown what hope, determination and intelligence can accomplish.

Obama/Biden '08 is the embodiment of American hope, determination and intelligence.

So, roll up your sleeves, get out there and let's work together to make it a reality!

Obama/Biden '08! Securing a more prosperous America!!

Anyone know anything about this?

I can only find it mentioned on fringe sites but I keep hearing about it. Any clear debunking of this done by Obama and the crew yet? I think it's BS but I'd love to have something concrete to throw back at these folks. Or should I just throw concrete at them?! ;]

This article over at alternet is downright terrifying in light our past two elections and the recent tightening of the race.

Make no mistake about it, this is why it matters that things are so close.

I don't have much commentary to add other than to stay on your toes and watch for any dirty tricks during the election. If we're vigilant and call bullshit anytime it's tried, then we can prevent more shenanigans from occurring.

I've noticed quite a few people seem to be thinking the same thing I've thought recently: 'well, where is it? where's that different approach you promised? I thought you were gonna bring a gun to a knife fight?!'

Apparently I'm not the only thinking that Obama is falling into the same old trap that dems fall for when they let the repubs do all the attacking which slowly but surely defines their opponent as a pussy in the eyes of the voters. It's never been because people listen to the attacks and think 'man, he's really got a point there. that guy IS [fill in random attack here]!'. No, it's usually because the repubs keep attacking no matter the veracity of the attacks, no matter how asinine the insinuation.

why?

Because negative campaigning works. It is a textbook lesson in politics that no matter how bad you are as a candidate, if you can just make the other candidate look a little bit worse, you can win. It's the political example of the old joke about the two guys running from a bear and one patiently takes the time to put on his running shoes. The one guy goes 'are you crazy?! we've gotta outrun that bear!' and he replies 'no, I just gotta outrun you!'.

While I can certainly appreciate Obama's desire to change politics and move the discourse to a more substantive level, it just doesn't mean shit if he doesn't win. A high-minded losing campaign is just that: a losing campaign.

It's time to take off the kid gloves and punch the McCain camp in the face. It's time to kick them in the groin and then kick them again once they're on the ground. Then kick them again and again until you've won. Yes, I know it sounds bad but guess what? Politics is a dirty game. If you're defending yourself from the other guy that means you're not hitting him hard enough so that he's too busy defending himself from you to be attacking.

Suggested lines of attack:

- McCain's policies on Iraq don't just mean that your sons and daughters will spend years dying there against the wishes of the Iraqi and American people but also that your grandsons and granddaughters will be in debt to pay for it!

- McCain's economic policies don't just mean that government won't help homeowners struggling with foreclosure while cutting taxes for the megarich, he's gonna call you a whiner and say you're bitching and moaning if you complain about it!

- Electing John McCain means nuclear war with Russia.

- John McCain wants to give your hard earned money to [Pick any super rich person]. Don't you think [Pick any super rich person] has enough money? John McCain doesn't think so, he thinks YOU have too much money!

- Wouldn't it be grand to own your own plane, have dozens of mansions and wear $500 imported Italian leather shoes? Wouldn't it be grand if you could just charge a Million dollars to your credit card each month? Let's ask John McCain what's its like living the life of a high-roller and why he supports policies that make it impossible for regular folks who work hard to get ahead while he just reaps the benefits with his wall street buddies.

Suggested Faux McCain Slogans to put in attack ads:

McCain '08:
- 'Drill Now! Drill Tomorrow! Drill Forever!'
- 'Stop Whining!'
- 'Vote for Me so your kids can be POWs too!'
- 'Bomb Everybody!'
- 'And you thought Bush was Bad?!'
- 'Next stop Moscow!'
- 'I hate the gooks!'
- 'Don't worry. My grandkids will pick up the tab!'
- 'McCain = 95% Bush'
- 'Screw you, I'm Rich!'
- 'At least he doesn't eat babies...'

Anyone got any other ideas of not so polite attacks on McCain and suggested strategies for Obama to start fighting back? 

I think he needs something really provocative to start getting McCain's temper to flair up. Right now, he's able to play calm and that's fooling a lot of folks into thinking he's a reasonable guy and viable choice for office. Obama needs to get him to expose his true self so that people are mortified of his finger being anywhere NEAR the proverbial button.

Suggestions wanted!