Since the post-RNC-convention John McCain has made the elimination of earmarks the centerpiece of his "reform" agenda, why shouldn't Barack Obama vow to eliminate earmarks, too? While Obama is setting forth his agenda for healing the nation's economic misery, perhaps he should cut out the one leg propping up the McCain/Palin agenda by saying he'd so the same thing? In fact, there are some ways that Obama could make the case that he will be more proactive than McCain at cutting wasteful government spending and reducing corruption and pork in the government appropriations process.

Perhaps Obama could make the pledge very specific, something like this: I will put an end to the days when lawmakers put pork into legislation in the middle of the night by signing into law in my first year in office a comprehensive government appropriations reform bill that will eliminate the earmarking process by the end of my first term. Going forward, any  specific government setasides will be proceeded by public hearings and done via an open, honest, and transparent process (which is really all McCain has vowed to do anyways, his sweeping rhetorical statements aside).

Obama is the real reformer in this election. In his short time as a Senator, he has already demonstrated a willingness to tackle ethics legislation. It seems natural that as president he would be willing to sign legislation that would improve the transparency and openness of the legislative process. 

Why not steal this issue for McCain and thereby make it virtually impossible for McCain/Palin to cast themselves as the real change agents? McCain can hardly cite as a major flaw that Obama has sought earmarks in the past, given that Palin has done the same thing.

My best guess is the American people don't care a whit about earmarks. I would also guess that the government appropriations process could get along just fine without earmarks as such (probably any reform legislation would find some sort of clever way to substitute something much like this for legislators' pet projects but under a different name). So why give McCain this leg to stand on, when Obama can cut it out from under him at very little cost?

Now that ABC has aired Sarah Palin's first interview detailing her extensive foreign policy experience...

Gibson alluded to McCain's recent statement that Alaska's proximity to Russia lent Palin some expertise on that nation, asking Palin to explain.

"They're our next-door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska -- from an island in Alaska," she said.

Sounds to me like it's time for Joe Biden to give a foreign policy press conference at the Bering Strait ... maybe from that island in Alaska where you can allegedly see Russia. What a great visual! And the press are already in Alaska, anyways.
Joe Biden is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and one of the wisest, most knowledgeable people in America. Sarah Palin can almost see Russia from her house. The image just speaks for itself. 

Now I feel like a fool. Read this truly must-read post by Andrew Sullivan, wherein one of his readers makes the case that the Liberal Blogosphere has been duped by the McCain campaign. 

How did Rove's proteges pull off this feat? How did he replace Thoughtful Liberal Bloggers with Pod People?

We have been focusing all our energy on replying to McCain's sleaze, Palin's lies, rebuting their arguments, defending ourselves, digging up dirt, we have totally turned the Liberal Blogosphere "McCain Central". We've forgotten Obama! We're not pushing Obama's message! We're reinforcing McCain's narratives! We're helping John Sidney McCain win!

It's not enough to "Drop SARAH PALIN like a BAD HABIT!!! WE are running the McCAIN/BUSH/ROVE playbook for them!!"  only to start "digging up all the dirt we can find and verify on John Sidney McCain" -- despite O¿O's good intentions, that too is still giving up a focus on driving home Obama's Story, Why We Must Have Change, Why Only Obama/Biden Can Be Trusted to Deliver That Change, What Obama Is Doing and Why It Matters, and What Biden is Doing and Why It Matters.

Can we try a full day -- say, Saturday, Sept. 12 -- where nobody at the TPM Cafe blogs about McCain or Palin or feeds on any of their narratives and frames? Let's try turning the page.

I promise not to post anything to TPM Cafe tomorrow-- not even in the comments -- that will simply focus all of its attention on What McCain is Saying, What Palin is Saying, or Why They're Wrong. Just for a day, one day at a time.

Is anyone else up for this challenge?

And ... here's a clip from Sullivan's reader:

It also occurs to me that in a way McCain and Rove have actually simply taken over the liberal blogosphere in some way. They are being played.

Just a few examples---yesterday Obama gave a fantastic interview at the Service Forum. Did the liberal blogs even cover this? No.

He gave a great speech on the trail. Are his town halls even posted or excerpted? No.

The liberal bloggers have become McCain central. They make people click on his ads, make the world spin around him instead of focusing on our candidate and what he is trying to do. There is ZERO coverage of what Obama is actually doing every day talking tough on the issues. There is ZERO coverage of Biden (who is on the trail but the blogs don't seem to care or cover him unless he is doing what they think he should be doing. Sadly AFP did cover him this week and people seemed to be too busy saying he was not doing anything to include the link with his forceful comments against McCain. The one time the blogs linked to Biden---when the MSM tried to make a big deal out his answer to a question that made Hillary look bad and he defended her. That was it).

McCain and crew realized early this cycle that they did not have a visible internet presence. So what did they do?  They took over the liberal presence, they are manipulating the leading liberal blogs , just as they manipulate the MSM.  All to their own advantage. And the blogs have all fallen for this hook, line and sinker. Does no one realize this?

They are all being played.

And Obama, god bless him, he gets it. As does his team. while everyone whines he keeps at it every day with much much class and like a laser focused on the issues. The problem is not Obama, is that no one wants to follow his lead. Instead they are following McCain-Rove and they don't even know it.

Please recommend this post if you're willing to go a full day -- tomorrow -- without recycling McCain and Palin's talking points (except in the photographic negative version "But... But... But...")!

John McCain may be too cowardly to have given a press conference in over a month, but it looks like even the powder puff media is starting to turn a little testy. So if you haven't already check out the clips of McCain on The View. 
Watching one bald lie after half-truth after distortion, I just had the feeling that McCain has just stopped even trying to tell the truth. He blatantly lied (or was truly ignorant?) about Palin's love for earmarks, claiming she never requested any. His defense of approving misleading TV ads? "This is a tough election." 
Barbara Walters was persistent in asking him to spell out exactly how he and Palin are going to "reform" Washington, but he couldn't give her a straight answer. Not only does he have to lie about her earmarks, but he keeps repeating the notion that she "took on" an incumbent Republican governor. Somebody please explain to me why it should be in any way remarkable that she should be given credit for mounting a primary challenge against a scandal-plagued Governor? Doesn't every primary or general election candidate "take on" the incumbent? 
Listen to a classic question from Whoopi Goldberg: "Does that mean you're going to return me to slavery?" Hmmm... I didn't hear McCain respond clearly No ... and he did say that he wasn't going to impuse any litmus tests. Draw your own conclusions.

(Reminds me of Dustin Hoffman's crack on Leno: John McCain is so old, he OWNED Sidney Poitier.)
So what do you think about these clips on The View? Am I the only one who is utterly disgusted by the dishonorable, disgusting campaigner John McCain has become?

Today I read a blog comment from a Republican gloating that Obama made a verbal gaffe by talking about his "Muslim faith" today, the right-wing radio was going nuts over it, and now "The Race Is Over!"
Of course, I knew the source of the rumor must be the Drudge Report. Sure enough. Today it linked to a story on the right-wing Washington Times website about Obama's "Muslim faith" gaffe. The link was broken. 
So I found this today on ABC News: "Obama didn't change religions on ABC". Long story short: Obama referred to the right-wing smears on his so-called "Muslim faith", but unfortunately he didn't use the snide tone of voice or the "quote marks" gesture in the air, and Stephanopolous took him to be making a verbal gaffe. Obama didn't immediately correct Stephanopolous' misunderstanding ... he corrected it about a sentence or two later.
Nevertheless, the smears have begun. I guess my take is summed up in the words of a commenter on another blog. He wrote:

Obama needs to stop fighting imaginary demons and figure out why he is slipping in the polls despite the landscape being as good as it gets for a democrat to take the White House.

I keep hearing these TV clips and YouTube clips of Obama summarizing the smears against him and then responding to these "imaginary demons". I wish he'd either stop this self-defeating practice. Or ... if he feels he must ... then he's got to start showing some real outrage. And don't just say he's outraged. He needs to get a little passionate about it.

It looks like I'm not the only one who's been pessimistic about the lackluster Obama campaign of late. Obama's been giving off-message, lackluster interviews. More Americans think McCain is going to win than think Obama's going to win. McCain might have a got a 10-point bounce after the convention. But what really gets me? The Obama ads have been dreadful. 
Nate at 538 raises tonight just this topic (see "Obama Needs Better Ads"). He writes:

One of the more disappointing elements of the Obama campaign has been their advertising, which has tended to focus on fairly conventional, 30-second, issue-based spots. Their ads have been neither creative nor attention-grabbing, in contrast to both their reputation for being a media-savvy campaign, and some of the relatively creative spots put together by the McCain team.

I suspect that the next 2-3 weeks are probably the most important point in the campaign for advertising. Once the debates begin, it will probably be too late to fundamentally redefine either the candidate's message or the opponent. And advertising is difficult in the two-week home stretch between the debates and the election, with campaigns usually constrained to conventional biographical spots or hail mary negative attacks. So now is the time for the Obama campaign to go all out and spend some of those hundreds of millions of dollars in donations they have collected.

I agree with Nate that the Obama campaign's advertising has been very disappointing and totally unmemorable. It's way past time to echo the campaign's "change" narrative ... or even to just educate voters on the campaign's stands on the issues. It's time for game-changing ads that redefine the race on terms more favorable to Obama.

Now I'm not an advertising guru, but I'll tell you what I thinkn would work. I think the Obama campaign needs to make PALIN the focus of a new negative advertising blitz. But I think it's wrong to try to criticize her on THE ISSUES. People don't love her because of her stands on the issues (well, pro-life Republicans excepted). People love her because they think she's a great, likeable, very attractive, very charismatic person with a great biography.  
Going after Palin on the issues will do nothing. The only effective anti-Palin ad is going to have to pull on a gut-level, emotional response. Obama has to be willing to smear her. But do it honestly. An honest smear, really. Obama has got to make voters dislike her. Or at least realize that voting for McCain-Palin would be a huge mistake. 
So here's the ad I'm recommending.

Sarah Palin has been an abysmal failure as a mayor and a shockingly incompetent mayor. Use characterizations of her record-- especially "incompetent" -- to raise doubts about her abilities. Go with the Lydia Green green. Tell them that Green is the leader of the Alaska state senate. Then quote Green saying: "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" Then say: AND LYDIA GREEN IS A REPUBLICAN!!! 

A CITY BUDGET NIGHTMARE. HIGHER TAXES. SHE PUT BIG OIL COMPANIES AHEAD OF ALASKANS. SHE'S EVEN AGAINST POLAR BEARS. 

Then remind voters that McCain's the fool who picked her. And conclude with, "Is McCain a maverick or just reckless?"

Something like that. Anyone else got any advertising ideas?

I'm feeling rather worried tonight about Sarah Palin. I'm also worried that Obama is going to listen to the really awful advice that he should just ignore her and focus on McCain. Maybe that's what some of you think he should do, too. But I'm convinced this would be a major disaster.
I hear a lot of people both in the professional punditry and the blogosphere saying that Obama should bury his head in the sand and just ignore her. What awful advice! It seems blindingly obvious to me that for the next two weeks, Palin will be THE central issue. She will be THE new media star. Ignoring her will only make the Obama campaign seem out of touch, irrelevant, and even afraid to take her on. Ouch. 
That strategy couldn't be more wrong ... at least for the next two weeks.* The next two weeks give Obama the pivotal opportunity to define Palin for the country. If he misses this opportunity, it won't come again.
Camp Obama should instead seek to define Palin as a right-wing ideological extremist, an absolutely incompetent chief executive with a horrible track record in Alaska, and an all around dangerous candidate. Above all else DRIVE UP HER NEGATIVES.
Some will say that Obama should instead keep the focus on McCain. The problem is that there's no way in hell the media is going to let them. Their best bet is to attack McCain secondarily as the unpredictable, erratic, reckless, craps-playing fool who would even consider putting such a horrible candidate one heartbeat away from the presidency.

From what we've seen of Palin so far, the former beauty queen and television news sports anchorwoman is an enormously talented politician. From what I've read, it seems she's very intelligent and has cunning political instincts as well. Democrats should be afraid that come inauguration day this woman might be in a position to step into the presidency at any time, and would be first in line for the office if a 76-year-old McCain decides to serve only one term. 

President Palin? Please, God no. 

Bottom line: The conventional wisdom (ignore Palin) is wrong. It would be a serious mistake for the Obama campaign to ignore Palin. Instead, they should go negative, hit her, and hit her hard ... while they still have a chance to define her. Don't squander this opportunity to make the chance of a President Palin very unlikely.
* But honestly, who knows? That's why I'm only suggesting a strategy for the next two weeks. Then Obama will need to really assess the situation based on the facts on the ground. Are the attacks working? Is the media still Palin obsessed? Is Palin moving the polls, or has she become irrelevant? Perhaps at that time the Obama campaign will determine that it's time to ignore her and focus instead on McCain. But I think they would be very, very stupid to ignore this candidate.

I think it's quite reasonable to assume that Palin won't self-destruct. The media will surely set her expectations for the vice presidential debate so low that she can certainly memorize some talking points, have speech writers come up with lots of crowd-pleasing one-liners, and come out without too much damage. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if she's pronounced the winner by at least half the audience.

For the record:
Congratulations to TPM Cafe blogger "mcc" who accurately predicted John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin more than a month ago in a vote on the "Weekend Bloggers TPM V-P Predictions Thread": 
What did mcc know, and when did mcc know it???

Slate gives an interesting history of the use of "my friends" in American political rhetoric...

When McCain invokes "my friends," he's making an appeal to the old days—the really old days.

Perhaps that's why this Foghorn Leghorn-ish turn of phrase also finds popularity among conservative populists. Since its last major outing in 1989, the phrase's most notable public users have been Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, who deployed it six times in his 1992 RNC "culture war" speech. This was the hectoring strain of "my friendism" also favored by 1930s radio demagogue Father Charles Coughlin, and it's in these less nuanced uses that the phrase's dynamic becomes clearer: There's an implicit aggression originating in the singular form of the phrase. Generally, when someone not personally known to you addresses you as "my friend," the safe assumption to make is that he is not your friend. In the American vernacular, "my friend" precedes a punch in the face.

This is the discomfort of "my friends": Although it hopes to evoke amici's wave of the arm over the agora, on the stump it remains a phrase that demands fealty when, in fact, that relationship has not yet been granted to the candidate. It feels faintly bullying—an unpleasant echo of the singular menace of my friend.

The word on the street is that John McCain is a bellicose hot-head, impulsive, erratic, and prickly. If I were considering hiring McCain for a CEO job of a major corporation, or the country's top diplomat, or any position nearly as important as the presidency, I would have to think twice. I would have to ask, does he have the bearing, patience, good judgment and emotional stability needed?

Very recently McCain has given us new reasons to wonder if he's a loose cannon. Reportedly, he offered Sarah Palin the vice-president job at his home last Thursday even though he'd only met her once before at a Governor's conference. It even appears that he sent his team of vetters to Alaska to check out her background after making the offer. So his campaign had no less than five full months to make the best possible decision on McCain's running mate, and this is the best they can do? McCain seems to have failed the first test of his presidential decision-making abilities.

Now there's a short video from Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films to make the case that John McCain doesn't have the right temperament for the presidency. The star of the video is Phillip Butler, a man who has known McCain for 40 years, served closely with him, and was even another POW. Butler says:

John McCain would blow up and go off like a Roman candle at any possible time. The world is such a dangerous place and he has shown himself already to be bellicose. John McCain is not somebody that I would like to see with his finger near the red button.

Even if I were a Republican inclined to support McCain because I value his character and his policies, I would still be uneasy about McCain's emotional stability. I would need to view at least a summary of a full psychiatric assessment of McCain examining his potential post-traumatic stress and any other lingering effects of his internment. I would also want the opinion of more than one psychiatrist as to whether McCain is emotionally up for the job. I would want to know whether he has ever had anger management counseling, or whether he needs it.

Why isn't the media demanding more evidence that McCain is temperamentally and psychologically fit to be the president? Why don't we hear more about the several GOP Senators who have said they are scared about the idea of McCain in the White House? Why has McCain seemingly received a free ride from the media so far on the temperament issue? It's high time these questions were asked and answered.

Perhaps it's just that the Democrats haven't been willing to go on the offensive for fear that they will be perceived as attacking McCain's honorable record of national service. If so, now it the time to get this issue out on the table and let the American people decide.

I haven't read that anywhere. But that's my prediction. There's no measure too desperate, no tactic too slimy, for the McCain Campaign.

All I can say to Camp Obama is: when the GOP Convention rolls around, do unto others as they have done unto you. A different negative TV ad going hard against McCain every single day of their convention would be a good start. :)

As I've said before, I think it's time to applaud the amazing summer for the magnificent Campaign Obama. David Axelrod, David Plouffe and company have succeeded in bringing home their central campaign theme, campaigning fiercely and boldly so that America knows exactly what Obama stands for:

"I am not a terrorist sympathizer."

"I am not a closet Muslim, a black nationalist radical."

"I am not single-handedly responsible for the rise in gas prices."

"I'm against drilling for oil, but not so much that I would stop it."

"I am not going to let people question my patriotism."

"I am not going to let people say I'm going to raise taxes on Americans making $42,000 a year."

"I don't disrespect our wounded veterans overseas."

"I am not an empty-headed celebrity like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton."

"My supporters are not foolish, Kool Aid drinking, Dungeons and Dragons playing imbeciles."

"Taking a stand on the beginning of life is above my pay grade."

notwithstanding Obama's consistent, often-repeated message about John McCain...

"John McCain, let's face it, he's got a compelling biography."

"John McCain is a man who is a genuine American hero and has served his country with distinction"

and last week's winning theme:

"I may be a multimillionaire, but I'm not as rich and successful as John McCain."

With such a strong and unmistakable message, it's positively dumbfounding how Obama could possibly be lagging in the polls. It must be that many Americans are just too bitter to appreciate his message.

Self-explanatory suggestion.

No answer yet to this post...

I don't enjoy asking this question, but... in light of recent events in Denver, does anyone know the answer?

If something were to happen to the presidential nominee, vice presidential nominee, or both, what would happen? Logistically, how would the Democratic Party go about replacing one or both members of the ticket? Who would decide? If something happened to Obama, would Biden ascend to become the presidential nominee? Would Biden select his own vice presidential nominee? What do the DNC's rules say?

Anyone?

P.S.: One commenter has said:

I believe that once Biden accepts VP slot he would become the nominee if something were to happen to Senator Obama. If both I am not sure.
I assume some new rules committee ordered nomination process would occur.

Is this conjecture or fact? I just want a simple answer based on DNC rules (with citation, if possible), not suppositions.

I don't enjoy asking this question, but... in light of recent events in Denver, does anyone know the answer?

If something were to happen to the presidential nominee, vice presidential nominee, or both, what would happen? Logistically, how would the Democratic Party go about replacing one or both members of the ticket? Who would decide? If something happened to Obama, would Biden ascend to become the presidential nominee? Would Biden select his own vice presidential nominee? What do the DNC's rules say?

Anyone?