Just wanted to say that.

Yes, challenged ballots from the Minnesota Senate race recount are being posted at this Minnesota Public Radio web page, and you can look at them and judge the voter's intent yourself -- it's good stuff.

Overall -- and if this is a representative sample -- I think the challenged ballots will favor Franken. But see for yourself:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

Cancels campaign stop because it's raining.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Doncha remember John, from your military days, that in a fight against the enemy there's no such thing as inclement weather??

In response to McCain's unbelievable plea to cancel the first presidential debate (until a bailout deal is reached), the Democrats grab the upper hand and announce that a deal has been reached in principle. The Republicans call them on it - but so what. Keep it up.

Dear John,

As long as many of us are just faceless voices out in the electorate, we can say this more bluntly than can the others: you are a quitter.

Did you learn those values in the Navy, buddy? Whether competent enough to be president or not, nearly every American has seen you as a true personal hero, able to stand up to just about anything. And now you've shown yourself as someone who would rather run away and hide from a debate and difficult presidential campaign. Unbelievable.

Concerning the debates, here is my advice to you: Wheeze out your worthless talking points; when stumped, either talk about war or yield back your time; feel free to sit down in the chair behind you when Obama is speaking (you are a POW after all), and after 90 minutes, it will all be over.

How many of your supporters have you embarrassed by running away and hiding from this debate? Probably not many, now that I think about it.

John - may I call you John? - why don't you just grow up and apologize and see your joke campaign through to the finish. Who knows, you still might even win it. And if that happens, God help us.

I created this profile with the idea that I would do some original reporting - after all, I live in a colorful political state (Minnesota), this is the city that hosted the Republican convention, I've dabbled in journalism before, and I was privy to some information in 2006 about a minor fake blogger scandal in the Klobuchar vs. Kennedy senate race.

But alas, I have not stumbled upon anything yet this year. Meantime, I've become aware that the media figureheads who control the narratives truly are empty suits who aren't motivated (or are too cowed) to do even the most basic questioning of our political candidates. For example, people still believe that McCain almost picked Lieberman instead of Palin, when I feel he wanted to pick Pawlenty (I could be wrong, but see here).

I have also come to realize that Republican campaign strategists are probably the cleverest people on the planet.

So, instead of doing a little reporting now and then, I'm beginning to do more opinion posts, flatly ignoring E. B. White's caution in his extra chapter to The Elements of Style that to "air one's views gratuitously is to imply that the demand for them is brisk." We can all dream, though, right?

Nevertheless, after watching go unanswered the dirtiest political slur I have ever seen, and might ever see, I must speak my mind and offer a plea for Obama to respond to it, even if, like my other posts, the plea is marked for oblivion, certain never to crack the TPM most recommended list, destined only, if at all, for the future forlorn web surfer picking through the Obama post-mortem which is due to arrive Nov. 5th. I am compelled to speak out, especially since no one around here - not Josh, not the Election Central reporters, not even the other insightful opinion-hawkers around here - no one seems to recognize the political significance, as another poster and I concluded on another thread here, that Obama's campaign is just about ready to seal its fate.

Essentially, Obama needs to answer the sex smear now. In light of McCain's interview with Time, where he refused to define honor, Obama needs to drop what he's doing and answer this smear with a message as personal as the smear is disgusting; he needs to look the voter/camera directly in the eye, tell us that he is a good father and faithful husband, forcefully deny the sex charge without trying to explain the legislation, and then solemnly demand that McCain define honor - that is the key. But will he do this? He needs to remain presidential, all while recruiting surrogates (tell the Clintons to stay home - they're probably thinking about 2012) to appear on all the shows oozing with contempt for McCain, attacking his campaign with raised voices, subtly questioning his age, hitting hard all of his joke reversals on the issues. Just cut them loose - now. I give Obama about 36 hours to carry out this mission or his candidacy will be in real jeopardy. And he needs to stay on it. Forget Palin. Drop everything at least until the debates, which 2004 proved are overrated anyway, because this is now about McCain and Obama the men. "John McCain, in light of your smear against me, we ask you to define honor." Or whatever. And keep on it. And everyone quit calling him a war hero. Interesting that Rick Davis said this campaign would not be about issues. Everyone knows Americans have a touchy relationship with sex and this is no garden variety adultery allegation. After Palin's two-day infomercial airs the media will be talking about her again and Obama's "teaching sex to your kids" will have gone unanswered. It will grow into something worse. Heck it might already be too late. But Obama must initiate a response. And guess what: no campaigning allowed on Sept. 11.

It's just brilliant October swiftboating coming right after the convention instead. All the rest of the issues right now, especially lipstick on a pig, are decoys. Obama is such a good man and it just kills me to see it come to this. We have to admit that Obama is a relative newcomer - people really are still forming their opinions about him. It took eight years for American to form the opinion that Bush was a fraud. Now Obama is in a tight spot with only eight weeks to go. If he's not going to answer the charge, then what are we to believe? Sure the polls will remain close and there will be hopeful moments but on that final weekend will come the creepy reminder from the McCain campaign that this election really comes down to whether or not you will let Barack Hussein Obama enter your home and introduce your children to sex.

I have no idea where - Ohio? - or how often these ads are running, but evidently Obama feels that it's utterly beneath him to respond, which it really is, and that surely people will see it for what it is, that people would rather hear about the "issues" affecting their lives. But draw your own conclusions.

Obama, I sure hope you know what you are doing.

At least if or when Obama loses we can take comfort that McCain will be a very small man. We can take comfort that there are bigger things than elections, and better people than politicians in this world, who have bigger things to think about.

For now that's all I have to say.

I want to put out some thoughts about the VP selection that the public isn't likely to get from the Washington press corps but that I think call out for attention.

In short, I just can't believe that Tim Pawlenty wasn't McCain's first and only choice for VP. All the signs were there. Ask anyone who ever saw them together up close - and they were together a lot over the past few years. Hopefully I can help convince below. Even the current campaign spin that McCain really wanted Lieberman, just replace Lieberman with Pawlenty and it makes sense. Lieberman would never have been viable and surely McCain knew that.

The Rove faction wanted the tool Mitt Romney while McCain, no fan of Rove, had long settled on Pawlenty - who himself is no personal or political admirer of the Bushies, not at all. On this, see this story (<i>NYT</i> reg req) from 2004, Pawlenty's comments in bottom three paragraphs.

That article is just one example of many of Pawlenty wanting to keep Bush & Co at arm's length.

Back to 2008. By Rove getting Romney on the ticket, it would not only show McCain who's still the boss, but would also bring Rove and his boys the pleasure of seeing a smart and popular up-and-comer - Pawlenty - essentially gelded in front of everyone as he (Pawlenty) gives his home town convention speech as the passed over candidate. Which, alas, remains the case.

In a way, this VP selection was yet another battle for control of the party. (No wonder no one wants to be at the convention.) Depending on whether it was Romney or Pawlenty, one side or the other was going to win decisively.  

Therefore, and this is kind of disturbing, McCain used Palin as a "drop the bomb so no one wins" sort of pick.

It is certainly possible that, at the last minute, McCain chucked Pawlenty over the side in favor of a roll of the dice. Also, there's probably something behind Bill Kristol's predictions about Palin back in June. But all summer McCain was suggesting he'd made up his mind and even ready to leak his selection. Recall those comments about Pawlenty in New Hampshire (McCain's political back yard). Here's that link.

The first time McCain ever met Palin was at a National Governors Association meeting in February, probably because McCain was visiting Pawlenty - the NGA chair.

The second time McCain ever spoke with Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, was last week.

I just can't believe that McCain had seriously considered her at all until the very end.

And anyone who buys the "kindred spirit" spin is a fool.

For McCain and Pawlenty's close personal relationship, see also these stories: This from April 2006, first paragraph... This analysis from Nov 2006... This Dec 2006 story, esp. paragraph 8... and this report during McCain's polling nadir, June 2007, second paragraph suggesting that McCain was spending his free time with Pawlenty in St. Paul (or maybe he just has some houses here, who knows).

I have an honest question: Does anyone else wonder if McCain is even aware of this bundling issue yet? I mean, he fancies himself the master on campaign finance; surely his own campaign could not possibly be thus vulnerable.

In addition, whoever and whatever information reaches McCain, who does not use the internet, is likely filtered by his secretive Rovian handlers.

There are so many elements here that make this story potentially devastating, and it's possible that McCain himself is yet only dimly aware there's even a threat gathering.

By the way, to the extent that the Abdullahs and others are innocent, I hope they are left alone.

The best part of this: Obama's hands are clean.

My friends, let's hope this story has legs..

well done Eric and Greg

Just want to say that I am so proud of Obama for going to the Middle East. He ought rightly to have dismissed McCains cheap political taunt and stayed on the campaign trail; instead he's not only visiting Iraq, but Afghanistan, Israel Palestine and Europe too.

Perhaps McCain himself needs to take another trip over there before the election, given Maliki's recent call for a withdrawal timetable

We are being told that no offshore rigs were seriously damaged during Hurricane Katrina (whew!), and that except for Democratic obstructionism, energy independence would be right around the corner - let the good times roll.

Note to Bush Republicans: this talking point is mystifying and unbelievable if not offensive to anyone this side of 28%

Well, it's the weekend now, and here comes another edition of... Frank Rich's weekly op-ed column about how unpopular Bush is.

How much more of this do we need?

The spicy ingredient for Rich's column this week will probably be the revelation that Alberto Gonzalez and Andrew Card tried to coerce Ashcroft into authorizing the warantless wiretapping program (with the naming of a war czar running a close second). And no doubt Rich will have something clever to say about it.

To be sure, Rich was an invaluable voice back in the dark ages, when standing up to Bush did take a little bit of courage. But we don't need it anymore - this battle has been won. Bush's presidency will forevermore be acknowledged a failure.

Wouldn't you prefer if Rich adjusted his fire now, took aim at the media machine which continues to enable?

For example:

Seymour Hersh, from an April 2007 published Q&A with Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi:

A: ...Some of the columnists in this town who were beating the drums for that war really owe an apology. It's a sad time for the American press.

Q: What can be done to fix the situation?

A: [Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that.

When Rich started naming names a coule weeks ago ("All the President's Press", April 29), I thought it might be the start of something. Maybe it was. We'll see.

Statements made so far in the American press regarding Hussein's death:

"Over more than two decades of authoritarian rule, Hussein led his nation from modernity to ruin"

- the Washington Post, Dec. 29, 2006

"The defiant despot oppressed Iraq for more than 30 years"

- the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2006

And this story, which I haven't quite forgotten since I first read it (and which doesn't really tell a story of ruin or oppression):

AUDIENCES pack theatre halls, poets pen new collections, and Iraq's National Philharmonic orchestra plays with the dedication of the quartet aboard the Titanic. Baghdad is witnessing a cultural revival. “We have to keep busy, always busy,” says a local UN staffer, anxious for projects to keep war from her mind.

In recent weeks a splurge of new art galleries have opened, replete with cafés where writers discuss Voltaire, and actors argue over the patriotism of performing Shakespeare ... The car-parks buzz with parties, as lovers queue at the steps of hotels to get married, lest next week be too late. Unbowed, the Baghdad Museum this week staged a conference on the renovation of the country's 10,000 archaeological sites. “Good for morale,” say the organisers. A swansong, say others ...

... With so much bitterness, and so many guns, Iraqis fear that if central authority breaks down, the wrong surname, not to mention the wrong creed, could cost them their lives ...

... The mosques and churches are packed with believers seeking a more metaphysical refuge. Do Iraqis see life after death? A brave play opened this week in Baghdad depicting a post-war Iraq in which the daughter of a soldier killed in battle grows up to make a living as a dancer in a seedy night-club. “It represents the American dream for Iraq,” says the playwright, Abdel Khalaq Karim. “When it's all over, what will we think we have lost?”

- the Economist, Feb. 27, 2003

I owe an acknowledgement to Josh Marshall and the others who have built this site and operate it. Though I've never personally met anyone affiliated with TPM, and certainly none of its honorable contributors, I am at perfect liberty - as an ordinary observer - to set up shop under the TPM name, and that is a privilege indeed.

Moreover, don't let it be forgotten that TPM did some important work for us in the early days of this leak investigation - especially in researching and publicizing Bob Novak's use of the word 'operative'. (Here is a link to a post to refresh the memory.) But enough of the flattery...

...and back to the finger-drumming, while we go about our normal  workdays, waiting to see what the special prosecutor has for us. Or, to paraphrase the left side of the blogosphere, on what day will 'Fitzmas' fall this year?