According to the September 8 Army Times, the Army will deploy its first ever full-time combat unit within the borders of the United States, starting October 1.  While troops have previously been mobilized within the US, as they were to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, employing combat troops in any extended capacity to serve as domestic law enforcement is in open violation of the Posse Comitatus Act as it has been historically interpreted from its passage in 1878 until its dismantling under the Bush Administration.

According to the Army Times article,

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of
the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping
restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning
Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control
of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as
an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies
and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

The article does not state the reason for the deployment, the reason for the date (Oct 1) or length (1 year) of the deployment, nor the reason that this particular brigade was selected.  It does state, however, that another unit will replace the 1st BCT after it finishes its deployment, and that the "dwell time mission" is expected to become a permanent one:

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission.
How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not
they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the
future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future
operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

While the "dwell time mission" will be trained for certain peace time tasks (a la Katrina clean-up), it is clear from the article that a number of their duties will include tasks traditionally assigned to state and local law enforcement - a clear violation of Posse Comitatus.  The article makes multiple references to "Homeland Security" type scenarios like response to terrorist attacks, weapons of mass distruction, etc.  But there are also numerous references to "crowd control" type duties, and one officer describes training to use tasers. 

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever
nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col.
Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment
and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous
individuals without killing them.

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike
strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and
batons; and, beanbag bullets.

To my knowledge, there has been NO coverage of this in any traditional media.  Nor has there been any justification for what looks like the action of a rogue President teetering on the verge of enforcing Martial Law.  I encourage everyone to write their elected representatives to ask for an accounting.  I realize that there are "bigger" stories filling the news cycle, but I don't think we should let this go. 

Look, peoples.  This election matters.  We all know that.  We also all know the heartbreak of seeing insipid attacks and divisive politics trump issues-based campaigning.  We know the pain of coming so close and losing when it seemed inconceivable that an election wouldn't go "our way."  So it's only natural that some amongst us would get a little panicky right now, what with the stupid turn in election coverage and the apparent shift in momentum toward McCain in recent polling.  But everyone needs to take a big step back and think about a couple of things.

I have family in the Gulf (Calcasieu Parish, LA).  Tonight, they've been told to evacuate their homes, just finally rebuilt from Hurricane Rita.  Some have, and some haven't.  This summer, my mother-in-law told me she would never evacuate again, no matter what, because it was just too hard to go through it the last time.  Too emotionally, financially, and spiritually draining.  She didn't say it, but the crux of the conversation was that she'd rather take her chances with whatever a hurricane might bring than with the disaster she knew the "relief" from FEMA would bring.  She's not a fatalistic, stupid, or particularly dour person - she just can't do it again.  And I know she's not alone.

Obviously, we can't blame the weather on the Republicans.  Not entirely.  But when I hear the Republican candidates and their surrogates take a hard line on "drill, baby, drill," and when I hear any hesitation on the realities of global warming, I get angry.  When I think about the fact that just two weeks ago,  a couple million people evacuated their homes in the Gulf region, and the Republicans got to claim that they had "learned the lessons of Katrina," while ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands still don't have electricity, and the fact that the cleanup from Gustav hasn't really even begun, and that the levees in NOLA couldn't have withstood a direct hit... .  Well, again, I get angry. 

Yeah, McCain and Palin are seriously flawed candidates.  We have to do everything we can to keep them out of the White House and away from environmental, energy, and homeland security policy-making decisions.  God forbid either of them should ever be responsible for U.S. foreign policy.  Yes, please, let's make sure we don't have four more years of the same, but worse. 

But please, direct your ire and your consternation where it belongs.  Stop freaking out about what Obama and Biden are doing wrong, and start focussing again on what the Bush Administration is still not doing.  Sure, he's a "lame duck," but he's still shitting in the pond.  Obama can handle his campaign without our advice.  He's done so - remarkably well - for 19 months.  Our job, for now, is to elect him, not direct him.  And our job, always, is to hold our elected leaders responsible for the actions they do and don't take on behalf of the American people.

I'm still trying to figure out the "take away message" of this week's convention.  I know there had to be one.  Right?  I'm thinking it might have been hidden in that song they played there at the end:  Heart's "Barracuda".  I'm sure it's one of John McCain's favorites, because it came out in 1977 and he <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/8/15/194514/268">lost the ability to raise new music to his ears</a> while he was a POW.  (Did you know that John McCain was a POW?  He doesn't like to mention it.)

Anyway, since they chose to end their convention with it, I thought the words of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpkitLUbeEg">Barracuda</a> might provide some insight into what the McCain/Palin ticket is all about.

So this ain't the end -
I saw you again today
I had to turn my heart away
Smiled like the sun -
Kisses for real
And tales - it never fails!

You lying so low in the weeds
I bet you gonna ambush me
You'd have me down down down down on my knees
Now wouldn't you, barracuda?

Back over time we were all
Trying for free
You met the porpoise and me
No right no wrong, selling a song-
A name, whisper game.

If the real thing don't do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooh, barracuda?

"Sell me, sell you," the porpoise said
Dive down deep down to save my head
You... I think you got the blues too.

All that night and all the next
Swam without looking back
Made for the western pools - silly fools!

If the real thing don't do the trick
No, you better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooohhhh, barra barracuda.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.

Okay, so I get the part about the "lying so low in the weeds," and the "better make up something quick."  And the part about the "western pools - silly fools!" seems obvious enough, I guess. 

But who's the porpoise?  Am I the only one who doesn't know?  Is it Rick Davis?  Steve Schmidt?  Mark Salter?  Who is the porpoise???

I'll give McCain/Palin this:  their theme song is at least as befuddling as their platform.

Alright, I'll admit that this is pure tabloid type speculation. But I can't help being a little bit fascinated by the speculation that Governor Palin's "surprise pregnancy" was actually a ploy to cover the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daugher, Bristol.  Most of the speculation seems to rest on the fact that while Governor Palin never seemed to show any signs of being pregnant until she dropped her surprise announcement - followed almost immediately by an 'early' delivery following an eight-hour flight from Texas.  On the other hand, her daughter Bristol was apparently away from school for months with "mono."  Obviously, this is far from anything like evidence of a cover-up.  But it does make for juicy gossip, particularly in light of Palin's strident pro-life views.
I'll write more about why I find these "charges" interesting (beyond the prurient, and the IOIYAR aspects) later.   Suffice it to say, I'm struggling to articulate my feelings -as a parent of a special needs kid, as a youngish but not that young mom who was not married when I got pregnant, as someone who admires the choice to have a "child like Trig," but hates the idea of using any kid as a political prop.  And there's something about Palin's "Supermom" persona that just disconcerts me out on many levels, well beyond these (probably baseless) rumors.
But for now, I thought I would indulge my baser speculations and offer this series of photos, "for your consideration," as they might say on the teevee.  Bristol, again, is the eldest daughter.
first
second
third
That last pic comes from this article, the first two are from Palin's official gubernatorial site.  What do you think?  Just internet gossip, or do you see a baby bulge, too?  An Edwards Affair in the making?  Important?  Unimportant?  Leave them kids alone?

From the moment the McCain campaign issued its "10 Town Hall" invitation/challenge, it has seemed to me that their real desire is signified at least as much in the "10" as in the "Town Halls." From the beginning, they had to have known that their request was excessive, and that the  Obama campaign would never agree.  Moreover, no matter how much the "Town Hall" format might benefit  McCain, they also have to know that this is a relative benefit; in other words, it's better than a debate, but Obama still seems more likely to gain the immediate benefit from a joint appearance than does McCain.

So why ask for "10 Town Halls" when you know that, even if your opposition were so magnanimous as to grant all your wishes, so many joint appearances are, at best, a gamble for your candidate?  Is this a form of  campaign suicide?  A version of the "Bush strategy," whereby you acknowledge your opponent's intellectual and rhetorical superiority, then lower expectations to such a pitiful threshold that simply remaining upright and speaking makes you seem like a winner?  Or is the McCain camp actually crazy enough to believe that Obama would suffer from the contrasts raised in the course of multiple debates/town halls?
 
I think the "10 Town Hall" challenge is about something else altogether.   The McCain camp wants as many joint appearances as they can get, not because they think the appearances themselves will actually benefit their candidate.   They know that the best they could hope for is a close second (which is why they would prefer the town hall format). The idea here is to try to gain control over Obama's summer travel schedule. They tried the "joint Iraq trip" gambit. Obama didn't take the bait, and it didn't work as a talking point / campaign issue because it was so transparent. They're hoping the "10 Town Hall" challenge will work better because it's easier to frame as a call for "a different kind of campaigning," easier to spin as equally or more advantageous to Obama, and much easier to get the press to move for them (after all, it's not like the networks were clamoring to cover that "joint Iraq trip").

Everyone expects Obama to have an advantage over McCain in a joint appearance. But think about a typical of campaigning for Obama, versus a typical day of campaigning for McCain. Which do you suspect would be more lopsided, in terms of hour-for-hour impact:  a typical campaign day, or a day with a joint appearance?  I'm not just talking about the days with  mega-rallies, or the days with major policy speeches.  On a day with a joint appearance (whether debate or town hall), coverage of the event would dominate.  It wouldn't really matter who did well or who flopped:  the event itself would be the news.  McCain could fall on his face and still essentially come out even with Obama for the cycle, because the joint appearance would capture the coverage.

On a typical campaign day, however, coverage of the two candidates does not break down quite so evenly.  It is more likely that one or the other will "win" a news cycle on a day (week, month, etc.) where no joint appearances are scheduled.  It's not just about who can afford more advertising, or who is ahead in the polls.  One candidate will get more or "better" coverage, and one will say something stupid or give a terrible speech or have to answer for an associate's associate or, perhaps worst of all, simply get overlooked.  Since becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama has been winning most of the news cycles.  Even when competing with Hillary, he made far more effective use of a campaign day than did McCain (after all, we was able to fend off two challengers while McCain gained no ground running unopposed).

Beyond the daily news cycle, each day on the campaign trail translates into votes, money, organization, and other essentials that the candidates will need to see them through to election day.  Joint appearances take a candidate away from the trail not just for the time the debate or town hall takes, but for preparation, travel, scheduling arrangements, etc.  Just as he has won most news cycles, Obama has "won the day" against McCain on the trail:  he covers more ground both in terms of literal geography and in taking his argument to his selected audiences.  On a typical campaign day, he defines the terms of the national debate more advantageously without having to share the stage with McCain.  Obama is not simply a better speaker or a better debater than John McCain; he is, unquestionably, the better campaigner.  This is what the "10 Town Hall" challenge really hopes to address.

I've seen many references to the "losing candidate's strategy" of "debate-as-free-advertising."  I do think the Town Hall challenge works analogously on some level, but I really don't think that the McCain camp wants these joint appearances primarily for the appearance's sake.  I'm sure they would be just as happy if no one actually saw the town halls themselves.  But they do need a way to compete with Obama's dominant campaign.  They don't have the resources, the organization, or the planning to keep up. Obama needn't worry about the costs of personalized campaigning in far-flung locations, whereas McCain has to pick and chose where he will make his stops. Without overstating it, the "age factor" does probably come into play here, as well: I'm sure that McCain doesn't relish the thought of trying to keep up with his admittedly "much younger" opponent's schedule over the next five months.  Perhaps most importantly, however, is Obama's 50 state strategy. As he proved in the primary, Obama is a hands-on campaigner with remarkable abilities to mobilize and motivate on the ground. He has put states into play that haven't been in the "swing" column for generations.

Obviously, I don't want to understate McCain's strength as a "town hall" campaigner.  This is his format, and it does make sense that he would want to try to minimize his rhetoric gap against Obama by debating him in this manner. Regardless of the format, however, McCain can't really expect to accrue much benefit from any joint appearances, as speaking opportunities.  The real advantage lies in the opportunity to influence Obama's campaign schedule with the preparation, travel, and scheduling demands that multiple debates/town halls will create.  The McCain camp has proposed - and will likely continue to fight for - multiple joint appearances in a desperate attempt to divert Obama from personally campaigning in places like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, and who knows how many more soon-to-be-blue states?  The "10 Town Hall" challenge hopes to play Obama's rhetorical superiority against his organizational ability.  It's not about engaging issues, and it's really not about "winning" at any particular debate.  By calling for multiple joint appearances, McCain hopes to shift national attention to the debates themselves, and perhaps more importantly, to take Obama off the trail as often as possible.

In my many journeys around the intertubes,  I have lately seen the Michelle Obama "October surprise video tape" rumor cropping up in more and more comments threads.  Thus, I knew it was only a matter of time before some  newsmonkey picked it up and flung it, poo-like, to an audience eager for more Electiotainment (the surprise hit of the season, I'm told).  I hope that Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld are correct, and that the source of the rumor proves fictional.  But I'm hardly surprised that the rumor itself has gained traction.  As I've seen the virtual whispering campaign around Michelle's putative comments grow, I have hoped that nothing would come of this - that this rumor would fall in the "Obama's gay lover" class of rumors.  But after watching the rumors that have  gained traction over these last many months, nothing surprises me anymore. 

As someone who has spent some time researching each "Obama rumor" for myself - from "secret Muslim" to "unrepentant chain smoker," from  Rezko to Wright - I consider myself well-versed in Obama Lore.  I also think I'm quite good at discerning fact from fiction, and I'm pretty good at placing rumors on the spectrum that lies between those poles.  While I am an Obama supporter, I recognize that he is a human being, and a politician, and that with both of those conditions certain baggage comes attached.  This means that some "rumors" will, unfortunately, prove true, just as some will prove to be pure fabrication.  The hard part is predicting which will matter in the overall arc of his campaign.  

That's the part I'm not very good at.  I'm constantly surprised at the things that upset people, and maybe even more surprised at the things that don't upset people.  To me, a "whitey" comment isn't nearly as scandalous as an equivocation on the definition of "torture."  But I am apparently not your average hard-working white American.  So I'm pretty much constantly dumbfounded by, well, everything.

I really didn't think, for example, that "Obama is bestest buddies with terrorist Bill Ayers"would ever gain credible  press attention, because it just seemed like a "no there there" story to me.   I mean, I did a few hours of research using Google and LexisNexis, and I could tell that the NYTimes quotations were taken out of context, that Ayers and Obama were at best tenuously linked, and that there was absolutely basis on which to connect the radical activities of Ayers and associates during the 60's with the professional context in which Ayers and Obama became acquainted.  But I suppose that a few hours of research and a modicum of nuance are too much to ask in addressing a question of newsworthiness, as the "question of Ayers" proved weighty enough for a debate question regardless of its journalistic merit. 

So I can't say that I'm particularly surprised or scandalized that this one has hit the big time.  I am hopeful that there's no actual video, but after the Wright mess I've decided that the best approach is to expect the worst.  When I start seeing a rumor making its rounds, my practice now is to wait a couple of weeks, expecting that it will get covered in the traditional press as a legitimate "question" at some point.  It sucks, but I think we're better off accepting it now, because unfortunately, I think this is what we can expect over the next few months.  And I think the "electiotainment" drive is going to fuel what might ordinarily be "just politics" to keep the scandal-digging machines working overtime. 

These rumors aren't just generated by one political machine attempting to take down the opposing candidate, nor are they simply the reflection of a fringe group of bigots intent on smearing a minority candidate (as if anything about this election could ever be "simple").   These rumors are given room to grow because they are indeed treated like news.   Even when covered "as a rumor," the desire to gain or hold market share in the competitive - and I suppose, increasingly lucrative - world of electiotainment demands that no rumor go unmilled.  The nastier, the better.  If all you have is a story about a story - a rumor of a rumor of the potential for something bad to have possibly been said by someone, sometime, somewhere - then you make a story from the denial of the story.  After all, the networks have 24 hours of "news" programming to fill.

Obama so far seems to be meeting the Electiotainment Rumorters with an attempt to shoot their non-stories down quickly and move the focus back to the issues.  Sometimes this works, but as we've seen, some rumorters will cling to their "stories" till the bitter end.  Now that the primary is over, perhaps we will see a bit more substantive focus on issues amidst the electiotainment coverage, but this latest "rumor" coverage doesn't show a lot of promise.  As I've said more than once recently, I've never entered a summer so eager for a shark attack or a runaway bride to rivet the cable news networks' attention.  Perhaps then, we'll get to have an election.  You know, with candidates and issues and like, debates and stuff.  Wacky. 

In the meantime, I want to know how to address this on a more personal level.  Early on, I took the time to debunk and/or contextualize the rumors and "Obama Lore" that I heard repeated, saw in comments threads, got via email, etc.  But I've gotten jaded now and I typically just ignore that stuff.  I do wonder, though, what other strategies there are besides "ignore," "get pissed," and "explain for the 1000th time."  So I took the time to post this because I hoped that some of you might be able to help me.  I'm too young for total cynicism, and we've got five months left.  What else can we do when faced with the next "**** Whitey," "secret Muslim," or "Obama's neighbor gets her newspaper delivered by the son of a member of Hamas" story?

Just thought I would point out, in my eggheaded, latte liberal way, that the NC counties which house our biggest military installations went to Obama tonight.

Cumberland County, home of Fort Bragg:

Obama 33,212 (66%)
Clinton 16,125 (32%)
No Preference 545 (1%)
Total Democratic Turnout 49,882

Onslow County, home of Camp Lejeune:

Obama 5717 (49%)
Clinton 5442 (46%)
No Preference 338 (3%)
Total Democratic Turnout 11,497

And, by way of turnout comparison:
Cumberland County

John McCain 8258 (79%)
Total Republican Turnout 10,251

Onslow County

John McCain 4872 (78%)
Total Republican Turnout 6008

While it's not surprising that the Dem primaries boasted far higher turnout numbers (especially given that 85% of NC's Unaffiliated voters opted to vote in the Dem primary), these numbers are still amazing.  We had hotly contested "downticket" races to weigh against apathy, so there was reason for Republicans to turn out even though McCain is the presumptive nominee.  The number of Dem voters in those counties reflects a genuine shift, I think, and not just a "primary fever."

McCain is a tepid candidate in NC, while Obama is hugely popular.  Obama's got a great ground game here, and he can totally turn our big old swing state blue in November.  (Course, I've been saying that since January.  But now I got cred.  I'm still an eliteylite, though.  But I don't actually like lattes, for the record.)

Sorry if this is old news - I hadn't seen anyone talking about military voting trends from NC (or IN?), and I know they don't track that in traditional media exit polls.  Thought it might add another (perhaps more interesting) dynamic to chew on besides race, gender, or bubba, though. 

Oh, and obviously since these are county stats, these aren't just "military votes."  But they are "military community" votes, which mean a lot to me, having spent summers in Fayetteville as a child when my Dad and Step-mom were stationed at Fort Bragg.

I just read Josh's post on the growing "crisis of confidence" amongst Obama supporters, and I've seen a couple of responses here, too.  So I thought, in the spirit of this post, that I would offer my own thoughts on why I'm not feeling discouraged about the state of the campaign at this moment.  I know that this exercise is essentially meaningless, but I still wanted to put this out there in an attempt to counter the overwhelmingly negative narrative that has dominated the traditional media for the last couple of days.

On Monday night, I attended an Obama early voting rally in Chapel Hill, NC.  The rally was announced on Thursday, and not widely publicized.  It was booked for the Dean Dome - the 21,000+ seat arena where the UNC Tar Heels basketball team plays their home games.  I knew that "a lot" of tickets had been distributed over the course of the four days leading up to the event, but I didn't really expect more than "a few thousand" people to show up. 

It was a nasty day - cold and thunderstorming, after a week of beautiful weather.  It was the first day of final exams for UNC students.  The tickets for the event announced doors opened at 7pm, with the speech to begin at 9:30 - and for an out-of-town crowd, them's pretty late hours in these parts.  So I arrived at the Dean Dome a bit before 7 expecting a crowd but not a throng.

The lines moved quickly, and I met up with different folks I knew, handed off an extra ticket, wandered around to different early voter info stations, got some water, etc.  I wasn't in a huge hurry to find a seat because I figured, hey, it's seven.  There are thousands of seats, right?  I've got some time.

So, of course, ten minutes later I was damned grateful to find a seat.  Because, yes.  On a crappy, cold, late, dark, Monday night, over 18,000 people came to that rally that I thought might draw half that, at most.  They showed up, some of them willing to wait all day in the rain just so they could be first in line.  They showed up, coming straight from work with their dinners and their kids in tow.  They showed up with homework, books and notes.  They showed up in their Obama gear, in their Sunday best, and in their work clothes.  They showed up, knowing that Obama didn't really "need" them there.  I mean, he's going to win North Carolina, right?  But while the band played and the hours passed, they ate and talked and worked and studied for finals and played and danced and waited together, all 18,000+, because they'd all showed up to hear the next President of the United States.

He was introduced by a tantalizing progression of friends and supporters - too many, and yet all worth hearing in their own right.  Since I have the legislative equivalent of a long-time celebrity crush on my Congressman, David Price, I'm pretty much always excited to see him.  I also really like Mel Watt, and he was a great crowd energizer.   There were also a couple of local volunteers and organizers who spoke, which was great.  Oh, and the speech by Tar Heel alum and all-around amazing guy, the Big Smooth, Sam Perkins, was a real treat for all the basketball fans in the room.  It was awesome to see him standing there in front of his retired jersey and the NCAA penant that he won on the team with Jordan, talking about his own recent work as a businessman and humanitarian and how that lead him to his support for Obama.  

And then, after all of the build up, the man himself.  And every word he said resonated with the crowd.  18,000 people, not just "fired up and ready to go," but really recognizing the need to move beyond the current state of slash-and-burn politics.  Really and truly hopeful about the possibility of transcending the "us versus them" divisions that have made Republican, Independent, Democrat more important than American for far too long.  Ready to turn a corner, not just discursively, but practically.  The crowd laughed when Obama discussed McCain's gas tax proposal, because those 18,000 got the difference between a convenient sounding political promise and the hard truth of a lifestyle change. 


So, no.   I'm not worried about the campaign.  I'm not worried about North Carolina polls.  I'm not worried about Superdelegate endorsements.  I'm not even worried about the farce that passes for media coverage in our country.  And I'm sure as hell not worried about losing an election.  Because what Monday night reminded me was that this is about a lot more than an election.  It's about a movement.  It's about taking back our country.  And it's about deciding who we want to be.  Obviously, I want to win the election.  But that's only one piece of the puzzle.  As Obama says at every stump - and as anyone who has ever tried to change anything knows - it happens from the bottom up.  

If you're feeling exhausted and discouraged, take a break.  Look at how far we've come.  Think about the fact that 18,000 people showed up in North Carolina on Monday night.  They came out, and they heard what Obama had to say, and they got it.  They left with the message and the mission. 

Right now, the last desperate attempts to quell this movement are being mobilized.  The full force of an old style of politics is being brought down upon us.   We don't have to play into it. Don't waste time trying to fight stupid fights.  Don't worry about who said what about whom.  Don't give up on our game to play a game we all hate.  Not this time. 

After all, we started this thing with no one's fiat but our own.  The support, approval, blessing, and belief for the Obama campaign comes from those who support, approve, bless and believe in the Obama campaign.   I know this may seem obvious, but that's what hope is, y'all.  That's what a movement is.  We're it.  It's us.  Just keep moving.   Forget about the distractions.  Yes.  We.  Can.

Someone asked in another thread "Why was Obama in North Carolina today (Thursday) when the PA primary is 5 days away?"  I've pulled out part of my overly long answer to that original question below, because I think Obama has a smart long-term strategy in North Carolina.  But in thinking long-term, I managed to miss the completely <i>obvious</i> short-term reason that he was in Raleigh on the day after the PA debate:  early voting in NC opened yesterday, 4/17.

This year marks a new form of early voting for North Carolina, which they are calling "one stop."  Voters can not only <i>vote</i> early absentee at any of the  early polling places, but they can now <i>register or update registrations</i>, as well.  So even though the official deadline for voter registration in NC was April 11, if you are willing to vote away from your home voting precinct (by, for example, going to the town hall instead of that middle school where you would normally vote) then you can still register between April 17 and May 3.  Regardless of the registration question, though, early voting is becoming a bigger and bigger deal in NC, and it wouldn't be surprising to see 25% of the votes here cast before our May 6 election day.

So Obama made a very smart move to plan a campaign event here on the first day of "one stop voting," and if his campaign picked the 4/16 debate date, then I give them even bigger props.  They may not have gotten an NC debate, but they got the next best thing.  I know a lot of people in the traditional media think Obama fared poorly in that debate, but reactions down here seemed to say otherwise.  And the post-debate "bump" could certainly galvanize a large early-voter turnout for Obama in NC.  I would be shocked in Hillary's debate performance helped her here in anyway, but I definitely don't think it was the kind of inspiring, "let's go vote tomorrow" turn that would help her with NC early voting.

In the end, though, I think Obama's NC strategy is as much about the general election as it is about the primary.  He could win this primary without ever setting foot in the state.  But the time he's putting in now is also looking ahead toward the general, because he has a very real chance to turn North Carolina blue in the fall.  Part of winning the state in the general comes from having contested it well in the primary - showing that it's worth his time to campaign here, that he's not just taking it for granted, that he's laying the groundwork for a longer term base of operations.  And by fighting for a state he's already bound to win by a large margin, he's getting lots of local media exposure, lots of free press, lots of time for folks to get to know him.  All the while, McCain hasn't  seemed to realize that NC exists, because why would he have to worry about winning a "red state"?

So even though it seems like the primary season is interminable, it's important to remember that the Obama campaign is intelligently - if quietly - working toward the general already.