So, there's been an awful lot of good political fortune for Barack Obama today.  The polls continue to move in his direction.  Democrats on the Hill show unity they haven't had...well...in my 34 years on this Earth.  Republicans are now the Cheneys who couldn't shoot straight, and are (correctly, IMHO) being assigned the blame for both the meltdown and the bailout failure by voters.

John McCain looks angrier, more confused and more petty every time he opens his mouth.  (Today's gem, from his economic roundtable:  "...ensuring that America is secure, and not dependent on oil from people like Hugo Chavez or other parts of the Middle East which is, we know, could be destabilized under certain sets of circumstances."  President Chavez will be surprised to find out that Venezuela has been relocated.)

And, best of all, it looks as though any bailout that gets passed is likely to be attributed more to Obama than John McCain.  Wait...what?  How'd THAT happen?

Let's review the salient facts and reactions to yesterday's developments concerning the Bush Administration's bailout proposal.  Then, I am going to propose that some of today's good fortune is actually the product of some devious - and, frankly, excellent - political maneuvering, by someone who definitely had the motive, means, and opportunity to do it. 

NOTE:  The analysis and hypothesis below are strictly my own opinions.  I do think they're worth considering as an explanation for yesterday's extraordinary turn of events, for the reasons I lay out below. 

The facts: 

Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech on the House floor imploring bipartisan support to pass a compromise package that would allow the federal government to ultimately buy up about $700 billion in bad debt, thus freeing the flow of credit in the marketplace and lessening the strain on banks and borrowers.

The bill, taken to a vote shortly after Pelosi's remarks, failed the House by a 228-206 margin.  The Republicans voted 133-66 against.

The spin:

In the inevitable finger-pointing that followed, Republicans pointed at Pelosi's speech as being too partisan and driving away Republicans who were leaning toward supporting the bill.  Each party said the other didn't do enough to get the necessary votes.

The reaction:

Upon hearing the news that lawmakers weren't passing a financial-relief measure, and staring at Congress being out of session until Thurday due to the Jewish holidays, Wall Street promptly plummeted the Dow by 777.68 points in Monday's trading.  It marked the largest number of points ever lost in one day's trading (and the 17th greatest drop ever in percentage of market points).

Today, there seems to be more unity than ever among top politicos to get a measure passed.  Starting with President Bush's 7:45 a.m. ET (!!!) address to the country, and continuing with McCain and Obama, the focus appears to be on getting a deal done, period.  The markets, encouraged by this, have pushed the Dow up about 300 points as of now in today's trading.

The recap:

Let's evaluate the situation, starting at the beginning.  Democrats know they can get more than half of their members to go for the bailout package.  They know the politics of the package are terrible, which is why they're insisting on healthy Republican support. 

Pelosi knows the voting is close.  She's got members like Bobby Rush, who will stand with her if needed, but don't want to vote for it.  She also knows that House Republicans are in a standoff with the Bush Administration.

John McCain is caught square in the middle of this, hoisted by his own mavericky petard.  Rushing back to Washington to broker a deal and "save the economy" only works if a deal actually happens.  The only stumbling block?  Chris Dodd's "fourth leg" - House Republicans.

So, what does Pelosi do?  She goes to the floor of the House, and throws a number of (soft) jabs at the Bush Administration in particular, and Republicans in general.  Those fence-sitters on the right jump off the unity bandwagon, and the measure fails.

The questions:

"Why would Pelosi give anything but the most bipartisan of talking points, knowing that the deal is in trouble?  Why give Republicans any cover to vote 'nay' with her speech?"

My answer:

Pelosi intentionally agonized House Republicans to get them to vote against the bill.

Follow-up question:

"Why the hell would she do THAT, moron?  She wants the bill to pass!"

My answer:

Nancy Pelosi is NOT stupid, regardless of how many characterize her as such.  She grew up in Baltimore's first family of politics, she made her way to Congress, she climbed the ladder, and has forged her own way to become the highest-ranking woman to ever serve in American government.  You don't do half of what Pelosi's done without knowing how the game is played at the highest levels of federal government.

She knows that one Presidential candidate took personal responsibility for forcing a deal through by Monday.  She also knows that one Presidential candidate had his surrogates out on the morning talk shows yesterday, giving said candidate credit for a deal before the votes were ever in place.  She further knows that this credit grab would boomerang if no deal is done by that "mavericky" deadline.

She can't actively whip Democrats to vote "nay", as that would reflect poorly upon her own leadership.  At the same time, she knows that a "nay" vote would hurt McCain much, much more than it would hurt Obama.

So, what's a Speaker with a Presidential agenda to do?  Drum up "nay" votes from Republicans!  How to do it?  Speech!

What the political advantage if the bill passes anyway?  Pelosi's speech disappears into the Congressional Record, probably never to be seen again.  McCain gets some credit, and the campaign continues.

What's the political fallout if the bill fails?  McCain's credit-grabbing goes the way of WaMu, and he's left with a lot of bad credibility debt.  Meanwhile, Obama gets the chance to step in with a measured, bi-partisan approach, claiming that the market drop is more than ample evidence that something needs to happen, and soon.  If the bill passes on its next vote after Obama's more active role, suddenly HE gets the credit for being a calm, steady hand.  Dare I say, even presidential?

What's the downside for Pelosi?  Virtually none.  She's a stone lock to be re-elected to the House, and she's about as big a lock to remain Speaker.  Almnost all of the Dems who voted against the bailout are vulnerable for re-election, and this bill is toxic for many people right now.  So their votes are completely understandable, and likely made out of political necessity.  She can claim to have delivered 140 votes, while the Republicans only needed another 12.

What's the downside for McCain?  In a word, massive.  His campaign "suspension", brutally exposed as a farce by David Letterman, did absolutely nothing except throw a monkey wrench into the evolving deal.  He couldn't even deliver a single House GOPer from his own state of Arizona! 

McCain now looks like a politicizing sidekick instead of a reforming maverick.  This immediately calls all of McCain's decisions and thought processes into question.

The conclusion:

Some of this will require a willing suspension of disbelief that Pelosi is capable of gaming something out to this extent.  I submit to you, though, that Pelosi is a career politician, as tough as they come.  Don't let that chic Hermes scarf and motherly mien deceive you, as it has so many of her rivals.    

Also, I firmly believe that nothing in Washington ever happens by accident.  Pelosi wrote those remarks; they weren't off the cuff.  And her impromptu press conferences during this financial crisis were all decidedly dripping with hail-fellow-well-met bonhomie.  So she certainly knows from bipartisanship.

Finally, it's pretty common knowledge that a deal of some sort is going to get done, whether we like it or not.  (Full disclosure:  I am personally opposed to the bailout, in large part because I feel the money will simply disappear into the pockets of the same people who got us into this mishigoss and never be seen again.) 

More evidence that a deal is coming:  Warren Buffett has plunked a cool $500 million into Goldman Sachs - and has frankly admitted he did so because he fully expects a bailout.  The number of people in the world more plugged in to money and economic policy than Buffett can probably be counted on the fingers of a mutilated right hand, so I tend to take what the "Oracle of Omaha" says about finance as gospel.

Add all this up, and it's hardly inconceivable that the Democratic Speaker of the House played what chess observers might call a "sham sacrifice" - a temporary material (or political) sacrifice that will more than repay its investment a few moves (or days) down the road, with no serious danger of losing (or poll damage) during the intervening time. 

It should also be noted that sticking the shiv to the Maverick is likely to pay rewards by influencing down-ballot House races, especially for the vulnerable red incumbents.  This should help swell the Dem margins in the House.

Again, I'm just theorizing here.  All of this, though, seems like a logical explanation for Pelosi giving a speech that, while not a classic red-meat hatchet job, was certainly not the most politic given the sensitive negotiations for GOP votes.  And if you find yourself scoffing at Pelosi having the requisite political skillz for this, remember:  that same underestimation of Pelosi's skills is a big reason why she wields the Speaker's gavel right now. 

Contrary to popular wisdom, there IS video of Sarah Palin's big trip to the UN. 

To see an executive summary of her learning experience, as released by John McCann, click here and watch. 

As is now common knowledge, the topic du jour througout America is the $700 billion Wall Street bailout originally proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

But, really, what's $700 billion among friends?  After all, it took about $150 billion to finish the S&L bailout (thanks, Keating Five!).  And we all recently "bought" shares in AIG, the nation's largest insurer.  The price tag?  A paltry $85 billion.

So, what's so tough about $700 billion?  We can't be out of money - after all, our Mint still has paper and ink, right?

I'm not an economist, but I wanted to try and wrap my head around just how much money we're talking here.  I decided to compare this bailout price tag with some other numbers.  What I found floored me.

Remember, now, Paulson wants $700 billion dollars.

$695.4 billion: Gross domestic product of Taiwan. (If the bailout were a country it would be the 21st largest GDP.)
$580 billion: cost of Iraq war - to date.
$515.4 billion: proposed 2009 Pentagon budget
$315 billion: John McCain's nuclear energy plan 
$295 billion: amount of Pentagon overspending on 2008 budget. 
$150 billion: Obama's energy plan cost
$50-$65 billion: Obama's health care plan cost, per year 
$59.2 billion: proposed 2009 U.S. education budget
$10 billion: McCain health care proposal cost, per year
$42 million: Carly Fiorina's golden parachute when Hewlett-Packard fired her
$38 million: Paulson's post-2004 salary as Chairman & CEO of Goldman Sachs
$43,371: The 2004 median Ohio household income
$32,000: The average national debt obligation of each American

Of course, you could always look at the bright side.  The proposed bailout is only 7% of the $10 trillion that is expected to be the national debt around January 20, 2009.

Personally, the way I've come to see this is as follows.  When my wife and I looked at moving into a new house in 2004, we had a particular number in mind, both for the cost of the house and the monthly mortgage payment.  We knew we couldn't afford more, even though we were offered bigger mortgages.  So, we stayed within our means.

I recognize that some borrowers were not intending to live beyond their means - rather, they were sold on overextending themselves by predatory lenders (here's looking at you, Ameriquest).  However, the fact is that these borrowers did not do their own research.  They should suffer the consequences.  Yes, it's rough.  But I cannot afford to help pay for my neighbor's foreclosure, lest I suffer a foreclosure of my own.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for those investment houses that are going down in the wake of the mortgage and credit crises.  If the homeowners were irresponsible for borrowing excessively, these institutions have treble responsibility.  It was their relaxed procedures - stoked by the greedy rush to grab big fistfuls of the subprime pie - that caused them to lend so much - in many cases, to people they would have rejected pro forma three years ago.  Now, they want hundreds of billions of dollars - not to pay off debts and close their books, like the rotten S&Ls, but rather to remain operational and ultimately become profitable again.

This is analogous to me hiring a driver with two DUIs, a previously suspended license and five prior accidents...to drive my son's school bus.  The reason?  Well, the driver knows what went wrong before, and promises to not let it happen again.

To hell with that nonsense.  No bailout.  Let Darwinian economics run its course.  I believe we'll survive a crash - if there is one; no one has projected exactly what would happen if we don't bail out Wall Street.  Moreover, I think we would come out, long-term, in a much sounder position than if we keep bailing out these greedy firms and their greedy borrowers.

No corporate welfare.  No raising my debt obligation by $3,000 to help someone who decided to get a $300,000 mortgage while making $40,000 a year, just because it was there.  And no cutting off the energy and health care plans we so desperately need, just so Maurice Greenberg and his pals can have their billion-dollar cakes and eat them too.

Yes, there will be suffering.  I understand that letting those irresponsible investment houses crash will cause job loss and further-eroded confidence in our dollar.  I don't dismiss any of that, and I know times will be hard.

But isn't one of the major conservative fiscal talking points that the market can self-correct?  And isn't letting a badly-managed business fail, snapping up the useful parts, and putting them to work in a better-managed business part of that self-correction?

These are only my opinions, formed after several days of researching this issue.  I'm trying to apply common sense to this issue, but I'm not an economist.  What do you folks think?

Howard1 recently posted "How Racism Works".  The discussion threads in that post have helped me crystallize some thoughts on the touchy subject of race in politics.  I'd like to relate a personal story that, perhaps, can speak to some of that subject, and maybe shed some light on how some people use racism as fuel instead of retardant.  It's a bit long, so I apologize in advance...that was for you, Ripper. :-)

I am a Black man who was born and raised in East St. Louis, IL.  It's a town that has spent much of the last 30 years as an object of national ridicule.  Even Richard Pryor used to joke about working "the kamikaze shift in East St. Louis".  The past ten years have been kinder, thanks to casino money and falling property values that have encouraged some businesses to return.  Times are still hard there, though.

When I went to East St. Louis Senior High in the early '90s, I was one of the best high school chess players in Illinois, and the #1 high school player in the metro St. Louis area.  As a result, I did get some media coverage, and I was reasonably well known.  East St. Louis Senior is known for championship football, basketball and track - not so much for chess.

One Saturday, we went to a tournament at Horton Watkins High, which is in Ladue.  Ladue is a suburb of St. Louis that has often been listed among the ten richest towns in America.  Horton Watkins reflects this affluence, as it resembles a mansion more than a high school on the outside - and a high-tech lab more than a high school on the inside.

In between my first and second games, I walked around, marveling at the school.  I didn't go into any of the rooms, though they weren't locked.  I wondered what it would be like to attend a school where the faucets in the science classrooms worked - never mind the faucets in the student bathrooms, into which I never ventured during my time at "The Side".  The rooms were all bright, airy, well furnished, and immaculate. 

I was in mid-drool at one carpeted area when a security guard approached me.  He started questioning me about why I was in the building.  I got halfway through one sentence when he cut me off and told me I was trespassing.  I got halfway through an apology when he cut me off again and told me he was going to call the local police.  He grabbed my elbow and dragged me to the school office.  I bit my tongue and walked along with him to avoid any further scene, but I wasn't in my happy place just then.

I wore my hair in a box cut back in '92, when this happened.  But I was in a polo shirt, Dockers and loafers, and was clean shaven.  (That was what I usually wore, unless I was doing gym or yard work.)  So my overall appearance was not slovenly.

When we got to the office, he half-pushed me through a swinging door and into the principal's office.  He ordered me to sit down while he called the cops. 

The principal happened to walk in shortly thereafter.  The guard hurried up to him and told him what I had done.  The principal saw me, and said, "Boyd, what are you doing in here?"  The guard's face fell through the floor.

When I explained what had happened, the principal walked me back to the cafeteria where we were playing, apologized to me, and apologized to my coach.  The guard came by shortly thereafter and did the same thing.  I elected not to answer him, primarily to avoid saying something classless.  I could have been charitably described as aggrieved at that particular moment.

Later, the Watkins faculty sponsor came over to apologize as well.  He was absolutely livid, and told me the guard should have at least recognized me.  He then showed me a copy of that week's school paper - where a story about the upcoming tournament ran on the front cover, along with a picture of me from the previous year's event.

Now, every adult involved in that situation - including our coach - was white.  Ladue has virtually no African-American presence. 

Was race a factor in this incident?  Objectively, one could argue it wasn't - I was in a part of the school that wasn't being used for the tournament.  It wasn't locked either, though, and even the guard admitted I hadn't harmed anything. 

Realistically, given the totality - the guard's aggressive behavior, his unwillingness to listen to me at all, treating me like some sort of thug - I came to the conclusion that race was the ONLY reason he reacted the way he did. 

Now, to be fair, every other adult associated with the school treated me very well.  I found myself, though, automatically questioning them and their motives.  I wondered what they said behind my back.  I wondered if they'd have behaved toward me as they did if I wasn't "the chess guy" or hadn't been in some local papers.  I began painting them with the same brush I used on the guard.  And that absolutely ruined my day.

A few weeks later, I was still brooding.  But then I realized something.  Yes, I'd had a bad experience with a white man.  Yes, he deserved to be called out on his racist behavior.  But that was no reason to believe that all white people were similarly motivated.  I thought back to how the school reacted to my incident - the faculty actually sent a letter of apology to our principal.  And I realized that maybe the guard wasn't the only one operating on assumptions and misconceptions. 

I allowed one idiot to make me hostile toward an entire group of people, when their behavior as a whole gave me no reason to do so.  I allowed that because I had an underlying assumption that all whites had certain racial prejudices.  I came to realize, though, that one's behavior is the only thing on which one can fairly be judged.  And I became more open and understanding as a result.

What I see in this campaign is that many people are struggling with two things - reality and predisposition.  On the one hand, I've come to believe that most people are essentially good and decent, and ultimately want to do positive things.  But I also believe that most people - especially Whites - have preconceptions based on stereotypes.  And, while stereotypes are generally unfair, they do grow out of some basic truths.

Watch your local news sometime.  The lead stories are almost always negative - and many of them involve crime, squalor and death.  Blacks have a starring role in a disproportionate percentage of these stories in Pittsburgh, and my experience in Chicago and St. Louis says that's not abnormal.  Does the media owe equal time for White crime?  Do Whites commit less crime than Blacks?  Do Whites hide their crimes better than Blacks? 

I don't know the answers.  But everyone who thinks past their noses has probably asked themselves some variation of at least one of these questions.  Most of the time, when we can't - or don't want to - find an answer, we simply create one.  Then, that answer becomes a prism through which we filter our experiences.

My phonebanking and canvassing work has led me to believe that many people are experiencing a fundamental disconnect when they try to process Barack Obama.  That disconnect is related to the images they see on the news, in movies, on ESPN, and on the streets where they live.  I think Joe and Jane Six-Pack are suspicious of Obama - despite the fine-tooth comb that's been taken to his life - because they haven't ever really *seen* anyone like him.  Yes, there have been accomplished and educated Blacks.  None, though, had really made a strong case to be PRESIDENT.  These people would have an easier time accepting Snoop Dogg than Obama.

We have had 43 Presidents.  42 of them have been White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men.  Think about that for a second.  We've only had one President - the Catholic, John F. Kennedy - who didn't fit that exact mold.  So, when many American voters think of a President, they just don't think of a Black man.  That's why it's so hard to be first.  And that's why Obama has to do so many things that we wouldn't expect a Presidential candidate to do. 

On an infinitesimal level, I understand why Obama holds his tongue at some of the most slanderous stuff, why he picks and chooses where and when to punch and counterpunch.  If I'd blown up at that guard years ago, I could've found myself in real trouble, regardless of whether I deserved it.  The only thing I could do was hold my temper. 

All Obama's trying to do is convince over 100 million voters that he's not a drug-using, service-dodging, White-hating, wealth-taxing, socialist, liberal, elitist, Communist-Muslim atheist who advocates safe sex for kindergarteners.  If that's not enough chainsaws to juggle, he has to do all that while riding a unicycle of unity and explaining to people that he's really a devoted Christian husband and father who has given his life to serving others and who has the temperament, judgment and intellect to lead our tattered nation and a combustible world.  Every single word and deed is fraught with the danger of upending this remarkable juggling act. 

And yet, disbelieving ears still refuse to hear, and lying eyes still refuse to see.  The people I describe still repeat the same smears and lies.  After all, "Jerome Corsi said it, and Fox News reported it, so it must be true."  (I've gotten that response more than once in phonebanking.)

I personally find Barack Obama to be a remarkable man, who has retained his composure in the face of scandalous attacks on him, his record, his faith and his family.  Any red-blooded man - myself included - who had to face the hundredth part of what Obama has faced in this election would probably have long since started busting the heads of his attackers.  And not one of those men would last a day in the Oval Office, because there isn't a day where the President of the United States isn't burned in effigy somewhere. 

The moment Obama blows up at someone - just imagine him publicly having any of the profane tirades that have somehow become the gloss on John McCain's "maverick" myth! - he'll become nothing more than another caricature, permanently disqualified from being President.

I've made the comparison between Obama's candidacy and Jackie Robinson's major league debut before.  As you read the various histories that have been written about Robinson, you come to understand that he had a great deal of inner anger about the way he was treated at the start of his career with the Dodgers. 

Of course, he had every right to be angry.  But the whole reason Branch Rickey picked Robinson to break the color barrier in baseball wasn't just because of Robinson's playing ability, which was unquestioned.  Rickey picked Robinson because he believed Robinson would be able to endure being spat on by fans, openly cursed by other players and defamed by the press, and keep playing without complaint.  Robinson excelled, even with all that negativity towering over him. 

It's now been 61 years since a Black man hit the big leagues, and Blacks have come a long way since then.  We've seen Black billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, entertainers, moguls, movie stars, designers, entrepreneurs, professors, activists, race car drivers, jockeys, and politicians.  But never have we seen a truly viable Presidential candidate of color before now. 

So, when I go out canvassing, I keep all that in mind.  When I talk to an undecided voter or a hostile voter on the phone, I remember that we're working against virtually everything in our nation's relatively short history to get this man elected. 

I hold my anger at the injustice.  I hold my despair at the seemingly irreversible backward thinking and illogic.  I hold my horror at the idea that this man, so uniquely qualified for this time in our history, may not have a chance to do what so many of us so desperately want him to do - lead this country.

I carry hope - not just Obama's hope, but my hope, and the hopes of my family.  The oldest girls actually talk about politics - with knowledge, no less!  It's all I can do to keep from keeling over in shock whenever they talk about electoral votes or Sarah Palin's latest lie.  My five-year-old son shakes me and says, "Daddy, look!  It's Barack Obama!" whenever he sees Obama's face on TV.  And my wife registered to vote this year for the first time - then promptly contacted a field office and planted an Obama sign on our lawn.

And, above all else, I do what so many of all colors have always done when confronted with injustice.  I dig in, and I work.  I work against the tide.  I work in places where conventional wisdom says Obama can't win.  I volunteer to call southern Missouri.  I call South Carolina.  I call central Pennsylvania.  I canvass in West Virginia.  I canvass in southern Ohio.  I go to the places where "Obama" is one of the seven words you can't say on television.  

Then, I silently say a prayer of thanks whenever I encounter racist reaction in my election work.  For me, it only adds fuel to my urgency in getting Obama elected.

(This is the third time I've tried to get this posted; the first two were what I call "404 casualties" - or "File not found".)

I think we need to release a little tension around here.  People seem to be stressing more than a bit about the prospects for this year's election, even though the key states are still swinging for Obama after the McCain post-convention bounce.

So, while we wait for polls, sound bites and gaffes, let's get a few rounds in on our favorite punching bags from Arizona AND Alaska.

Whip out your poison keyboards!  Its the "Punch the GOP Ticket" Contest!

McCain and Palin have told so many assorted whoppers in the last few weeks, and the McCain campaign has become so silly and petty, that the Wall Street Journal has called out the Republicans, and Bill O'Reilly actually took to Obama's defense earlier this week.  (I'm still suffering the after-effects of the whiplash.)

Sunlight, as Justice Cardozo rightly said, is the best disinfectant.  Sunlight also brings good humor, laughter and positive vibes.  And, as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher can attest, humor is often an excellent vehicle for illuminating the darkest lies.

My mission is to help us use humor to bring the truth out about McCain and Palin.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to develop slogans for the Republican Presidential ticket that you feel truly describe these two GOoPers.  

These slogans should be short and punchy - and bring the funny.  No blow is too low - after all, these are Reichwingers we're dissing here.

Remember:  This is for the enjoyment and relaxation of nervous TPMers.  But it probably won't get Obama elected.  So, if you're feeling the ghosts of 2004 creep up on you, laugh it up here...and then go phonebank, canvass or donate.  Enjoy!

(Previously posted similar thoughts at dKos.) 

I think we need to release a little tension around here.  People seem to be stressing more than a bit about the prospects for this year's election, even though the key states are still swinging for Obama after the McCain post-convention bounce.

So, while we wait for polls, sound bites and gaffes, let's get a few rounds in on our favorite punching bags from Arizona AND Alaska.

Whip out your poison keyboards!  Its the "Punch the GOP Ticket" Contest!

McCain and Palin have told so many assorted whoppers in the last few weeks, and the McCain campaign has become so silly and petty, that the Wall Street Journal has called out the Republicans, and Bill O'Reilly actually took to Obama's defense last night.  (I'm still suffering the after-effects of the whiplash.)

Sunlight, as Justice Cardozo rightly said, is the best disinfectant.  Sunlight also brings good humor, laughter and positive vibes.  And, as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher can attest, humor is often an excellent vehicle for illuminating the darkest lies.

My mission is to help us use humor to bring the truth out about McCain and Palin.  Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to develop slogans for the Republican Presidential ticket that you feel truly describe these two GOoPers.  

These slogans should be short and punchy - and bring the funny.  No blow is too low - after all, these are Reichwingers we're dissing here.

Remember:  This is for the enjoyment and relaxation of nervous TPMers.  But it probably won't get Obama elected.  So, if you're feeling nervous, laugh it up here...and then go phonebank, canvass or donate.  Enjoy!

(Previously posted similar thoughts at dKos.)

I think we need to release a little tension around here.  People seem to be stressing a bit about the prospects for this year's election.

So, while we wait for polls, sound bites and gaffes, let's get a few rounds in on our favorite punching bags from Arizona AND Alaska.

Whip out your poison keyboards!  Its the "Punch the GOP Ticket" Contest!

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to develop slogans for the Republican Presidential ticket that you feel truly describe these two GOoPers.  

These slogans should be short and punchy - and bring the funny.

Enjoy!

In light of the McCain campaign's "crocodile tears" over Barack Obama's recent "sexist" comments, I am thinking that there are a few daisy-cutters in the Obama arsenal that need to find their way into an ad, post-haste.

I know that Obama wants to keep himself above the typical mud-slinging contests into which Presidential campaigns usually devolve around this time of an election year.  However, that does not mean he shouldn't attack McCain with the unimpeachable truth.

So, as the title of this post says, it's time to "go there".  And by "there", I mean making McCain's past record on women the focus of a big attack ad. 

With that in mind, here's my ad proposal.  I'm only doing the announcer's text; someone more graphically oriented than I could probably dream up some killer visuals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

John McCain's accusing Barack Obama of being sexist.

But what do the facts say? 

John McCain has a decades-old history of discarding women and disregarding their feelings. 

John McCain believes women should NOT get equal pay for equal work.

John McCain thinks women aren't SMART enough to make their own choices about their bodies.

John McCain has made a campaign joke out of a woman ENJOYING being RAPED by an ape.

John McCain was perfectly fine with one of his supporters calling Hillary Clinton a bitch.

John McCain has even said the union of Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton produced Chelsea Clinton.  SMEARING three prominent, accomplished women with one horrible LIE.

But now, John McCain is a champion for women's rights?  That's one flip-flop even John McCain can't pull off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A few things:

(1) I didn't specifically mention McCain's divorce, for two reasons.  One, the media will happily bring it up.  Two, the "decades-old" remark is still accurate, even without it (the rape joke was in '86, during his first Senate campaign). 

(2) I'm not touching the "c*nt" story.  Unlike the rape joke, there's no independent, non-anonymous corroboration.  I believe it happened, but with no proof, it shouldn't be used in an ad.  All the pieces I put in are indisputable fact, so even remotely believable faux outrage will be hard to generate.

Thoughts?

(My apologies if this posts twice.  The first post shows in my blog history, but not in TPM EC or Cafe.)

In light of the McCain campaign's "crocodile tears" over Barack Obama's recent "sexist" comments, I am thinking that there are a few daisy-cutters in the Obama arsenal that need to find their way into an ad, post-haste.

I know that Obama wants to keep himself above the typical mud-slinging contests into which Presidential campaigns usually devolve around this time of an election year.  However, that does not mean he shouldn't attack McCain with the unimpeachable truth.

So, as the title of this post says, it's time to "go there".  And by "there", I mean making McCain's past record on women the focus of a big attack ad. 

With that in mind, here's my ad proposal.  I'm only doing the announcer's text; someone more graphically oriented than I could probably dream up some killer visuals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

John McCain's accusing Barack Obama of being sexist.

But what do the facts say? 

John McCain has a decades-old history of discarding women and disregarding their feelings. 

John McCain believes women should NOT get equal pay for equal work.

John McCain thinks women aren't SMART enough to make their own choices about their bodies.

John McCain has made a campaign joke out of a woman ENJOYING being RAPED by an ape.

John McCain has even said the union of Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton produced Chelsea Clinton.  SMEARING three prominent, accomplished women with one horrible LIE.

But now, John McCain is a champion for women's rights?  That's one flip-flop even John McCain can't pull off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A few things:

(1) I didn't specifically mention McCain's divorce, for two reasons.  One, the media will happily bring it up.  Two, the "decades-old" remark is still accurate, even without it (the rape joke was in '86, during his first Senate campaign). 

(2) I'm not touching the "c*nt" story.  Unlike the rape joke, there's no independent, non-anonymous corroboration.  I believe it happened, but with no proof, it shouldn't be used in an ad.  All the pieces I put in are indisputable fact, so even remotely believable faux outrage will be hard to generate.

Thoughts?

Someday, I want to write a book about this election season.  I'll call it "Whiplash '08:  The Election of Cognitive Dissonance".  Every time I think I have people pegged this year, they go do something entirely unexpected.

Just last evening, on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Mark Halperin (who I have long assumed is a faithful McCain water-carrier) actually tried...wait for it...journalism?

There was an analysis segment with Cooper, Halperin and David Gergen.  Gergen had just finished talking about how "foolish" Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment was, in light of how he needed to get his message out.  

I'd barely finished shaking my head in dismay at Gergen, who seems to tailor his commentary to favor whatever trade wind is blowing across the presidential campaign at any given time, when Cooper switched to Halperin.  He proceeded to knock me right out of my desk chair.

What follows is a verbatim transcription of the recording from my DVR.  I regret that I couldn't find the CNN transcript on their website.  (All emphases mine.)

AC:  ...Mark, you're shaking your head.

MH:  Stop the madness.  I mean, this is, I think, with all due respect to what the program's focus on this and to what David just said, I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears.  I wouldn't...

AC:  Crocodile tears.

MH:  Yeah...

AC:  They know exactly what this is.

MH:  ...they don't think this is sexist.  They know exactly what he was saying.  It's an expression.  And this is a victory for the McCain campaign in the sense that every day they can make this a pig fight in the mud, it's good for them.  Because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more.  But I think this is a low point in the day - and one of the low days - of our collective coverage of this campaign, to make, to spend even a minute...

AC:  Right.

MH:  ...on this expression, I think, is amazing and outrageous.

Then, Cooper began a discussion of Palin's "bridge to nowhere" lies on the campaign trail.  Halperin, still drunk from his first deep swig of true journalism, promptly delivered the most scathing indictment of the press and the McCain campaign I've seen this year.

AC:  Mark, has there ever been a vice presidential candidate who has yet to talk to the press at this point in the race?

MH:  No.  And it's another thing I get that I'm embarrassed about our profession for.  She should be held more accountable for that.  The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous.  And if you press them on that, they falter because they know they can't defend what they're saying.  They're saying it on the stump, as a core part of their message.  It's in their advertising.  I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin.  But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist...journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening.

AC:  And yet, we're getting tons of e-mails from people saying that we're attacking Sarah Palin by looking at her record.  So it's fascinating to see how polarized people are...

(muffled exchange where they both talk)

MH:  ...the other three people who are on the national ticket have been scrutinized for months - and in some cases, years.  We've got six - less - fewer than sixty days to do this.  We'd better get about doing it.  And if she doesn't cooperate in that more than she has, the public should be told that - clearly.

Pardon my French, but...HO-LEE SHIT.  Was this the "Very Serious Mark Halperin" actually calling McCain and Palin out?  On national TV?  Highlighting their most recent acts of hypocrisy?  

Have McCain's and Palin's duplicity become so brutally obvious to even the most casual of observers that even Halperin can't maintain the facade any longer?  Reality truly does have a liberal bias.

Ladies and gentlemen, raise your glasses to the (at least for last night!) new and improved Mark Halperin.  Another media figure who has lost his seat at the next Sedona barbecue, as well as his lifetime pass to the McCain Museum of Mavericky Maverickness™.  May many more in the MSM follow.

(Cross-posted at Daily Kos.)

Hilary Rosen's CNN commentary today provides an excellent demonstration of exactly what's wrong with the more personal lines of attack against the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin.

More importantly, though, she outlines what I strongly feel is the best way to debunk "the myth of a maverick", as John Kerry so eloquently put it, while simultaneously shining a harsh spolight on the far-right ideology that Palin embraces.

First, Rosen lays out the idea, through a personal lens, that attacking Palin's personal and family choices may resonate in a way that Democrats could end up regretting.  (All subsequent emphases mine.)

I am a woman who someone took a chance on several years ago when they gave me a job that had only previously been done by old white guys. Experience? How do you get any if no one takes a chance on you? And the decision to take a chance can be instinctive, as John McCain said...My grandmother always said, "You can't tell time on someone else's clock." Judgments about people's personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized.

Many articles (here and elsewhere) stop at this point, having made the larger case that there's a fine line between tough questioning and bullying.  My thinking is that you only cross that line if you're losing.  So, if you're winning an election, why flirt with that line at all?

Rosen continues, though, by targeting the many issue-based reasons to go after McCain/Palin, starting with a succinct statement that would allow the Democrats to remain on their main "more of the same" line of attack.

So why then do I think that Sarah Palin would be a terrible vice president? Because I also think that John McCain would be a terrible president.

I don't care about how Sarah Palin or John McCain take care of their families. I care about how their policy choices affect my family and millions of other Americans.

Nail, meet head.  The Democrats have been running on election issues, judgment and temperament since Obama locked up the nomination.  As tempting as it is to jump on the fresh meat who waded into the election this week, we have to think long-term. 

There is room to hit Palin on personal issues, hypocrisy and inexperience.  That doesn't mean it's a good political idea.

Rosen outlines drastic differences with the Republicans on the issues of health care, educational support, energy policy, Washington reform, economic policy, social issues, and change. 

While all the points are excellent, the one on change bears repeating above the others.

McCain and Palin now say their campaign is about change, too. Yet the only real change they have proposed is a change from a suit to a skirt in the vice president's office and one man fighting a misplaced war for another in the Oval Office.

And there it is.  Palin equals Romney equals Huckabee equals Thompson.  Republican blowhards all, and none with any idea of how to get us out of Iraq, out of $400 billion annual deficits, out of recession, or out of a Social Security hole that stands at $53 billion and climbing.  Call her out on THAT.  Todd, Bristol, Trig, whoever else - don't let her family serve as shield and sword.  Ignore them, and aim directly between those rimless librarian glasses.

You know the difference between Dick Cheney and a hockey mom?  Lipstick.  Don't let voters forget it between now and November.

Today's Wall Street Journal starts the serious MSM reporting on Todd Palin, husband of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

With all the "reporting" being done on Bristol, Levi and Trig, I thought Todd would escape scrutiny.  Yet, it could be that he is the linchpin that connects some of the shadier aspects of Gov. Palin's administration.

The fact that a major right-leaning MSM outlet like the WSJ is doing the reporting is a big plus for Democrats, as the "liberal media" accusations are much harder to pin on the Journal.

Some choice passages from the article follow.  (Emphases in all subsequent quotes are mine.)

In Alaska, Gov. Palin, 44 years old, jokingly refers to the 43-year-old Mr. Palin as the "first dude." But his role is anything but frivolous. Around the Statehouse in Juneau, some critics dub him the "shadow governor." He is copied on some of Gov. Palin's official correspondence, and allegedly was involved in an effort to get a state trooper fired after the trooper reportedly threatened Gov. Palin's family.

Now, I find it more than a little troubling that ANY official gubernatorial correspondence would find its way into the hands - or the inbox - of the "First Dude".  As far as I can tell, he has NO official position in the Palin administration. 

More from the WSJ, on Troopergate:

Alaska's first gentleman has emerged as a key player in the "Troopergate" scandal. An investigator for the legislature is looking into whether Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan lost his job in July after being pressured by Gov. Palin, her husband and her staff to fire Mike Wooten, a state trooper with whom the Palins had feuded during a messy divorce from the governor's sister. Gov. Palin says there was no pressure and that Mr. Monegan's removal was unrelated to her personal affairs.

According to a complaint that Mrs. Palin filed against Mr. Wooten in 2005, the trooper threatened to "bring Sarah Palin down" after Mr. Palin advised him to "act civily [sic] and with maturity" during the divorce. Later that year, Mr. Palin also gave a statement to troopers investigating the charges of misconduct that his wife leveled against Mr. Wooten and also warned the public-safety commissioner about Mr. Wooten after Gov. Palin's election victory.

If the removal was unrelated to the Palin-Wooten feuding, why would Todd Palin have been involved in talking with a state official about the matter?  As official state business, only Gov. Palin herself should have been dealing with it, unless she appointed Mr. Palin to some position within the state.  As discussed before, he holds no such position.

Overall, the piece is not

The New Republic has a report that Sen. Barack Obama is going to go on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor" Thursday night.

This would be a very, very big deal, especially given Obama's near-total blackout of Fox News since he announced his candidacy. 

It's no coincidence, of course, that Sen. John McCain is scheduled to deliver the biggest speech of his campaign that same night, as he accepts the Republican Presidential nomination.

Fox is likely to have off-the-charts ratings for the interview, and Obama gets to take on the MSM's biggest conservative mouthpiece one-on-one.  A good perfornamce against the Bully-in-Chief, and Obama will have succeeded in stealing the news cycle with positive coverage.

The TNR report does say that they expect Obama to get the same sort of soft-toss interview that Hillary Clinton got when she spoke to O'Reilly during the Democratic primary.  However, I would not expect Obama to get anything other than O'Reilly's flame-throwing "journalism" de rigeur.  Fortunately, the Illinois senator has handled all sorts of hostile questioning this primary season, and he'll certainly be prepared for more of the same from Fox's lead bloviator.

There have been many arguments advanced by TPM readers for talking about Bristol Palin's teenage pregnancy.  Certainly, the juxtaposition of this pregnancy with Gov. Sarah Palin's strong abstinence-only position on sex education makes this a virtually irresistible story.

In this blog, however, I'd like to lay out my reasoning for why we should think in prophylactic terms about Bristol.

(No, you sickos, it's nothing like THAT.  Geesh.)

First, let me spell out what this is NOT.  This is NOT an expression of disdain for those who want to talk about Bristol.  I believe that Bristol's story is newsworthy, unfortunately, because of the fairly low standard that is applied to "newsworthy" these days.  Also, since Gov. Palin is so new to the national scene, her favorite brand of chewing gum would be a heavily-dissected topic.

This is also NOT an expression of fear.  The right-wing slime machine will churn out its most noxious poison in the last few weeks of this election, especially if John McCain is losing.  Those who have not reconciled themselves to this reality need to prepare for a lot of ads featuring the most incendiary works of Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger.  Expect to see some cratered buildings and B&W head shots of Tony Rezko thrown in, too.  So, we know that it's coming, and we know when it's coming.  Not talking about Bristol Palin won't change that.

Finally, this is NOT some plea to be better than the Republicans.  The best use of Bristol's story is to plug it in to the growing trail of anecdotal evidence that John McCain is a rash, intemperate hothead who lacks the judgment and statesmanship to be President.  In this case, the plug works like this:  If McCain knew about Bristol's pregnancy prior to naming her mother as his running mate, it blemishes McCain's judgment.  If McCain didn't know, it calls his leadership skills and love of "country first" into serious question.

So, what IS this blog?  It's what the title implies - an endorsement of using prophylaxis with Bristol Palin.  In this case, it's the argument that any attack on her directly opens a wide avenue of counter-attack - and with the race as it stands, the risk/reward ratio simply doesn't justify it.

Former world chess champion Anatoly Karpov has a distinctive playing style.  Rather than his predecessor (Bobby Fischer) and his successor (Garry Kasparov), Karpov wasn't known for flashy tactics and big attacks in his heyday.  Rather, his particular genius was finding any attacking prospect for his opponent.  He would then squash the idea - often, many moves before his opponent even realized the idea was there.  Having choked off all the counterplay, Karpov would then mercilessly exploit the only remaining avenues of active play - which, much more often that not, were completely in his favor.

Obama has steadily taken away every major avenue of attack from McCain.  Foreign policy?  McCain's been reduced to a slogan, "noun plus verb plus surge", with almost no overt help from Obama.  Domestic issues?  Again, McCain's been reduced to a slogan:  "drill here, drill now".  Meanwhile, his own words ("psychological benefit") are killing him on that front.  McCain must be dreading the moment that he has to talk about educational issues, Net neutrality or same-sex rights at a debate.  McCain's positions on these and other important issues aren't nuanced - they're nonexistent.

Management skills?  Obama's campaign has been drama-free since January 2007.  McCain's campaign, however, has had almost never-ending drama - and the conflicting stories about Palin's vetting coming out from various aides only promises - AHEM - more of the same.

Barack Obama is winning this campaign.  He's on the right side of history.  He's on the right side of basically every major issue facing our country.  He has strong favorability ratings, in large part because people believe he's running a positive campaign that is focusing on pocketbook issues.  He has a strong VP nominee in Joe Biden (himself twice a Presidential candidate) who obviously doesn't need to be hand-held on the trail.  (Note today that Obama is in Chicago, while Biden stumps in Florida.)

Flash back to the days before the New Hampshire Democratic primary.  This was, you may recall, one of the very few primaries that Obama delegate genius Jeff Berman didn't predict with ridiculous accuracy.  However, the polls in New Hampshire were in Obama's favor...right up until the time he said, "You're likable enough, Hillary."  Within 48 hours, Obama's polling lead turned into a Hillary Clinton victory - largely because female voters saw that remark and lined up behind Clinton due to the perceived slight. 

With that one remark - doubtlessly considered innocent by Obama at the time he made it - he managed to snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory.

It is my contention that the reason you're seeing Obama and his campaign laying off some of the touchier issues around the Palin family is because of the lesson they learned about the double-edged sword of gender identity, particularly in this year's election season.  Obama's winning in just about every measure that counts in this election season.  There is absolutely no reason for him to hammer on anything that carries a risk of backlash from female voters, or any issue that opens a remotely reasonable line of attack from McCain.

Also, there is another lesson to be learned from the primary season.  When the Wright story broke, the Clinton camp wouldn't go anywhere near it.  (It was remarkable to me because it was the first time in the primary that they showed real message discipline.)  They didn't encourage or reproach anyone, and let the media run wild with it.  You saw a replay of the same strategy by the McCain camp when the Tennessee GOP ran some racially-charged ads.  Politically, the best thing McCain could do was just not comment.  So, that's what he did.

Obama is pursuing the wisest strategy on this now.  He has absolutely shut down his campaign from issuing any comment on the Palin drama.  He's even gone a step further and put every staffer on notice that the Palin children are not to be targeted.  Why?  The MSM - McCain's "base" - will do a far better job reinforcing that meme than Obama's camp or any liberal blogger ever could.  (Check out the East Coast papers today.  They're flogging the Bristol Palin story.)

Now, before you guys get too far into cheering Obama's moral fiber, remember that he is still a politician - and a damned good one at that.  He's also a pragmatist to the nth degree.  So, I believe Obama will do whatever he thinks he needs to do to win.  If he were tracking 6-8 points down in Gallup, everything would be on the table.  Why?  He would be losing - and the losing candidate must take risks to change the track of an election.  (Fortunately, we don't have to find out what Obama would really do if he were down close to double-digits.)

Notice that McCain's been doing this the entire election season - taking risks, that is.  Double-speak attacks, endorsing (via his silence) third-party smears, cracking jokes about the Corsi book, doing anything he can do to get his name in the news - all of these, and more, have been McCain's strategy. 

Now, though, he may be experiencing a little karma.  The GOP has the stage all to itself - except for Hurricane Gustav, which caused them to badly overreact and basically flush the first day of their convention.  Now, the cumulative cloud that is Sarah Palin's delayed vetting will hang over the convention, every new morsel of discovery killing their prime-time opportunities to drive home the messages they want to deliver.

Witness the GOP's reaction today to Obama's CNN interview where he briefly compared his constituencies to Palin's.  The Republicans put out a statement on that issue minutes after the interview comments.  It's not that the statement was very good (it wasn't).  But the real issue is that they are DYING to talk about Obama's experience.  They're DYING to talk about ANYTHING Obama.  They know they can't spend the next two months playing defense on Palin.  So, they take shots at Obama - no matter how tortured the logic, or how laughable the argument.  It's what Obama has forced them to do. 

His campaign has employed prophylactic thinking ever since Super Tuesday.  They want to make no big mistakes, squash the drama, take away the opponent's best lines of attack while maintaining a long-term plan to position yourself for victory. 

True, this method of insulating yourself against substantial attacks is not popular with many people.  It's boring, it's slow, it's hard to grasp at first blush - much like Karpov's best tournament games.  But Obama's results seem to provide powerful empirical evidence that it's very effective in the political arena. 

Obama's protecting himself from character recriminations while advancing only solid lines of attacks on major issues.  THAT'S how you protect yourself - and an election lead.  We should follow that example.

(My first two tries at this flopped horribly.  My apologies to the TPM community.  I've given up on reproducing the e-mail for the blog post.)

I've seen a lot of comments here, hoping for MoveOn to get involved in laying out the anti-Palin argument.  They appear to have fired their opening salvo.

The following is a link to the Web version of MoveOn's e-mail sent out by Ilyse Hogue of MoveOn yesterday.  I wouldn't be surprised if an ad is coming at some point.

Notes:  First, I don't necessarily hold that their line of attack is best; this post is designed to share information.  Second, the Buchanan point is debatable, but there are some points in here that I hope certain surrogates carry to the MSM.