Blagojevich appointment press conference chaos

Wow. The political theatre that is Rod Blagojevich. The Illinois Governor just held his press conference to announce that he will appoint former State Attorney General Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Blagojevich has incredible chuztpah. He spoke at that podium as though he were a celebrity, not notoriously corrupt. The press went NUTS questioning poor Burris and the Governor.

Then, out of nowhere, Burris says he sees Rep. Bobby Rush in the crowd and Rush wades through the crowd to make an impromptu endorsement of Burris. I can only imagine that Blagojevich hopes that creating more circus will give him more breathing room. Its an amazing soap opera he's made of the office.

UPDATE: Wow. The evening news shows are ravenously chasing their tails on this spectacle. Host: "Can Rod Blagojevich DO this???" Pundit A: "Look, Burris is a DECENT GUY!!" Host: "Maybe so but, Pundit B, can Blagojevich DO this???" Pundit B: "They've injected race into the issue!!" Lots of exclamation. Lots.

Putting real faces on the Madoff scandal

A lot of the Wall Street meltdown seems miles away, especially if you have a 401k account that you don't intend to touch for 40 or so years. Or if you don't have a 401k at all.

But it is interesting to put some meaningful faces on the losses suffered by some of the Madoff investors. Per Smart Money, here are some of the standouts:

Entity: Support Organization for the Madison Cultural Arts District
Exposure: $18 million invested with Fairfield Greenwich until September
Date of disclosure: Dec. 19
Notes: A spokesman for the Overture Center in Madison, Wis., built with SOMCAD funds, said, "Speculation that SOMCAD could be on the hook is not outlandish."


Entity: JEHT Foundation
Exposure: n/a
Date of disclosure: Dec. 16
Notes: The foundation stopped all grant-making and plans to shut down at the end of January. Its major donors had essentially all their money invested with the Madoff firm. Grant recipients had included Human Rights First and the Michigan Department of Corrections, Make Voting Work and theInnocence Project.

Entity: Wunderkinder Foundation
Exposure: Steven Spielberg confirmed the foundation sustained losses.
Date of disclosure: Dec. 15
(more on this here)

And from People.com, it looks as though celebrity couple Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgewick have also lost substantial amounts of money. I wonder how much a couple of Golden Globe noms are worth.

A peak at a career in politics

Been laid off? Lacking job security? It really seems like the best move for you is to get into politics.

There is apparently nothing you can do to ruin your reputation permanently. And the perks? Even if you're not the elected official, they're apparently FANTASTIC. Take a look at these perks received by former Republican aid and Abramoff payola recipient Trevor Blackann:

- a free trip to Game 1 of the 2003 World Series in New York.
- airline travel to and from New York City.
- a ticket to the game.
- admission to, and entertainment at, a "gentleman's club" for the married aide.
- one-night accommodations in an "upscale" hotel.
- transportation in a chauffeured SUV.
- a souvenir baseball jersey.
- free meals and drinks.

All that just for getting his boss, Missouri Rep. Kit Bond, to write a letter of support for a guy trying to get an appointment to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Beats the hell out of the company party you just went to, eh?

(Tip of the hat to Rob on this one.)

Krugman, the economic touchstone

If you're like me, you try to follow the news about the economy, digest it, wrap your head around it, all in real time. But its the economy and you ain't THAT bright so eventually you start lagging behind. Admit it.

When you find yourself swirling, lost in that economic punchbowl of confusion, I invite you to read Paul Krugman, if you don't already. His interview on Salon.com on Friday was one of those great opportunities to catch up. Some choice thoughts on the idea du jour that we should just let these failing businesses fail:

There's kind of a weird double-think involved in arguments that the slump should be allowed to follow its natural course. It's true that classical economics says that we should let market forces do their work; but classical economics also says that severe recessions can't happen [my emphasis]. This idea that we must not intervene is based on a worldview that is refuted by the very fact that the economy is in the mess it's in.

The truth about blogging

The truth about terrorists

My sentiments exactly.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mumbai Tragedy

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Liberal hand-wringing over Obama appointments

I am a liberal progressive sushi-eating anti-war Democrat and I like Barack Obama's appointments to-date.

There. I needed it stated somewhere.

Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?

If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.

Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.

Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?

See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.

Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.

Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.

Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.

Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.

In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.

And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?

New host chosen for Meet the Press

The Huffington Post is reporting that NBC has chosen David Gregory to be the new host of Meet the Press. Incredibly disappointing decision.

I first observed David Gregory in his role as a bland substitute for Matt Lauer on the Today show and have watched him over the course of this election season. His show Race to the White House (now dubbed 1600) was only a temporary relief from Tucker Carlson's hour-long indulgence in self-promotion. In it, Gregory continued to demonstrate his bland demeanor. His occasional flashes of aggression seemed forced, arbitrary, and intended to add sizzle, not value.

Now, despite the (deserved) criticism that Tim Russert engendered from progressives for dropping the ball in the run up to the war, I loved to watch the man . It wasn't that Russert was especially penetrating in his interviews. While obviously well-studied, Russert would never engage in the sort of penetrating journalism that could change the narrative his guests were promoting. Rather, the joy in watching Tim Russert's Meet the Press was in watching a man who clearly LOVED history and politics and America draw out the story of the day and put it into some context. You knew that Russert had that Capraesque sense of patriotism that was informed by education, worldliness and a passionate love of the process. This new appointment suggests that David Gregory is remotely capable of filling those shoes. He is not.

It will be interesting to see if MSNBC replaces Gregory as host of 1600. Mika Brzezninski, the oft-bulldozed sidekick of Morning Joe, has stepped in frequently as a fill in host for Gregory. I like her, though she clearly needs to overcome an aw-sucks persona whose primary goal is apparently to keep her guests from fighting or saying anything too extreme. It comes off as unintelligent and a matronly cliche. She can do better in the host role. Lets hope she delivers, and takes some notes from Rachel Maddow.

Pardoning a real turkey

In Thanksgiving Tradition, Bush Pardons Scooter Libby In Giant Turkey Costume

The National Security dream team

More roll-outs for the Obama Administration expected next week:

[Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates] is expected to be rolled out immediately after the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend as part of a larger national security team expected to include Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as Secretary of State; Marine Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) as National Security Adviser; Admiral Dennis Blair (Ret.) as Director of National Intelligence; and Dr. Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

This according to ABC News. OK, so keeping Gates on for another year, as ABC reports, may not be a dream, but am I the only politigeek who is thrilled by the notion of Susan Rice stepping into the United Nations Building as our next ambassador? We can at least agree, can we not, that she sure beats the hell out of John "Lose-10-stories-of-the-building-and-it-wouldn't-make-a-difference" Bolton.

Starting to remember what quality leadership feels like? Me too. =D

Prop. 8 as the death-rattle of religious paternalism

Rather than a show of strength by the religious right, the entire movement behind Prop. 8 may very well be a last strike by a disintegrating power structure. So says author Richard Rodriguez in this great interview on Salon. (As further evidence of the disintegration of that structure, I submit today's Florida court decision, finding in favor of a gay foster couple petitioning to adopt their foster sons, and finding Florida's legislative ban on gay adoption unconstitutional.)

One of Rodriguez's key points is that, in their battle with gay marriage, churches have chosen make the sin more important than the family, have chosen to expel gays even as that expulsion breaks the family structure, both in terms of gay parents and gay children.

Here are some key portions of the interview:

American families are under a great deal of stress. The divorce rate isn't declining, it's increasing. And the majority of American women are now living alone. We are raising children in America without fathers. I think of Michael Phelps at the Olympics with his mother in the stands. His father was completely absent. He was negligible; no one refers to him, no one noticed his absence.

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

...The pro-8 campaign calls itself the Protect Family Movement, even though the issue of family was the very reason gays needed to have marriage. There are partners in gay unions now who have children, and those children need to be protected. If my partner and I had children, either through a previous marriage or because we adopted them, I would need to be able to take them to the emergency room. I would need to be able to protect them with the parental rights that marriage would give me. It was for the benefit of the family that marriage was extended to homosexuals.

...Now these churches are going after homosexuals as a way of insisting on their own propriety. They are insisting that they have a role to play in the general society as moral guardians, when what we have seen in the recent past is just the opposite. I mean, it's one thing for the churches to insist on their right to define the sacrament of marriage for their own members. But it's quite another for them to insist that they have a right to define the relationships of people outside their communities. That's really what's most troubling about Proposition 8. It was a deliberate civic intrusion by the churches.

Obama's political capital

It was the linkage of these two concepts that, for me, really epitomized the arrogance of the Bush Presidency: "mandate" and "political capital". After winning ("winning") the 2004 election, Bush used these words together in a way that really was completely decoupled from reality.

So imagine my delight when I found a new example of what political capital really is.

On Fresh Air this morning, Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid spoke about the perception of Barack Obama by world leaders. Even before assuming the Presidency, Obama enjoys immense popularity in Europe and elsewhere. There is a prevalent feeling that the Obama Presidency represents a new hope for positive relations with the United States. Rashid said that, in his meetings with world leaders, across the board the sentiment is the same: "We can't say no to Obama."

This isn't just chumming up to the Europeans. These good relations have a tangible effect that the Bush Administration apparently wrote off from the get-go. Already, Rashid points out, Denmark and Sweden have become more supportive of the U.S., sending for the first time combat troops to Afghanistan in support of the coalition efforts there. Certainly other NATO allies will be called to contribute more, as well, once Obama takes office. That means less pressure on American forces and less expenditure of American blood.

That, my dears, is political capital. Not capital born of an electoral mandate (though certainly Obama's 6% margin of victory blows Bush's squeaker elections out of the water) but capital born of identity. Barack Obama commands political capital across the globe by virtue of who he is, how he thinks and what he says.

In a world that is now so fragile, that is capital we can spend.

And, while we're at it, let's just celebrate that we're entering into an era where, once again, words and phrases will be expected to comport with reality.

More about us baby-eating Democrats

Seriously, every time I hear this crap I want to punch someone. Are conservatives so self-absorbed that they believe this? I know a couple of Republicans who make me feel like they really, in their heart-of-hearts, think this way:

Barone: Media mad that Palin didn't have an abortion

Political analyst Michael Barone has an interesting explanation for the media's coverage of Sarah Palin. In a talk he gave Tuesday, Barone said:

The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby. They wanted her to kill that child. ... I'm talking about my media colleagues with whom I've worked for 35 years.

Barone has apologized for his remarks, which had prompted some attendees to head for the exits. In an e-mail to Politico, Barone said he "was attempting to be humorous and ... went over the line."

― Alex Koppelman

UPDATE: If you would like to write to Barone's home publication, US News & World Report, to tell them what an irresponsible ass he is, please do so here.

The First Family and multi-generational living

I was struck and intrigued upon hearing MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell report that Michelle Obama's mother would be moving into the White House with the new First Family.

In fact, Michelle Obama's mother has assisted in much of the child rearing while the Obamas were on the road campaigning for Papa Obama. And what is notable here is that, while the Obamas can certainly afford nanny care, they choose family care.

Yet another indication of the "realness" of President-elect Obama and his family: they can afford professional childcare, would probably appreciate the value of a teacher-nanny, but see more value in incorporating the extended family. The Jolie-Pitt family also went public recently with their multi-generational approach to rearing their burgeoning brood, with Pitt's parents living with the family to assist at the birth of new twins.

In our society, it seems like multi-generational child rearing has been squarely in the conversational domain of religious right-ists and evangelicals. It was resigned to a "family values" issue. In the spirit of taking "family values" away back from the religious right and restoring it to all of us who love our families...

Multi-generational child rearing isn't just free childcare for strapped families. It reinforces the family's own values, traditions, beliefs and customs in a way that no one or two parents alone can quite accomplish. In a culture that homogenizes our kids via television and mass marketing tie-ins - and, don't get me wrong, there's a valid role for a culture that reinforces our sameness and a commonality of language - grandparents are able to change the focus and introduce kids to new activities and hobbies, old family stories, a different voice of authority to deal with, and a reinforcment of what matters to your family.

It seems like a gimme, but its a model we haven't seen very much in our social limelight. It will be fun to see in the White House over the next 4-8 years.

Bush Admin's bait and switch

See this big shiny thing here?! Over here! The humongous $700 billion "bailout bill" that is going to scare the crap out of you?? Pay close attention to it! Very close!

... And don't notice this $140 billion bank giveaway that we're going to do while you aren't looking.

This gem from yesterday's Washington Post made me so angry I had to wait until today to even write anything about it. Here are some key details about what the Administration took from our Federal coffers and gave away to our shambles of a banking system:

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

..."It was a shock to most of the tax law community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops," said Candace A. Ridgway, a partner at Jones Day, a law firm that represents banks that could benefit from the notice. "I've been in tax law for 20 years, and I've never seen anything like this."

More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story -- including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change -- said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice.

...No one in the Treasury informed the tax-writing committees of Congress about this move, which could reduce revenue by tens of billions of dollars. Legislators learned about the notice only days later.

DeSouza, the Treasury spokesman, said Congress is not normally [my emphasis] consulted about administrative guidance.

Because, you know, the circumstances we're now in are just, you know, normal.

Lieberman's role shaking out

Today was the first of several expected meetings between Senate majority leader Harry Reid and Benedict Arnold Senator Joe Lieberman.

I say that with some tongue in cheek. Lieberman's role in the party has been the subject of much hot speculation, and I have my own opinions about why the party should not go after Lieberman with so much blood-lust.

Politico's John Bresnahan reports on the meeting that it looks as though Lieberman will be stripped of his charimanship on the Homeland Security Committee and perhaps be given a new subcommittee chairmanship as some compensation.

Seems like a fair trade. Lieberman needs to be taken out of his leadership role in the party, not for endorsing John McCain, but for so viciously attacking Obama and repeating untruths and distortions that served the GOP interest. That is not party leadership behavior. However, the party I respect is a party that respects the right of its members to follow their conviction and support those outside of the party whom they truly believe would best serve the country. While I disagree with Lieberman's views on Obama to the strongest possible degree, it is right for the party to make a place for him under its tent as long as he shares the core party values.

The ineptitude of Palin

In a first of what will probably be many, many revelations about the unfortunate pick of Sarah Palin as running mate, this interview between Fox News' Shepard Smith and Carl Cameron is particularly stunning.

Among the accusations put forth by the McCain campaign:

• Palin did not know Africa was a continent, but thought it was a country.
• Palin did not know which countries are in NAFTA. (That's the North American Free Trade Agreement. You could probably guess the countries, could you not?)
• Palin was prone to blame and anger.
  
• Palin refused to prepare for her disastrous Katie Couric interview.

While many on the right who are devoted to the notion of Palin for Pres in 2012 are swearing revenge against McCain staffers who spread these stories, it seems to me that the McCain campaign would have no interest in exaggerating how bad their veep pick was. Check it out:

This historic moment

Before I move on to obsess about what we need to do next as a nation, I should pause to acknowledge just what this moment means.

It wasn't just about Barack Obama's election last night. It was about the day. It was about the process. It was about the illiterate black man to went to his polling place with help from a friend to cast his vote. The middle aged man in Los Angeles who waited for hours in line to vote because, as he said, this time his vote mattered. It was about my 18-year-old cousin, a white girl from an exurb who voted for the first time yesterday and will never know a time when a black candidate wasn't entirely possible.

But it was very much also about The Win. About the young woman who fell to her knees and sobbed upon hearing the news and whom a cameraman, to his credit, held on for solid minutes as this moment sank in to all of us who understood. About the children of all colors who will know as absolute fact that they can be anything they want to be in America. About those few who fought in the darkest days, men like John Lewis and Jesse Jackson, who had no real right to think that they would ever see this day and who, thankfully - so thankfully - were there to usher it in and remind us what the human cost of this journey has been.

We are a better country today. We are the fulfillment of our promises. And we are poised to make it mean something.

Now get to work.

Another Senate seat in the blue column

According to the Oregonian tonight, Jeff Merkley (D) wins Gordon Smith's (R) Senate seat. You'll recall that Smith garnered national attention running ads that failed to mention that he was a Republican and went further, touting his work in the Senate with Barack Obama.

Turns out that ain't blue enough for Oregon, even in an election where, surprisingly, many Republicans held on to their Senate seats with incumbents largely hanging on to their seats, despite Congress' nadir approval ratings.

Zombies for Obama

Feeling a little empty now that the election is over?


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Bill Ayers speaks

The man who was quite possibly the most disciplined character of this political season, "unrepentant terrorist" Bill Ayers, finally spoke to a reporter yesterday. And - would you believe it? - turns out he's actually... repentant. Could ya have guessed? Could ya? Huh?

Here are some choice bits:

"Pal around together? What does that mean? Share a milkshake with two straws?" Ayers said in his first interview since the controversy began. "I think my relationship with Obama was probably like thousands of others in Chicago. And, like millions and millions of others, I wish I knew him better."
...

Asked Tuesday if he wishes he had set more bombs, Ayers answered, "Never."

He also said he had regrets.

"I wish I'd been wiser," he said. "I wish I'd been more effective. I wish I'd been more unifying. I wish I'd been more principled."

Change has finally come

Now let's get to work.

Here are the results as they come in:

What if this was your FIRST TIME?

A message from my 18-year-old cousin, sent from her iPhone, on this, her first election day:

I officially voted!!

Obama, no on 8 and 4!!!!

Imagine if this was the first vote you'd ever cast. Pretty special. Let's not forget how historic today is and how important it will be to say that you were a part of it.

No matter what, the lefties are winning

Fun Fact:
Whether John McCain or Barack Obama wins this election, our next President will be the third consecutive left-handed President.

Perspective from one who's seen voting

Another election day story, this one from Christiane Amanpour on her blog, In the Field:

This election will change the world

Posted: 1613 GMT

NEW YORK — Finding myself in New York City this U.S. election Day, I saw scenes that reminded me of the first democratic elections I covered in Afghanistan in 2004, or Iraq in 2005.

Voting lines in New York wrapped right around the block.

Scenes that reminded me of the historic election in South Africa in 1994 when a black man, Nelson Mandela, was elected president thus ending generations of white minority rule known as apartheid.

Or 1998 in Iran when women and young people turned out en masse to elect the first ever reform president, the moderate cleric Mohammad Khatami.

The enduring motif from those elections were the massively long lines at the polling centers. Men and women standing patiently, sometimes for hours, to cast their first ever vote for a hopeful secure future.

And that’s what I saw this morning in New York City as the polls opened. As I rode my son to school by bike, we passed a public school-turned voting center that made us gasp.

There were lines wrapped right around the whole block.

People were waiting happily, patiently, with their take-away coffee cups, snapping pictures of each other, recording what they clearly believed was their role in this historic democratic drama.

I asked some whether they had ever stood in line so long to vote here in the U.S. “Never” they said, smiling. TV and radio report similar long queues across the country.

Remember, the U.S. is never known for its high voter turnouts.

Everywhere you look the mood smacks of history…almost a foregone conclusion. Even New York City’s right-wing leading tabloids, are calling it for Obama.

These past few days, people riding in elevators, walking the corridors of their workplace, hopping in cabs or taking care of their kids, have all been discussing their plans for today, election day: Planning not just to cast their own vote, but to help shuttle the elderly, and cajole new young voters to the polls.

Meantime cable and broadcast TV networks can barely contain themselves: Newspaper articles quote news executives all but saying they will be able to call the election as soon as polls close early evening.

No election has electrified the U.S. like this since 1968. But the whole world wishes it could cast a vote in this one. Whatever happens, this U.S. election will change the world. Stay tuned.

John Cusack on The Big Lie

I'm crushing on him harder than the time he held up a boom box in the rain.

Check out John Cusack's capitalist critique on the Huffington Post. Here's a choice bit:

So define the big lie: free marketers want free markets. Not so, the facts say. They are the biggest welfare freaks on the planet.

These men and keepers of the faith would lecture us with a straight face on the evil socialists/ communists/terrorists /vampires/space aliens who would dare "redistribute wealth" by amending the tax code. Two wars and the only shared sacrifice they want is more tax cuts for the rich and for the U.S. citizenry to continue shopping. As Sidney Falco said, you gotta give it to them, their gall is gorgeous.

Fox News and the Halloween election

Hah! Just turned on Fox News to catch the tail end of this statement:

"...And he is the only Black Panther we've found watching the polls here so far."

"Thanks, Adam. And we'll keep watching that story."

I'm SO glad that Fox News is keeping an eye on the scary Black Panthers this election. Because, you know, it was like 1978 the last time they were relevant in this country's politics. But you gotta keep an eye on these 60s radicals, man.

Fox News. Fairly relevant?

OK - this one made me cry...

This is what it's all about, no?

Huge turnout -- bigger than I’ve ever seen at our polling place. Lots and lots of young African-Americans. People with their children in tow. Taking photos with cellular telephones and video-cameras to document what everyone agreed was a wonderful sight to see. Great to see.

When I finally made it through the 2-hour-long line and nearly to the voting booth, an older African-American man in front of the line kept letting people go in front of him. When he told me to go ahead, I said, “Don’t you need to vote too?” He told me that he was going to need help and that a woman with whom I guess he’d been waiting had agreed to help him. So he was waiting for her. She happened to be in the booth next to me and so I heard them talking when he went up to vote. It was clear very quickly that he could not read. She helped him to make his choices. I couldn’t help but overhear who was his choice. It was a great thing to see that he was so determined to vote -- most likely for the first time in his life. I think change has already happened to some extent…

Again, courtesy the War Room at Salon.com

The good mood in Philly

This anecdote on last night's Biden rally in south Philly, courtesy Gabriel Winant for Salon.com's War Room:

A series of local pols warmed up the crowd, starting with Bob Brady, a hulking sausage of a congressman. The former carpenter kicked off the rally with a series of union-guy shout-outs: "Jimmy! Harry! Guy! Johnny Doc! Manny! Ronny! Tony!" before, with a joke about hiding his knuckles, handing off the lectern to a nun and walking backstage to smoke a cigarette with a cop. A series of local luminaries followed, including Mayor Michael Nutter, Gov. Ed Rendell and Maryland's governor, Martin O'Malley.

Every speaker made sure to emphasize how important it was that voters stay in line Tuesday, no matter how long the wait might be. Rendell in particular captured the spirit of the night.

"I don't care if you're in line for two and a half hours. Don't bitch about it," the governor said. "Do you remember when South Africa got the vote for the first time? People stood out in the heat for five and a half hours to vote for Nelson Mandela. Why? Because their country's future was on the line ... Make a party out of it. Sing songs. 'Kumbaya,' you name it. 'Philadelphia Freedom.' Whatever. Have fun."

To hear a crowd of south Philly carpenters and electricians cheering wildly for Nelson Mandela and "Kumbaya" seems as good a measure as any of the kind of Democratic Party that looks poised to win the White House Tuesday.

Sweet.

Obama wins Dixville Notch, NH 15-6

The first results are in at 9:11pm Pacific time on Nov. 3rd:

The historic (since 1960) first polling place in the nation, little Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, is Obama territory, preferring Barack Obama more than 2-1 over McCain.

Let them be the first of many. Cheers everyone!

Happy Election Day!!!

More on the Socialist Republican state of Alaska

Some great mock-ads courtesy of KalVoid. (Thanks!)


PRIVATIZE THE PROFITS • SOCIALIZE THE LOSSES

What I'll be looking at tomorrow night

One day out from the election, here's what I'll be watching for:

1) Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama has solid leads in polls from both states. If those polls are accurate, and if undecided voters break for Obama even by 1/3, he's got those states.

2) Virginia. With Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia in his pocket, Obama could take a lot of losses for the rest of the night and still come out way ahead. With Pennsylvania and Virginia only in his pocket, Obama could afford to lose Florida and Ohio by picking up some of the smaller Bush states like Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa.

Why I'm not betting on Florida: its just too unreliable. For two reasons. First, the polls show the state within a couple of points. Yes, all across the country black voters have been turning out in record numbers for Obama, and that would theoretically boost Obama's chances in Florida. But - I'll be blunt - I don't trust those votes to get counted either accurately, fairly or in a timely manner in Florida. They just don't have a good track record.

Why Democrats are afraid: the Bush campaign teams were ruthless in their voter suppression and disenfranchisement efforts. For a large part of my adult lifetime, that has been the reality of our electoral fight. We fear complacency on the part of our voters who have, historically, been unreliable, and we fear a fix where the fight is close and crucial, like Ohio and Florida.

The Obama campaign has given us some reassurance. By widening the ground game so that the election does not hinge on two states, the campaign has, perhaps, spread the field too wide to be meddled with.

So we go forth unto election day filled with cautious optimism.

And in California we have a nauseating anxiety in our stomachs, waiting waiting waiting - hoping - to see Prop. 8 defeated. My friend the minister-in-training says he's out trying to spread the word: pro-8 is NOT pro-gay. We wish him God speed in the fight to keep discrimination out of our constitution.

Exurbs' '08 Election Guide

Get it here and dork out on Tuesday night.

Includes state-by-state map with poll close times in battleground states, hotly contested Senate and House races, and a do-it-yourself electoral vote predictor. If I could think of a drinking contest, I would.


Page 1 - Electoral projection map of states, battleground poll closings



Page 2 - Hotly contested Senate races, part I.



Page 3 - Hotly contested Senate races, part II.



Page 4 - A couple of interesting and hotly contested House races.



Page 5 - Are you a bettin' man? ... or gal?

The climate going in to Tuesday

Well, the predictions are now coming in and, while we like to ridicule the pundits, the fact of the matter is they pay attention to the details. Drumroll, please...

Barack Obama to take 340 electoral votes at least.

But here's the interesting thing: in the last 50 or so years, that's not a very commanding total. Ronald Reagan won reelection in 1984 525 to Mondale's 13. And George H.W. Bush won his presidency over Michael Dukakis 426 to 111. Nixon beat McGovern 520 to 17.

In fact, Republicans have regularly stuck it to Democrats. The last time a Democrat was able to cross even the 400 electoral vote threshold was LBJ in 1964 over Barry Goldwater (486 to 52).

It seems highly unlikely at this point that the Dems will get their fillibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. They may have up to 58 seats come Wednesday.

The takeaway: yet again, all of this points to the fact that Democrats need to see this election as an opportunity to build on a movement. They risk squandering the opportunity if they look on their wins as an unequivocal mandate.

When did it become OK for adults to trick-or-treat?

Its not.

If you have or can get a tattoo, you have no business asking people for candy unless there is a cash register between you and the person you're asking.

WTF?!

Voting anti-GOP, not pro-Dem

I've long been of the belief that the country's Democratic-leaning pivot this election season can only be seen as a rejection of Republican leadership. I do not think the electorate has somehow found Progressive religion.

I've been telling anyone who cares to listen that the Dems had better not see this election as a mandate giving them "political capital".

The Dems need to walk away from this election seeing it as an opportunity to show the American people what we can do. We need to work not only to make their lives better, but to make Washington work, to avoid grandstanding and divisive politics and restore the better angels of our nature.

I see signs that the Obama campaign is thinking the same way. Take this piece in Chris Cillizza's blog, The Fix. Cillizza reports that the Obama campaign sees Florida as an important symbol that they cannot walk away from, even if they don't need the state for an electoral win. Cillizza reports:

In the last few weeks, Obama has sent his top two field generals -- "Sunny" Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes -- to direct ground operations in the state.

Surrogates for Obama are also flooding the state. Last night, following his 30-minute national informercial, the Illinois senator appeared alongside former President Bill Clinton at a midnight rally in Kissimmee. Then today came the news that former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, will make stops in West Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale tomorrow to lead early vote rallies.

What does this mean? It means that the Obama campaign is not willing to write Florida and its diverse population off. It means that they feel they need to keep working to show they care about Florida and want to represent Florida. That is the beauty of the 50 state strategy: it backs up Obama's talk about our not being "a red state America or a blue state America, but a United States of America."

Right on.

Religious zealots for Prop. 8

Do you support Yes on 8? Are you one of these people?


You see, these are the people who support Proposition 8, rewriting the California constitution to discriminate against gay people. I have a family: me, the mother, one father, one boy, one girl. It will not effect my family one bit if every gay person in the world had a same-sex marriage.

What are these people afraid of? The apocalypse, apparently.

When did God create oil?

Ha! Never thought I'd say it, but MSNBC's Chris Matthews just asked an excellent question:

If you believe, as Sarah Palin does, that God created the earth several thousand years ago, then how is oil created?

According to scientists it takes millions of years for fossil fuels to be created from organic matter under tremendous geologic pressure. So if you don't believe that the earth is millions of years old, how do you think we get oil?

Seems to me this is a crucial question for the person John McCain says would be his chief adviser on energy policy.

(Way to go, Matthews!)

Should Lieberman lose his chairmanship?

I know what my husband's answer would be: "Let 'im hang!" There certainly are plenty of Democrats who would love to see Joe Lieberman's political career go up in flames for his support of John McCain. According to a report by The Hill today, Democrats are discussing a possible removal of Lieberman from the chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, a position he's held since 2007.

However, I find myself concerned not with Lieberman specifically, but with the reasoning behind the choice and the precedent it sets.

Here's the thing: I am one of those oft-referenced Americans who really hates how partisan Washington has become. And I'm not sure that punishing Lieberman, a Democrat-cum-Independent, for supporting a Republican with whom he has a long-standing friendship, is right.

Don't get me wrong. There may be a LOT of very good reasons to remove Lieberman from the chairmanship. Committee positions are used strategically by the leading party to put up-and-coming politicians in positions to gain experience. That's how you become an experienced leader. Lieberman is not entitled to hold his chairmanship.

Additionally, Lieberman did not just support McCain. Throughout the campaign season, Lieberman actively attacked Barack Obama using distortions of Obama's record and repeating "questions" about Obama's history and relationships with no evidence that there was actually any wrong-doing on Obama's part (a particularly virulent campaign tactic that I think is beneath the dignity of any honorable leader). The Democrats have no reason reward such behavior by honoring Lieberman's claim to the committee chairmanship.

But then let's be clear about why Lieberman is losing his chairmanship: because he's not entitled to it and has done nothing outstanding to earn retention of it.

Let us not ever approve of a vindictive approach to politics that punishes politicians to making decisions of loyalty based on personal conviction. Even if the other team did it first. We've got to move on from that brand of leadership.

Sen. Ted Stevens guilty on all counts

Per Salon.com:

Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens

The jury in the corruption trial of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) came back Monday afternoon with a verdict that could well send Stevens' career down the tubes. Stevens was found guilty on all seven of the charges he faced, felonies relating to false statements he made on Senate financial disclosure forms on which he failed to report some $250,000 in gifts.

Stevens reportedly faces up to five years in prison on each of the counts, but the AP says he "will likely receive much less prison time, if any."

Though he's the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Stevens may not be part of that body for much longer. He's facing a tough Democratic challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, this year, and recent polling has generally shown Begich holding on to a slim lead. If Stevens is re-elected despite the conviction, it would be up to the Senate to decide whether or not to let him remain in his seat.

Capitalism + Subsidies = Hypocrisy

Watching George Will on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday made me wistful for the 1980s brand of GOP conservatism that, you know, seemed PRINCIPLED. (Note: I'm the last person who would claim that the Democrats hold exclusive claim to principles, but the GOP seems to be trafficking in a particularly virulent strain of politics these days.)

No, I didn't agree with its values, but that brand of conservatism at least seemed to believe in something sincerely and with conviction.

Will made the point that I've heard him make consistently over the last several months, that if you think the US has engaged in capitalism over the last 20 years, you're a moron. (I'm paraphrasing, but not by much.)

The thing is, government subsidies are Socialism. Subsidies "spread the wealth". Subsidies to corporations are a fancy way of saying the Government is taking YOUR money and giving it to companies that cannot succeed on their own. Corporate welfare anyone?

Couldn't we take a fraction of the money that we use to subsidize industry in this country and use it to send every one of their employees to college, training them to work in a field that needs skilled workers?

If we want to have the argument about socialism, fine. But lets have it in honest terms and not engage in rhetoric.

An army deployed against its people

In his blog on Salon.com today, Glenn Greenwald discusses the recent announcement by the US Army that, for the first time ever, US soldiers would be deployed on our own soil to act as needed against civilian unrest.

One of the most concerning portions of the Army statement was the part emphasized here by me:

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

In Greenwald's blog today and in his Salon radio interview, he discusses this new domestic military role with the ACLU, who has lodged a Freedom of Information Act inquiry to find out why this new standing military force is needed on US soil.

My takeaway: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have undeniably stretched our military to its limit, so much so that the National Guard has been deployed to serve overseas to the detriment of our domestic security, as enunciated by many state authorities who rely on the National Guard during times of disaster.

Do we need guard detail available throughout the nation? Yes. But I question why it should be a US military force, a force dedicated to combating foreign threats. Army units are NOT specialized in domestic security, and I, for one, want to know why the Department of Defence thinks they should now be in a position where they may be deployed against their fellow citizens.

(BTW - where are the "strict constitutionalists" on this one??)

Revitalization for the politic-weary

One day more, dear fellows. One day more.

The diminishing relevance of Pat Buchanan

One to watch: McCain/Palin on NBC Nightly News

OK - gotta tune into NBC Nightly News tonight.  

We just got a preview from Brian Williams and Chuck Todd about the interview with McCain and Palin together, which airs tonight.  Apparently the body language and mood of the candidates and the staffers was overwhelmingly negative. Todd just couldn't emphasize enough how bad it was. He was saying they just seemed incredibly uncomfortable together, suggesting that they may be starting to blame each other for the nose-diving campaign.  

Also, apparently Palin reversed herself in the interview, telling Williams she WOULD now release her medical records, which Todd says visibly jarred her staff.  

As a side note, Todd has been saying for some time that McCain and Palin may be nearing their "Bullworth moment". 

Axelrod: a look at the image-maker

If you're wondering how it happeded, look no further.  The New Republic's Jason Zengerle has penned this fantastic behind-the-curtain piece on the Obama campaign's chief strategist, David Axelrod, revealing Axelrod's history of political stagecraft and his evolving relationship with the would-be candidate for President of the United States.

Interesting tidbits abound, like Axelrod's lack of forsight and vision when it came to Obama's potential, Obama's persistence in pursuing Axelrod for a lead position on his political team, and Axelrod's role in persuading Obama to aim for the Presidency in 2008.

Most revealing of all may be the amount of strategy that was put into making a black man acceptible to white voters.  It seems that in this campaign Barack Obama's blackness has often almost been beside the point in this contest, especially when compared to predecessors like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.  But, as Zengerle highlights, that air of post-racial, post-partisan politics was indeed well-crafted.  Of Axelrod's work on the 1989 mayoral race of black state senator Michael White:

Axelrod believed the other crucial vehicle for winning his candidate the votes of Cleveland's white residents was what he's called "third-party authentication"--in other words, endorsements from respected individuals or institutions that whites put a lot of stock in. "David felt there almost had to be a permission structure set up for certain white voters to consider a black candidate," explains Ken Snyder, a Democratic consultant and Axelrod protégé . 

Axelrod, it seems, has developed the winning formula for black candidates to grab freely from the white electoral pool:

The self-described "keeper of the message" for Obama's presidential bid has taken the lessons he learned from his mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns and made them cohere into something that approaches a unified theory of how to elect a black candidate--emphasizing biography, using third-party authentication, attacking with an unconventional sideways approach, letting voters connect to the candidate by speaking to them directly in ads, and telling voters that supporting the black candidate puts them on the right side of history.

There are many, many revealing and fascinating bits in the piece.  If you want to know how we got to this moment, read it.

What we really think of attack ads

Just a thought, but when the media and political operatives say that we, the people of America, hate political attacks, and that the Obama and McCain campaigns are engaging in attacks, does that mean that all attacks are equally bad?  

Bear with me here.

If a candidate attacks his oponent's policies, plans, and records, that's one thing.

But if a candidate attacks the opponent's character and patriotism, isn't that something else entirely?

I'm just thinking that, just because we all hate political attacks, it doesn't mean that all attacks are created equal.

A return to Palin's "pastor problem"

I know we've largely put Sarah Palin's "pastor problem" behind us, with the media consensus seeming to be that Kenyan Bishop Thomas Muthee, who blessed Palin and called for her protection from "witchcraft", should be seen in a cultural context and that he isn't literally hunting witches.  As summed up by the Washington Post :

Can we forget the crazy preachers and try to get the candidates to focus on the serious problems?

Haha.  Silly "phony issues".  Oh, but wait.  What if Kenyans are actually inciting the murder of "witches" by burning?  While witchcraft is illegal in Kenya, apparently the reaction to accusations of witchcraft is getting horrendous.  Per NPR today:

In May, 11 people died in a "witch" burning in southwestern Kenya, but questions linger over whether neighbors in that particular region of Kenya believed the people killed were witches.  ...Local authorities say that in May, a security guard turned over a suspicious notebook he found at a school. The notebook reportedly listed the names of local witches and the minutes of their meetings. But before turning over the book to the authorities, residents of the area apparently copied down the names. Over a two-day period, a mob cut down 11 mostly retired and elderly people and burned their homes to cinders.

While there is no evidence that Muthee's pursuit of witches in his home community has lead directly to bodily harm or death, it did lead to the persecution of a local woman who is also a pastor.  

Furthermore, persecution and murder justified by accusations of witchcraft is a real problem in Muthee's home nation and his active role in scapegoating individuals by identifying them as "witches" bears further scrutiny.  Palin should know that she is closely aligned with someone who contributes to a very real culture of persecution, violence and murder.

Behold, the Undecideds!

This was just so good I had to reprint it:

Behold, the Undecideds. Have you heard of this bizarre, nefarious group? The millions of faceless, slow-blinking, mentally unattached Americans who are, right this minute, with mere days to go before the most historic election in our lifetime and when faced with what seems to be the most glaringly obvious divisions of attitude and perspective you could possibly imagine, still "on the fence" about Obama or McCain, love or hate, country or disco, Paris or Fresno, oil or water, Porsche or Pinto?

Check out Mark Morford's column in its entirety here.

Ha!  It just doesn't stop:

Or maybe not. Maybe I have it exactly backwards. Maybe the Undecideds are the mostevolved among us, more aware and conscious than the rest of us desperate plebes who are far too eager to plant our flags in the treacherous soil of definitive thought. Possible?

OK.  Good laugh.  I feel better.

McCain the Socialist/Communist

So who said the following: Barack Obama or John McCain?  

I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view...

If you said John McCain you would be CORRECT.  That's the John McCain of 2000 - remember him? - answering a citizen's question on Hardball.

I know.  I know.  Isn't that that pesky "spreading the wealth" that McCain and Palin are up in arms over?  Well, sure!  But this is an election year, and apparently that means McCain's job is to demonize others for things he actually believes in.  

Think that's taken out of context?  To hear McCain say specifically that this is NOT socialism, read the full transcript here.

Find us now on Salon.com

I'm pleased to announce that you can read From the Exurbs blog postings by Chattering Lass on Open Salon at Salon.com.

A sign of economic movement in home sales

According to this report from NPR this morning, home sales in southern California were up dramatically in September.  Southern California has had one of the highest forclosure rates in the nation, so what we're seeing here is bargain shoppers getting into the market at what could now be the nadir of the mortgage meltdown.

What does this mean?  These figures are from a period before the credit freeze that spurred Congressional action and a rollercoaster DOW, so we'll have to see how buyers fared in October when there was apparently no credit to be had.  Still, with 2 weeks left in the month, credit markets are thawing and it will be interesting to see if lenders think these So. Cal. purchases are a safe enough bet.

If we're lucky, the credit freeze will have been a blip, and people who have had some money but didn't jump 2 years ago will finally be able to take the home-ownership plunge.  That will begin working the bad mortgages through the system and get home values back on an upswing.  

There is still the question of what all this means to those who were forclosed upon, some who lied in order to get financing on homes they couldn't afford in the first place, but others who were handed or encouraged to take more than they could afford.

But for the grace of God...  The other day my husband and I were recalling our first tentative peerings into the world of home ownership, contacting a mortgage broker to find out if there was anything out there we could afford.  See, this is the thing: blame the buyer all you want for getting into a bad mortgage, but most of us do not understand the ins and outs of mortgage rates, terms, and conditions.  We rely on advice from the people who are experts: bankers and mortgage brokers.  Our broker told us we could afford up to 1/2 our monthly income on a mortgage - and would be approved for it.  With no down payment.

Fortunately husband and I are skittish creatures, prone to suspicion and fear.  We said thanks but no thanks to that huge offer and took something a little more modest.  (We're liberals to the core - always thinking "conserve".)  However, many people trusted their lenders and took the plunge.  Whose fault is it that they're now drowning?

GOP: crumbling from the center

To recap, let us note all of the Republicans who are now defecting from the John McCain/Rick Davis/Sarah Palin GOP:

Colin Powell - retired US Army General and fmr. Secretary of State

Ken Adelman - conservative Republican and original neo-con

Mickey Edwards - Fmr. Oklahoma Congressman and founding member of the Heritage Foundation

Christopher Buckley - National Review contributer, author, son of the late Wm. F. Buckley

Peggy Noonan - Fmr. Reagan speechwriter, author, and conservative columnist

George Will - conservative columnist

David Brooks - conservative columnist

Michael Smerconish - conservative talk-show host and author

I have to say, one thing I love about Peggy Noonan is that she speaks EXACTLY as she writes.  Its just archaic and wonderful.

Granted, McCain and Davis would write all of this off as the treachery of the irrelevant Georgetown cocktail circuit, but that may be even more evidence of how these people are narrowing the party.

Thoughts on the Powell endorsement

No doubt - NO doubt - you've heard plenty by now about Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama, but let me point out one thing about that endorsement that you may not have heard about if you didn't see it live.

Mr. Powell made a very lovely point that I think its important for all of us to consider.  It was about the whisper campaign that Barack Obama is "really a Muslim" or a "secret Muslim" or just outright "Muslim" as an email I received stated.  Powell said this:

I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian.  He's always been a Christian.  But the really right answer is, what if he is?  Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.  Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?  [my emphasis]

Just give that some thought and remember what is good about America.  You can watch Powell's endorsement in its entirety here.

GOP voter registration fraud. Yes, GOP voter registration fraud

Well, if you thought ACORN had cornered the market on voter registration fraud, get some bi-partisan religion.  

In a great story followed by the LA Times, Mark Jacoby, owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired this year to register thousand of voters, was arrested over the weekend on suspicion of voter registration fraud.  Turns out Mr. Jacoby falsely registered himself at a California address that is not his own in order to meet California's legal requirement to register others to vote.

THIS AFTER dozens of California voters came forward to report that his firm, YPM, had duped them into registering Republican by asking them to sign a petition for "tougher penalties against child molesters".  According to the Times, "YPM has been accused of using bait-and-switch tactics across the country.  Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusettes.  In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit."

In California, if these voters didn't discover the change, they would be disqualified from voting in their party's next primary.

So, I know they're both bad, but indulge me: which is worse?  Filling out a bunch of obviously false registration cards (Tony Romo, Mickey Mouse, Jimmy John, etc.) or duping an actual person into changing their party affiliation?

PS - Unlike ACORN, YPM does pay by the card, not by the hour.

(Tip of the hat to Rob for this one.)

Resurrecting McCarthy

Well, this one stopped me in my tracks.

There I was putting away laundry in the bedroom and before I know it I've been drawn to the television because this crazy woman just said WHAT???

Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann went above and beyond in her demonization of the liberal left/leftist/anti-American element of the US Congress and of liberal/Democrat Americans.  The words were really interchangeable for Rep. Bachmann.  Check it out for yourself, below.  

As Salon's Alex Koppelman put it, this probably just an example of what happens when enflamatory talking points are put into the hands of blithering idiots.  (OK, I might be embellishing on Koppelman's wording a bit.) He may be right, but McCain campaign is playing with fire, and McCain KNOWS it.  You know he does.  

And that's why there's a bit of a cognitive dissonance when you see all the hilarity of the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.  Everyone yucking it up as though what is being spewed out into American society right now is just harmless tomfoolery.  It is not.  It is virulent and dangerous and irresponsible.  When I look at John McCain these days, all I feel is rising concern.

UPDATE: Since this post was originally published, Bachmann's Democratic opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg, has raised some $700,000 in campaign contributions.  How ya like them apples, Bachmann!

Powell to appear on Meet the Press

Fmr. Secretary of State Colin Powell is scheudled to appear on Meet the Press this Sunday morning, and its rumored he may finally choose to endorse for President... Barack Obama.

If the rumors are true, it would be an enormous coup for Obama, who has been criticized by the McCain campaign as naive in his foreign policy cred.  It would also be a persuasive arguement to independents and moderate Republicans who were gung ho for a Powell candidacy 9 years ago and who have taken a second or third look at Obama.

It might also give a little tail wind to a campaign that appears to be worrying about keeping their momentum up with 2.5 weeks to go and a strong lead in the current polls.

P.S. - Look for Bill Kristol to demand an apology if this happens, as he predicted it a couple of months ago and was strongly repudiated by Powell's people.

California is anti-America?

Well, at least the GOP is finally being direct about it.  In their mind, anyone who isn't pro-McCain/Palin is apparently anti-America.  From WashPo:

Palin also made a point of mentioning that she loved to visit the "pro-America" areas of the country, of which North Carolina is one. No word on which states she views as unpatriotic.

An obvious candidate might be California -- a state Palin has campaigned in -- because, as she told the audience, she and McCain have encountered problems enlisting famous performers in their cause.

Can McCain and Obama be funny?

If you saw last night's Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, you know the answer is an emphatic "Yes". 

If my post below of Purple and Brown was a mental palette-cleanser late in the election season, this was a good political reset button, reminding us that John McCain and Barack Obama are still human.  McCain actually had the best lines, like his explanation of the nicknames he and his friend Barack have for each other, and Obama came right back with his October surprise: that his middle name is actually Steve.  This bit from Obama is great in text - the delivery wasn't as good:

But, look, I don't want to be coy about this. We're a couple weeks from an important election. Americans have a big choice to make, and if anybody feels like they don't know me by now, let me try to give you some answers. Who is Barack Obama? Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jorel to save the planet Earth ...

If you want to check it out the speeches at length, here you go:

Post endorses Obama

Even the Washington Post's endorsement seemed arbitrarily "fair and balanced", but where it was right it was right:

Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

...But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

Spreading the wealth

The disdain was dripping as John McCain pooh-poohed Barack Obama's suggestion in last night's debate that we need to spread the wealth.  "Hey," McCain says, "Joe the Plumber should be left alone to create more wealth so he can create more jobs."

OK.  Is that what happens?  

Here's what I think happens.  I think that Joe the Plumber and his huge plumbing company isn't what we're talking about here, since Joe would have to make $250k after business deductions.  I think we're actually talking about owners and boards of large businesses who DON'T create new jobs with their wealth.  They use it to pay exorbinant salaries and bonuses to executives who lay off thousands of employees.  They spend it on spas retreats and golden parachutes and partridge hunting. 

Because, you see, the wealth is what goes to the CEOs for cutting jobs and cutting costs in order to raise stock prices.

Just so we're clear.

Typical post-debate commentary

Post-show analysis: The Last Debate

All in all, John McCain did much better in this debate than he has in any other. He made some strong points that seemed backed by strong conviction. However, I really think he hurt himself in moments of sarcasm, impatience, and incredulity.

What was with some of those eye expressions?? Were wild crazy eyes supposed to poke holes in Obama's arguments?

This was definitely Obama's weakest performance, but he more than held his own, so in the end he was more successful in doing what he needed to do. McCain may gain a little ground, but probably not very much.

And, by the way, Obama answered the questions about Bill Ayers and ACORN tonight. Unless the McCain campaign, the GOP, or the media can show us any evidence that Obama was not telling the truth, this subject should be closed.

UPDATE: Bill Kristol on FOX News tonight shrugging his shoulders and simply saying that Obama looked Presidential and had a better arguement as to why he should be President: if that doesn't sound like a death-knell, I don't know what does. Oh, and Juan Williams appeared to agree. Daaaamn.

"He might be a terrorist, but at least he's not a Republican!"

OK, so take a look at the post below. I just took it directly from Ben Smith's blog on Politico because you should read it in its entirety. What does this say about the current mood of the country? Read and I'll meet you back on the other side...

Voting for Obama anyway

I just got an astounding e-mail from a Republican consultant I know well. He's a guy who's always thought Obama had a "glass jaw," and was always among those agitating for hitting Obama harder.

Recently, he conducted a focus group in an upper-Midwestern state, showing them the kind of ad he thought would work: A no-holds-barred attack, cut for an independent group, which hasn't aired.

I'm just going to reprint his amazed e-mail about the focus group:

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy...

So has the country finally become so bankrupt that those persistent GOP talking points have finally shaken loose? "We hate socialism, and big government, and tax-and-spend liberalism," they seem to say, "but we don't give a rats ass anymore because everything is going to hell and someone needs to step in and FIX it."

Here's where the problem lies: "TRUST US" said the Republicans. TRUST deregulation. TRUST Wall Street. TRUST trickle-down. TRUST the free market. TRUST the moral majority.

They did, and here we are. Now they need someone to fix it. It may be "Big Government" stepping in, but at least Obama is offering to do it. The list of people who've shown zero strength of leadership are staggering: Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, McCain, industry executives. Frankly, Sarah Palin is the only person whose shown initiative in an executive role, and SHE raised taxes on oil companies during a state budget SURPLUS. Explain to me what she knows about dealing with dire financial straights!

Sadly, this situation represents a major opportunity for Dems to put some significant rebuilding efforts in place. And, if history teaches us anything, just as with FDR and Bill Clinton, once the nation is rebuilt the electorate will return control to the Repubs who will just go and squander it all over again.