With friends like these . . .

Dick Cheney has endorsed John McCain. Wow !!

That's really gonna to shake things up, ya think? You betcha.

Or maybe not, because in fact it was the Obama campaign that gleefully sent out a press notice about it. And here's what Obama told people in Colorado:

I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 percent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney's support.

But here's my question for you, Colorado: do you think Dick Cheney is delighted to support John McCain because he thinks John McCain's going to bring change? Do you think John McCain and Dick Cheney have been talking about how to shake things up, and get rid of the lobbyists and the old boys club in Washington? . . .

So George Bush may be in an undisclosed location, but Dick Cheney's out there on the campaign trail because he'd be delighted to pass the baton to John McCain. He knows that with John McCain you get a twofer: George Bush's economic policy and Dick Cheney's foreign policy – but that's a risk we cannot afford to take.

With 85% of people saying the country is on the wrong track, and with even George Bush aware enough that he needs to lay low this week to avoid negative publicity for McCain, what possessed them to roll out his endorsement now? Here's a clue: they did it on a Saturday, which is the time you usually try to bury something that has to come out, but you'd rather it didn't.

So I'm guessing that it was not a prized tactical coup but that they had held Cheney off as long as they could. I suppose, if the VP really really wants to endorse you, it's sort of hard to say no.

Somehow I don't think this is going to be the November surprise that turns things around. Or maybe it's only a Halloween joke that arrived a little late?

Ralph

Maybe things will be different . . .

My friend Mickey at 1boringoldman.com (link in our list to the right) has a couple of great quotes worth copying here about what might be the outcome of an Obama mandate. The first is from Eli blogging at firedoglake.com:

Last week I was wondering what the story of the 2008 election would be, and worrying that it would be a reprise of 2006’s Glorious Victory For Centrism narrative. But as David Sirota has repeatedly reminded us, McCain and the GOP have made that impossible by repeatedly insisting that Barack Obama is The Most Liberal Senator Ever, a socialist, a (gasp) wealth-spreader.

By transforming Obama into Karl Marx, the Republicans have transformed his mandate into a socialist mandate, or at least a progressive one. If he wins big, it means words like "socialist" and "liberal" have lost their stigma. It means Americans want better healthcare, education, regulation, and infrastructure, and that they would rather "spread the wealth" than consolidate it. It means that America is a progressive nation, not a center-right one.

The other is from Barak Obama, speaking yesterday in Iowa:

"I expect we’re gonna see a lot more of that over the next four days. More of the ’slash and burn’ ’say-anything, do-anything’ politics; throw everything up at the refrigerator, see if anything sticks. A message that’s designed to divide and distract, to tear us apart instead of bringing us together. You know a couple of elections ago there was a presidential candidate who decried this kind of attacks and condemned these kind of tactics. And I admired him for it. He said ‘I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land.’ Those words were spoken eight years ago by my opponent John McCain. But the high road didn’t lead him to the White House then, so he’s decided to take a different route. I know campaigns are tough, because we have real differences about big issues. We care passionately about this country’s future. Make no mistake, we will respond swiftly and forcefully with the truth to whatever falsehoods they throw our way in these last four days. The stakes are too high to do anything less. But Iowa, at this moment, in this election, we have the chance to do more than just beat back this kind of politics short-term; we have a chance to end it once and for all. We have a chance to prove that one thing more powerful than the politics of anything goes, the one thing the cynics don’t count on, is the will of the American people. We have the chance to prove that we are more than a collection of red states and blue states, we are the United States of America. The voters are in a serious mood. they want to talk about the things that make a difference in people lives. That’s the type of campaign were gonna run and that’s how we’re gonna win on November 4th."

Ralph

Getting Ugly in North Carolina

Things are getting really ugly in NC. This was printed in the High Point Enterprise. It is so willfully ignorant and malicious that there's really nothing anyone can do to refute it. The whole thing is one big lying screed. And I'm not even going to mention the illogical positions and juxtapositions of the bilelike drool that he tries to pawn off as ideas. The type of mind that would produce this is beyond closed. It's huddled in the back of a lightless cave that has been sealed off for centuries. The best we can hope is that civilization proceeds apace and that neanderthals like this will soon die out.

This was published in the High Point Enterprise by Bob McLaughlin a
citizen of High Point in Thursday's paper: 10 Reasons Why People Would Vote for Obama
>
> 1. You are a Marxist. You believe in stifling government
regulation, redistribution of income, confiscatory taxation,
penalizing success, subsidizing failure and promoting dependency.
>
> 2. You are a multi-cultural internationalist. You reject American
exceptionalism. You believe western culture is inferior to others and
America is a "mean" country. You would rather be called a world
citizen than an American citizen.
>
> 3. You are a "religious" environmentalist. You worship the
creation while ignoring the Creator. You accept doubtful climate
change theory without question and believe we should spend billions of
dollars to combat it.
>
> 4. You take a utilitarian view of life and support the culture of
death with it's unrestricted abortion, infantcide, physician-assisted
suicide and ultimately euthanasia.
>
> 5. You are a radical feminist who believes that all differences
between men and women should be suppressed and that the sexes are
interchangeable, not complimentary, even if this undermines the family
structure.
>
> 6. You reject the "antiquated" concept of restricting sex to a
monogamous relationship between a man and a woman and believe that the
homosexual agenda should be promoted even to very young children. You
want Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
>
> 7. You believe that America's enemies are better appeased than
confronted.
>
> 8. You would subordinate the rights of free speech and freedom of
religion to other more important objectives - ie, "hate speech" laws
and sexual orientation equality.
>
> 9. You would rescind or at least ignore the 2nd amendment rights
(owning guns). (That's another subject I haven't proached yet. CJ)
>
> 10. You are not "religious" but believe that all religions should
be tolerated except for Christianity and observant Judaism. After
all, biblical Christianity is too mythical and restrictive, and the
Zionists are responsible for most of the world's problems.
>
>
>

Sarah, please study the Constitution

Either Sarah Palin is woefully ignorant of the Constitution and has a basic misunderstanding of our civil liberties, or else she once again is "just saying things" to rile up fear and hatred in her equally ignorant base.

The latest example is her saying, in a radio interview, that her criticisms of Barak Obama for his past associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are not negative attacks, and she's being unfairly and dangerously accused of it. "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

How do they do it? What do Republicans put in their children's pablum? How do they learn so thoroughly that: if I do it, it is my God-given, Constitutional right; but if you do it, you're threatening my God-given, Constitutional right?

Salon's Glenn Greenwad explains why this argument is frighteningly wrong:

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathtaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

I think their flawed thinking is even more basic. They simply do not distinguish criticism and censorship. Nobody is unplugging her microphone -- but that's what she wants to do to the press. No one is telling Sarah Palin she doesn't have the right to lie about Obama's associations. By the same token, the press has every right -- in fact, the duty -- to say her statements are untrue, misleading, defamatory, and possibly even inciting to violence.

Obama's "associations?" Palin probably doesn't know of the Supreme Court's long-established precedent that the First Amendment's phrase "right of the people peaceably to assemble" includes "freedom of association." She might not want to go too far down that road anyway, given that her husband has been a member of a political party that advocates rebellion against the United States, a party to whom she has also sent a Governor's warm welcome video for their convention.

So, dear uneducated, prejudiced, arrogant Sarah, please study the Constitution before you run for president in 2012. Your ignorance is appalling.

Ralph

Why polls differ

Polls differ for a number of reasons: How representative is the sample? Do the number of Democrats and Republicans mirror the percentage in the population? Do the pollsters report raw data or used weighted factors to correct for skewed demographic samples? How do they identify "likely" voters? If they don't include cell phone calls, the youth vote is undersampled. How are the questions worded? How big is the uncommitted group? Do they push these people to make a choice? In a binary poll, with only two candidates listed, are third party candidates registered as uncommitted?

What's emerging in this race as a major factor is how the different pollsters decide on "likely" voters. Some pollsters simply ask if you plan to vote and, if so, report your choice. Others also consider your voting history. Have you voted before? With the millions of newly registered voters this time, it makes a difference.

Gallup reports both: that's why on RealClearPolitics the daily polls will have two Gallup results. For today, Gallup has Obama leading by 5% in its "traditional" poll (intend to vote and voted before) but by 7% in its "expanded" poll (intend to vote)

Another source of error is a sample that inaccurately reflects political party affiliation. The Fox News poll out today has Obama leading by 3%, but it's been criticized because they use the ratio of Democrats to Republican party registration from the 2004 election, but that has changed markedly since 2004 with a big shift toward the Democrats.

In contrast, the new CBS/New York Times poll has Obama 52% to McCain 41%. This poll identifies likely voters simply by their stated intention. They have made an estimate that 13% of registered voters will be voting for the first time; in the poll, those voters choose Obama by 2:1. If that holds up, it will be a big win.

**CAUTION** The only poll that counts is the count at the polls on election day.

Ralph

Obama's prime-time 30

Media headlines are calling it Obama's "infomercial," or his "commercial ad," which of course it was. But it was so much more than what was implied by those words. It was the essence of the man and what his campaign is about. It was a taste of what it might be like with this man in the White House. As someone said, "Obama has revived the fireside chat." Only those old enough to remember FDR will quite appreciate that; Jimmy Carter tried, with his cardigans, but he didn't capture the tone. Obama does.

Snarky critics said it was boring, there was nothing new. Of course there wasn't. Everything's been said, and it wasn't meant to entertain Obama's opponents or the jaded pundits.

It spoke to the American people about what they can expect from an Obama presidency, beginning with a man who understands and cares, one who has solutions to propose and a vision to inspire. At a time when McCain, Palin, and Elizabeth Dole are wallowing in campaign mud of the worst sort, he spoke not a word of attack against his opponent. He raised the level of campaign image and language to one we can be proud of.

Norman Ornstein, scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said:

Was it effective? You bet! It was a great piece of television, flawlessly produced and paced beautifully. It reinforced every theme Obama wants to hit. . . . At this stage of a campaign, control of the message for each day is critical. Today and tomorrow, Obama controls the message. For McCain, the bad news is this: If you are behind with six days to go, you can't afford to lose two of them.

Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics, said:

It was brilliant to end the half hour magazine-show style presentation by moving to a live closing. Realizing the show was suddenly live sent a jolt of electricity through the room in which I was watching; everyone sat up and gasped.

The live ending reflected back on the prior half hour: here was Obama, looking and sounding exactly as he did in the produced segment, and this was real, so what came before must have been real, too. It also sent a very eloquent metamessage: that Obama could time the closing of his talk to tens of thousands of people so perfectly and seamlessly, gave the impression of control, discipline, and breathtaking competence that are exactly what is needed in a leader, especially now.

I only want to add my heartfelt admiration for the campaign that Obama and Axelrod and Plouff have run. This production was the culmination of everything that has gone right. There has never been anything like it: unprecedented involvement of millions of new voters, prodigious internet fund-raising, a message of coherence and consistency, a tone of dignity, family warmth, and humor. It has reflected the candidate himself, who of course is ultimately responsible. Not since the youthful John Kennedy occupied the White House have I felt such pride in my president.

OK. I'm jumping ahead. If that's problem, save it and read it next week.

Ralph

Life imitates art

Not being a regular TV watcher, I only saw a few episodes of West Wing, the popular TV show about a fictional president which ended its run in 2006. Today's New York Times features an article about the origins of the story line of a new election between a rising minority (Hispanic) senator, played by Jimmy Smits, and an older white senator, played by Alan Alda.

According to the article, when the script writer Eli Atti was sketching out the series, he called an acquaintance to get some information about this young Illinois state senator who was running for the U.S. Senate, who gave such a powerful keynote address at the 2004 DNC convention. The man he called was David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager. They had several long conversations about Obama's refusal to be defined by his race and his aspirations to bridge the partisan divide. All that went into creating the fictional Senator Matthew Santos.

Look back now at the parallels where life has imitated the fictional depiction of how those values might play out:

Santos is a 40-something, coalition building, Congressional newcomer of a minority race, who against all odds enters the Democratic primary for president; and, after a long fought battle against the establishment candidate, wins. One of his campaign slogans is: "I am here to tell you that hope is real !" He also says, "I don't want to just be the brown candidate. I want to be the American candidate."

The general election then pits him against Republican Arnold Vinick, a white-haired, maverick senator from a Western state, with a reputation for delivering "straight talk" to the press, for sometimes bucking the establishment, and for appealing to moderate voters. Others complain he's not conservative enough. One of the show's producers has said that the 2004 McCain (as opposed to the 2008 McCain) was one of the "templates" for the character.

Jokes are made about Vinick's lack of computer skills. Santos' staff want to make videos of him with his "adorable young children hugging their hale and vital dad." Santos delivers a speech on race at a critical moment for his campaign.

Also interesting are the fictional VP choices: Santos chooses a Washington veteran with foreign policy experience; Vinick picks a staunchly conservative governor to shore up his base.

And the Phillies played in the World Series during the election campaign.

Oh, and who won the election? The Democrat Santos, but only after "a grueling election night," where it all came down to Nevada. Hmmm.

Ralph

Poll numbers holding

Interesting things happening with the poll numbers. The popular vote gap is tightening just a bit with McCain apparently getting a slight uptick of 1% from uncommitteds but leaving Obama still with an average lead of about 6.0%. Unless Richard's fears of a large hidden anti-black vote materialize -- or we have some major cataclysmic event -- there seems no way McCain can win. His smears have hardly made a dent, he has no ground game, little money, and no new ideas.

And the state electoral poll is actually widening in Obama's favor.

RealClearPolitics has now moved Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota into the toss up category, along with Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri. And West Virginia and Arizona are now "leaning" to McCain instead of solid. He's had to start running robocalls in his own state.

Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico continue to be leaning to Obama. One new Pennsylvania poll gives Obama only a 4% edge, but other recent polls give 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14%, despite McCain's making an all out effort there. With his solid and leaning states, Obama has 311 electoral votes -- enough to win with 41 votes to spare -- without having to win any of the toss up states.

Ralph

Early Voting Results

These statistics are interesting, but I think they mistakenly assume those who are registered as Democrats automatically vote for Obama, and Republicans automatically vote for McCain. The latter may be more true than the former. I also question the percentage totals - hard to believe 46% of NC voters have already been to the polls, although, to be honest, nearly everyone I've spoken with in the last 3 days have voted. Still, these are the only figures I've seen so far and they come from a source in a discussion group who seems to be reliable.

AS OF TODAY, 15.77 million people have voted.

In Arkansas, 21.4% of the total 2004 vote is already in
In California, 18.4%
In Colorado, 44.6%
In Florida, 33.9%
In Georgia, 41.8%
In Illinois, 15%
In Iowa, 24.3%
In LA, 13.5%
In ME, 14.4%
In NV, 45.2%
In NM, 39.7%
In NC, 45.8%
In OH, 8%
In TN, 45%
In TX, 23.9%
In WA, 13.5%


Early Voting percentages based off current party poll breakdowns:

Obama leading 51-46 in Colorado
Obama leading 53-45 in Florida
Obama leading 51-46 in Georgia (based off racial breakdowns in the absence of Party)
Obama leading 49-48 in Louisiana
Obama leading 51-46 in Maine
Obama leading 58-38 in Nevada
Obama leading 59-36 in New Mexico
Obama leading 56-42 in North Carolina (52-46 broken down by race)

Here's a new link I just found
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

Shame on Libby Dole

This morning, I added a comment to my blog about must-see videos, condemning an ad from Elizabeth Dole. At that time I had only read the text, but now that I have seen the despicable ad, it's worth a blog of its own. It begins with Libby Dole making the usual "I approve this ad" statement.

According to the Huffington Post, the ad refers to a September fundraiser for Dole's opponent, Kay Hagan, that had 40 co-sponsors, one of whom was a representative of the PAC group Godless Americans, an atheist group. The thrust of the ad is to imply that Hagan herself is an atheist, which is not true. Hagan's campaign is reportedly seeking a "cease and desist" order.

Here's HuffPost's description of the ad. It's even worse when you see it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/dole-ad-fabricates-audio_n_138874.html

"A leader of the Godless Americans PAC recently held a secret fundraiser in Kay Hagan's honor," the ad begins, showing some ominously blurred footage, ostensibly of the event in question. The ad then quotes the group's Ellen Johnson making atheist claims on two cable news shows. Summing up, the spot asks: "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras, took Godless money. What did Hagan promise in return?"

The end of the ad features a picture of Hagan with a female voice yelling "there is no God!" -- the clear implication is that the voice is Hagan's. In fact, the Democratic candidate is a Sunday School teacher and an elder at her Presbyterian church.

This goes over the line of ordinary campaign sleeze. It's as bad, or maybe worse, than anything they've thrown at Obama. It's a total fabrication, using irrelevant footage of anti-God statements that were not even made in Hagan's presence and then has a fake voice-over screaming "There is no God," while her picture is on screen.

The cease and desist order should be granted. Libby Dole should be censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for conduct bringing shame to the Senate. And while they're at it, the same for McCain.

But, as Colin Powell said so eloquently in his endorsement of Obama: after giving his assurance that Obama is not a Muslim, he said, "But what if he were? What's wrong with that? Are you going to tell a young Muslim child that he/she cannot grow up to be President?"

So, I ask: What if Kay Hagan is an atheist (which she's not, I feel I have to put in the same sentence so some idiot won't take it out of context)? I would rather have an honest, humanistic atheist or Muslim be my senator than a corrupt, power-grabbing, take-from-the-poor-to-give-to-the rich, so-called Christian Republican.

We've already got plenty of those.

Ralph

Must-watch videos

Two video clips well worth watching. One is Keith Olbermann's riff that Richard mentioned about Sarah Palin's throwing "socialist" stones and hitting her own glass house. Link at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/olbermann-sarah-palin-is_n_138765.html

The other is a new Obama ad titled "His Choice." It begins with actual quotes from McCain earlier in the campaign, admitting his lack of economic know-how and saying, "I might have to rely on a vice president that I select" for expertise on economic issues.

Then against a black background are the words, "His choice?" -- before cutting to clip of Palin during her VP debate, winking at the audience. The screen then says "On November 4th, You Get to Make Yours."

It's very low key, with simple music in the background and simple factual quotes and simple questions. Very effective. Worth watching.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/new-obama-ad-goes-after-m_n_138811.html

Ralph

"She just says things . . . "

Bush the Elder's speechwriter Peggy Noonan has been critical and dismissive of Sarah Palin, saying that it's not just that she "thinks out loud" but that she doesn't think at all. "She just says things," was the way she put it.

Trying to paint Obama as a socialist (and a totalitarian one at that) is only the latest in the McCain campaign's habit of "just saying things." Time and again, McCain himself says things that contradict what he has previously said, or directly opposes a prior position, or accuses Obama of something he himself has done.

All politicians exaggerate and selectively quote out of context to paint their opponents in a bad light. Perhaps an independent, non-partisan linguistic analyst would disagree with me; but putting aside my liberal bias as much as possible, I say that the Republicans and Democrats -- and even moreso the McCain and Obama campaigns -- do this on a vastly different scale.

Democrats/Obama take selective quotes, lift them out of context, and exaggerate, like saying that McCain wants our troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Republicans/McCain/Palin dig up a past association and paint a guilt-by-association smear (Bill Ayers) or take an opponent's proposal and morph it into a bugaboo word (progressive taxation becomes socialism).

Obama/Biden tell what they want to accomplish FOR you; McCain/Palin scare people with what they say Obama will do TO you. Obama/Biden present a plan; McCain/Palin incite fear. Obama/Biden offer hope; McCain/Palin just say things to stir up your anger and fear.

Leave aside the arguments over whether electing McCain would give us four more years of Bush/Cheney policies. It's clear that a McCain/Palin administration would give us four more years of Bush's tactics -- including the unitary executive, imperialist presidency that claws its way into power by manipulating public opinion through fear.

They just say things . . . anything to get elected.

Which is reason # 270 for putting an end to this reign of terror.

Ralph

Sarah Palin Socialist, and Obama's Tax Cut numbers

As Keith Olbermann pointed out on his show the other day, Palin's own policies in Alaska as she described them are socialist

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/olbermann-sarah-palin-is_n_138765.html

"And Alaska, we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occur," said Paliin.

Collectively? Share in the wealth? And she has the nerve to call Obama a Socialist for saying we need to 'spread it around'?

Let's look at exactly how Obama's tax plan would work. Under his proposal, this is what would happen to your taxes, based on your income.

$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

So people who made from $226,919-$603,402 would see a whopping increase of $121 in their tax bill? That's what they might pay for one opera ticket and a glass of wine at intermission. What a hardship!

When you have McCain's own aides calling Palin a "whack job", a "diva who won't listen to anybody", and totally "uninformed about national and international issues" - tell me again, what is the rationale for voting for her? Even the guy at the head of the ticket, you remember him, don't you? He's the older gentleman with Sarah's knife now firmly planted in his back? When you get to the point where even his own top aides can't find a reason to support her, how can anyone else in the country justify voting for a ticket that would put her one heartbeat away from the presidency?

Is the race tightening?

The McCain camp is obviously looking for any sign that the race is tightening, as it usually does the last week. A few polls have shown some slight movement in his direction, like 1 or 2%, and offset by similar movement in Obama's direction in other polls.

Obama still leads in every one of 11 tracking polls, for an average about 7%. This includes a Fox News poll from last week in which he leads by 9%.

With each day closer to 11/4, it gets less and less likely that McCain can pull off an upset. Here's what Nate Silver says about a "tightening" race:

There is a lot of discussion going on about whether the national race is tightening; our model concludes that it is not. But what would meaningful 'tightening' look like in terms of the Electoral College?

Let me be oddly specific here. In order to conclude the Electoral College has tightened to the point where the outcome on November 4 is at least moderately uncertain, I would want to see the following between now and the election. Call it the 2/2/2 condition:

John McCain polling within 2 points in 2 or more non-partisan polls (sorry, Strategic Vision) in at least 2 out of the 3 following states: Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania.

If this condition is met, then I think there could be some drama on Election Night (though by no means would McCain be the favorite). If not, then it's very hard to imagine McCain winning.

In Nate's own poll analysis, Obama is up by 7.5% in Colorado, 11.9% in Pennsylvania, and 7.7% in Virginia. Getting to within 2% in two of them -- without any trend in that direction here in the last week before the election -- seems pretty unlikely to happen.

We still have to get out the vote and get every vote counted. Look for the Obama operation to be massive, smoothly coordinated, and effective. I learned at my poll watcher training session yesterday that they will even have "Comfort Team" members assigned to provide water and snacks for people standing in line. That's over and above the thousands of volunteers who will be making phone calls, scheduling drivers to bring people to vote, and poll watchers to make sure they get to vote.

Ralph

Heartwarming Obama Story from 20 Years Ago.

This appears in The Ladner Report. A new blog a friend sent me to. It tells you a lot about the personal qualities of Obama.

Not just your ordinary man.

Amazing: Obama Helped Stranded Stranger 20 Years Ago

Posted: 06 Oct 2008 09:20 PM CDT

Oct 05, 2008

The Norwegian newspaper VG has reported a truly amazing story about a newly-wed trying to get to Norway to be with her husband, and the stranger who helped pay an unexpected luggage surcharge. The blog "Leisha's Random Thoughts" has translated the story.

It was 1988, and Mary Andersen was at the Miami airport checking in for a long flight to Norway to be with her husband when the airline representative informed her that she wouldn't be able to check her luggage without paying a 100 surcharge:

When it was finally Mary's turn, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness.

-You'll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway, the man behind the counter said.

Mary had no money. Her new husband had travelled ahead of her to Norway, and she had no one else to call.

-I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions, says Mary.

As tears streamed down her face, she heard a "gentle and friendly voice" behind her saying, "That's okay, I'll pay for her."
Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before.

-He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was, Who is this man?

Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man.

-He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants, says Mary.

She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her.

Who was the man?

Barack Obama.

Twenty years later, she is thrilled that the friendly stranger at the airport may be the next President and has voted for him already and donated 100 dollars to his campaign:

-He was my knight in shining armor, says Mary, smiling.

She paid the 103 dollars back to Obama the day after she arrived in Norway. At that time he had just finished his job as a poorly paid community worker* in Chicago, and had started his law studies at prestigious Harvard university.

Mary even convinced her parents to vote for him:

In the spring of 2006 Mary's parents had heard that Obama was considering a run for president, but that he had still not decided. They chose to write a letter in which they told him that he would receive their votes. At the same time, they thanked Obama for helping their daughter 18 years earlier.

And Obama replied:

In a letter to Mary's parents dated May 4th, 2006 and stamped 'United States Senate, Washington DC', Barack Obama writes:

'I want to thank you for the lovely things you wrote about me and for reminding me of what happened at Miami airport. I'm happy I could help back then, and I'm delighted to hear that your daughter is happy in Norway. Please send her my best wishes. Sincerely, Barack Obama, United States Senator'.

The parents sent the letter on to Mary.

Mary says that when her friends and associates talk about the election, especially when race relations is the heated subject, she relates the story of the k ind man who helped out a stranger-in-need over twenty years ago, years before he had even thought about running for high office.

Truly a wonderful story, and something that needs to be passed along in the maelstorm of fear-and-smear politics we are being subjected to right now.

Mr. Greenspan v. common sense

Alan Greenspan was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank from 1987 to 2006, a position that gave him more influence over our economy for two decades than any other single person. His reputation was such that the nuance of his public utterings could turn the stock market into a roller coster.

Greenspan had been an original disciple of Ayn Rand's school of economic philosophy that proclaimed “each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own rational self interests.” This translated into the hard-nosed, hard-hearted advocacy of totally free markets without any government controls.

Under Rand's influence, a young Greenspan wrote to the New York Times in 1957: "Justice is unrelenting. . . . Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should." For that philosophy to work (if it ever could), it would require a nation's callous disregard for the vulnerable and needy. You would have to be willing to let people go homeless and starve; and, yes, be willing to let banks fail. It's pure and simple 'survival of the fittest,' where the rich get richer and the poor get nothing.

Greenspan later modified that somewhat and accepted some governmental role. But his youthful enthusiasm for an unregulated economic system remained his guiding philosophy.

Last year he vehemently defended himself against suggestions that his policies had led to the housing bubble and collapse. He insisted "There was nothing I could have done to prevent it." Now, however, he has finally admitted that he was wrong, saying the current crisis has shown him “a flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief," he told the House Oversight Committee last week.

Shocked, shocked !!! Who knew?

I knew. Now, I never took Economics 101, and I'd never, ever want me to be in charge of our economy. But what about a little common sense?

As I understand it now, the government encouraged mortgage lenders to make more risky loans so that more people could be homeowners. I think there are good reasons for that, and it's worth some government support through incentives and guarantees that encourage lenders to take a chance on -- and give a chance to -- those who might not quite qualify for traditional loans. But that has to have limits, unless you want government simply to provide homes for everyone, regardless of ability to pay for them.

What led to the runaway boom, which resulted in the runaway bust, was not this initial plan of reasonable incentives to increase home ownership. It was that the financial markets then figured out a way to make money out of bad loans.

Common sense tells me that if you make a profit out of something, entrepreneurs will find a way to make more and more of it. That's what they did. What started as an incentive to help ordinary people turned into a money-making bonanza for rich investors.

No longer did the person making the loan have any risk -- or incentive to be cautious -- because they immediately bundled and sold the mortgages to other investors. And they in turn created these wispy things called credit default swaps. The more bad loans you could buy up and get others to "insure" against loss, the more money you could make. Once you start making money out of a system that's designed to lose money, you have a house of cards. And houses of cards tend to collapse.

What did you not understand about that, Mr. G.?

Ralph

Monday Morning Humor

This showed up on a listserv I'm on. Not sure how accurate it is, but it's pretty funny.

A LETTER TO RED STATES:
"Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel, Apple and Microsoft. You get Enron and WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama and Arkansas . We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90 % of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 % of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 % of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 % of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 % of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 % of the hurricanes, 99 % of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 % of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood, Yosemite, and the Adirondacks , thank you

Additionally, 38 % of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 % believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53 %that Saddam was involved in 9/11,and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

More GOP panic

It gets harder and harder to resist jumping on the bandwagon of victory for Obama. It's no longer just the polls and Democratic optimists; now it's the insider Republican pessimists in panic mode sounding the death knell. Their focus has shifted from hoping McCain can pull it off to wanting him to accept his inevitable defeat and shift his focus to helping re-elect Republicans to Congress.

David Frum, Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (of all places) and former Bush speechwriter, has a column in today's Washington Post that essentially says "circle the wagons." It's a great read to bolster your confidence that Obama will win. Here are a few excerpts; the whole article titled "Sorry, Senator. Let's Salvage What We Can" can be read at

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7824141739271409746&postID=8955068266411639478

There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him. . . . McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them."

In these last days before the vote, Republicans need to face some strategic realities. Our resources are limited, and our message is failing. We cannot fight on all fronts. We are cannibalizing races that we must win and probably can win in order to help a national campaign that is almost certainly lost. In these final 10 days, our goal should be: senators first.

What should Republicans be doing differently? Two things:
1. Every available dollar that can be shifted to a senatorial campaign must be shifted to a senatorial campaign.
2. We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House -- and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government.

It's the only argument we have left. And, as the old Washington saying goes, it has the additional merit of being true.

And to add insult to injury, Alaska's largest newspaper The Anchorage Daily News has endorsed Obama. Here's the conclusion of their editorial:

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

If this is what the folks at uber-conservative American Enterprise Institute think, and what the largest newspaper in the Governor's state believes, then who am I to disagree?


Ralph

Don't get carried away

Just look at the gloom coming out of Republican circles: insiders advising McCain to cut his losses and turn to trying to save other Republicans down ticket. People like Elizabeth Dole, likely to lose in NC, pushing the idea of "divided government" as a rationale to return Republicans to Congress. The trouble with that argument, for them politically, is that it acknowledges they will lose the White House. Others are predicting a civil war within, or even the death of, the Republican party.

And the McCain camp itself is said to be turning into a circular firing squad, with everybody blaming someone else for the debacle. Sarah Palin is heading off in her own loony direction, no longer talking to her handlers. She's now saying that Obama would set up a totalitarian, "collectivist" government that 'takes what you thought was yours and gives it to everybody else . . . like they do in countries where the people are not free.' (hint, hint . . . communist)

And this, in the UK newspaper written by their reporter in Colorado:

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate. They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American politicl landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

OK -- so they're getting a little carried away. How much change can he bring about with the war and the huge debt that they have left him?

On our side, my statistical guru Nate Silver is doing a little "carry away" of his own. His statistical calculation of Obama's chances of winning: 95.7%. Claiming that if Obama wins all the tossup states in which he's now ahead, plus Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia where he has a chance -- he still will have only 396 electoral votes and would have to win West Virginia to reach the 400 mark. How did 400 get to be the magic number? It takes only 270 to win, remember? Maybe 400 is the magic for "mandate."

He's right of course, and it could happen. Nate is a very careful, analytical guy, so I'm not sure how to read what sounds like getting carried away. Does it really look that good?

Now, even I'm getting worried about over-confidence, tempting fate, shades of the 1948 "Dewey Wins!!" headlines. Just be sure to vote and do everything you can to get others to vote, and join me as a poll watcher to make sure that everyone's right to vote is honored.

We'll know soon.

Ralph