two guys spouting off

2009

2009-01-01T08:13:00.000-08:00

As the new year rolls into town, most people are ready for change. Even those who still have some admiration for George W. Bush seem ready to accept new leadership. The latest poll shows that 80% have some or a lot of approval for Barak Obama's performance thus far.

Richard and I have decided to let TwoGuysSpoutingOff become dormant. It's been fun, stimulating, rewarding; but, with the political campaign over, Richard has moved on to other interests and responsibilities. I still want a place to occasionally spout off in my own fashion, so I'm beginning a new blog with a title that I have long thought of as mine: ShrinkRap. It captures both the teasing reference to my profession (shrink = psychoanalyst) and the idea of talking (which shrinks don't do much of; we do more listening). And all of it packaged in a neat blog format (shrink wrap).

So, for anyone who might want to check it out, go to: http://shrinkrap13.blogspot.com/

And (with apologies to Clement Clarke Moore):

But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy New Year to all, and to all a good-night."

Ralph

Obama stumps spinners

2008-12-24T08:28:00.000-08:00

It's really hard being a Republican these days. They're having trouble figuring out how to attack Obama and how to spin their defeat. So far, Obama is out-Tefloning Ronald Reagen. They tried so hard to make something out of his connection with Blagojevich. Then, when they had not a shred to challenge his statement that he hadn't talked with him, they tried to insinuate something sinister out of the delay in releasing the internal review of his entire staff's contacts with Blago and his aides. Turns out there was nothing there either. In fact, the report was so comprehensive, even including minor meetings like Valerie Jarrett's chance encounter with Blago at the governor's conference, that the report reeks of transparency rather than cover-up. So now the FOXNews and talk radio guys -- as well as many of the MSM -- have eggs all over their faces.

Now the Repubs are really reaching to spin their own demise. My two finalists for the prize, so far, go to: (1) the pundit (I've lost the source) who claimed that the Iraqi journalist throwing shoes at Bush is proof of the success of the Iraq war. See, he was exercising his freedom of speech that is the result of toppling Sadaam, who would have had him drawn and quartered on the spot. Of course, the fact that he was exercising the Iraqi's worst insult to the person who ordered their 'liberation,' and that that sentiment has been echoed and celebrated not only in Iraq, but all over the Muslim world, is beside the point.

And (2) Karl Rove for his claim that Joe Biden has demanded more power as VP than Cheney ever did. See, Biden "demands" that he be in on every major discussion and be part of every major decision. Cheney never "made that demand." No, he didn't have to "demand" it; that's not his style. He just slyly insinuated himself and took advantage of a clueless Prez, besides ordering that all emails to the National Security Adviser be routed, first, through his office. Cheney did it slyly behind everybody's back, including Bush's. And Cheney claimed that his office was not even in the Executive Branch, and therefore he did not have to obey laws governing record-keeping -- prompting jokes that he was creating a fourth branch of government.

In contrast, Biden quite openly and up front, told Obama that if he were his VP, he would want to be sitting at his side in every major decision and have the opportunity to give his input -- whether or not it was accepted. Obama agreed that he wanted that, too -- and they announced it openly in the press. So Cheney grabs power by subterfuge and secrecy (Condi didn't even know her emails were first being read by Cheney); Biden and Obama made their relationship transparent in defining Biden's role.

Cheney, for his part, is throwing caution to the winds in his exit interviews -- seeming to dare his critics to hold him accountable. In short, he has admitted to rewriting the press talking points that indicated Valerie Plame was a CIA operative, thus blowing her cover; he has acknowledged his role in the torture debates but still insists that "we do not torture;" and he has claimed that "anything the President does in a time of war is not illegal." Not quite as sweeping a claim as Richard Nixon made, since he limits it to "time of war." But the thinking is the same: the President is above the law and above the power of Congress and the Courts to overrule him. And then, in his customary arrogant assumption that he knows better than anyone else, he predicts that the Obama team will, in time, come to appreciate the enhanced executive power they have forged, "once they see what we were dealing with." Get the message: our critics are just naive, uninformed; if they knew what we know, they would agree with us -- and they eventually will. Because we are, of course, right.

I don't think any thinking people are buying this malarkey; unfortunately, not many are even paying attention, when we should be running them out of town with tar and feathers.

Only 27 more days !!! Happy Days Are Here Again !!!

Ralph

Fake smoke doesn't mean there's a fire

2008-12-16T08:05:00.000-08:00

My trying to ignore the blaring news of the day didn't last long. Today it's back to my rant against the sorry state of journalism: TV news is the worst (right-wing radio doesn't even count as news; it's entertainment), with newpapers next, and even the liberal blogosphere is beginning to slip.

The latest example of that is a headline on Huffington Post: "Obama tainted by Blagojevich scandal." In fact, from the article itself, the headline should have read "Obama had no connection with the Blagojevich scandal." When even liberal voices feel the need to sensationalize, we're in deep trouble.

Last night, I was eating dinner in a cafe where I couldn’t avoid the TV screen, with Wolf Blitzer doing the news. This was CNN — not FOX News — but they couldn’t stop speculating about the motives behind all this. “What’s Firzgerald up to, asking Obama to delay releasing his internal review?" But they went on and on about how this delay will be to Obama's advantage because it allows them to release the review on Christmas Eve, when no one would be paying attention. And of course we know that this is the tactic of those with something they're trying to sneak past the public's attention. And did Fitzgerald really make it that specific as to how many days to wait, or did the Obama folks ask him to say that, so they could release when it would make the least news?

Obviously newspeople have been trained to be suspicious and cynical by past experience with politicians, especially in the Bush/Rove years. So who is now piously pronouncing moral judgment? Karl Rove chimed in from his perch at Fox, saying Obama has not been transparent enough in this affair. Who annointed him spokesman for moral rectitude?

I just hope Obama releases the report and there’s absolutely nothing in it of any concern whatsoever. News people need to have repeated experiences of winding up with egg on their faces from trying to make something out of nothing.

The problem is that, when the newpeople create smoke, people begin to believe there’s a fire. Now there's a poll out showing that nearly half believe that Obama or his aides were involved with Blago and his crimes. And that will stick in minds long past the exoneration of this made-up "taint" of scandal.

Bah, humbug, indeed !

Ralph

Interesting idea

2008-12-15T07:53:00.000-08:00

The news cycles never cease to amaze: an Iraqi newsman throws his shoes at Bush, shouting "Here's a goodbye kiss, you dog!" A respected financier turns out to have been a major fraud and bilked the rich and powerful of billions. A disgraced and perhaps deranged governor defies calls for resignation. Bush continues to spin his legacy. Obama continues to amaze with his appointments.

We've heard enough of all that. Here's an interesting idea from Steven Kornacki, writing in the New York Observer, "Here's How McCain Could Break the Presidential-Loser Mold." http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/why-mccain-could-break-presidential-loser-mold

Unlike others who recently lost their presidential races, John McCain is both still in office and too old to consider running again (John Kerry was still in office but kept running). This gives him a freedom to concentrate on rebuilding his reputation as an independent, non-ideological senator who can truly be a bipartisan bridge. He has already taken some steps, chiding his Republican colleagues for trying to tie Obama to Blagojevich.

What an opportunity both for McCain to redeem himself after a very ugly Rove-style campaign and to be a real asset across the aisle to help get Obama's agenda passed. And wouldn't it be ironic if he became the 60th vote that would allow the Democrats to move some crucial legislation, after he campaigned in Georgia to help defeat Jim Martin, the Democrat's last best hope for that 60th vote?

As their losing candidate and as one they never much liked anyway, he will not be the leading Republican voice. And it would burnish the image he seems most to cherish: maverick. It's up to McCain himself, of course. But, if he's a wise man and wants to be remembered for something other than his nasty smear campaign and for giving us Sarah Palin, he would do well to consider this way back to respect and self-respect.

Ralph

New hero

2008-12-11T14:34:00.000-08:00

OK. I know Richard and I said we were going to downsize to a once-a-week, Monday blog. But Obama is creating such excitement (forget the troubles Rod Blogojevich has stirred up) with his cabinet and other top choices that I don't want to wait until Monday to comment.

My new hero is his choice for Energy Secretary: Nobel Prize winning physicist Dr. Steven Chu, who has impeccable credentials as an academic physicist, a world-class researcher in alternative energy, and an experienced administrator of high level physicist/energy/research organizations.

He's also a clear thinker and a practical innovator. In a talk he gave last year about the importance of simple energy efficiency, he described what happened when California passed a law requiring manufacturers to make more efficient refrigerators. They initially said it couldn't be done for a price people could afford. But California imposed the standards anyway. It was so successful that now those standards have been adopted nationwide. The result? Refrigerators are now 10% larger, energy used has dropped by 67%, and prices have been cut by 50%.

And Chu summarizes: What happens when manufacturers realize their lobbyists are not going to be able to sway the lawmakers, they shift their funding to their engineers instead of their lobbyists -- and they get the job done. The new efficient refrigerators have saved more energy than extra energy developed by all the wind turbines and solar cells in the country. It's important to do those too, but don't underestimate how much energy we can save simply by efficiency.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/12/note-to-detroit-consider-the-r.html

What a difference it's going to make to have this man in charge instead of a Bush Energy Secretary who tries to sabotage any effort to require energy efficiency.

I'm waiting for Ralph Nader to eat crow and retract his statement that there's not much difference in the Democrats' and the Republicans' policies, so you should vote for him.

Ralph

More right notes from Obama

2008-12-10T07:28:00.000-08:00

President-elect Barak Obama continues to amaze me by hitting almost all the right notes in the planning for his presidency. Although some progressives are disappointed by some of his nominees thus far, I think Tom Daschel is a great choice as Secretary of Health/Human Services with his ability to get health care reform pushed through Congress.

Obama seems to be choosing experience and stability for national defense and the economy. If his picks for those spots tended to be establisment, at least it's Clinton establishment, not Bush establishment. And his picking Rumsfeld's nemesis Gen. Shenseki for VA chief is very satisfying. I fully expect to see more progressive picks in his nominations for the other domestic policy posts: Energy, Labor, Interior, Environment, HUD, Transportation.

He continues to amaze with his latest announcement, this time by reaching out to the Muslim world. From today's Chicago Tribune:

Barack Obama says his presidency is an opportunity for the U.S. to renovate its relations with the Muslim world, starting the day of his inauguration and continuing with a speech he plans to deliver in an Islamic capital.

And when he takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he plans to be sworn in like every other president, using his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. [He later explained that he was not trying to make a statement one way or the other; simply that it's traditional to be sworn in using your full name, and he's not concerned about what people try to make of his middle name.]

"I think we've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,'' Obama said Tuesday, promising an "unrelenting" desire to "create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership in countries and with peoples of good will who want their citizens and ours to prosper together."

The world, he said, "is ready for that message."

What a world of difference from divide-and-conquer, with-us-or-against-us, bring-'em-on George Bush. The contrast makes him look worse by the day, despite his pathetic but despicable attempts to create a positive spin for his legacy: Iraq was a success, No Child Left Behind was a great boon to education, he is most proud that "I did not sell my soul," and -- get this -- he says he restored dignity to the Oval Office. Well, if your only criterion for dignity is not having sex with female groupie-interns, maybe so. But otherwise, I just don't see any dignity in his performance or his image. How can a frat-boy impersonating a president create a sense of dignity? Obama has already, pre-inauguration, restored dignity to the office that George Bush could never accomplish.

Ralph

Echoes of Camelot

2008-12-08T07:06:00.000-08:00

With our wise choice of Barak and Michelle Obama as our new First Family gradually becoming a reality, we're beginning to see with stark clarity what we've been missing in the White House. Not that Laura Bush didn't represent segments of Middle America -- she even had poetry readings (although one of the best, Sharon Olds, refused to participate because of Bush's Iraq war).

But it is so refreshing to look forward to the elevation of knowledge, science, and art again and also to an emphasis on a different kind of family values and national character. And to a President and First Lady who can articulate these things. It reminds me of the heady days of Camelot, when Jack and Jackie Kennedy turned the White House into an intellectual and artistic center following the days of Ike's decent ordinariness.

What Barak Obama said at the end of his Meet the Press interivew with Tom Brokaw yesterday literally brought tears of joy to my eyes and to several other friends:

MR. BROKAW: Let me ask you as we conclude this program this morning about whether you and Michelle have had any discussions about the impact that you're going to have on this country in other ways besides international and domestic policies. You're going to have a huge impact, culturally, in terms of the tone of the country.

PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Right.

MR. BROKAW: Who are the kinds of artists that you would like to bring to the White House?

PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: Oh, well, you know, we have thought about this because part of what we want to do is to open up the White House and, and remind people this is, this is the people's house. There is an incredible bully pulpit to be used when it comes to, for example, education. Yes, we're going to have an education policy. Yes, we're going to be putting more money into school construction. But, ultimately, we want to talk about parents reading to their kids. We want to invite kids from local schools into the White House. When it comes to science, elevating science once again, and having lectures in the White House where people are talking about traveling to the stars or breaking down atoms, inspiring our youth to get a sense of what discovery is all about. Thinking about the diversity of our culture and, and inviting jazz musicians and classical musicians and poetry readings in the White House so that, once again, we appreciate this incredible tapestry that's America. I--you know, that, I think, is, is going to be incredibly important, particularly because we're going through hard times. And, historically, what has always brought us through hard times is that national character, that sense of optimism, that willingness to look forward, that, that sense that better days are ahead. I think that our art and our culture, our science, you know, that's the essence of what makes America special, and, and we want to project that as much as possible in the White House.

Ralph

April Fool's Day ??

2008-12-01T13:59:00.000-08:00

My first thought, when I saw the headlines, was that it must be April Fool's Day or a page from The Onion. Huffington Post headlined two articles, side by side:

"Bush to Receive First-ever International Medal of Peace."

"I Was Unprepared for War . . . I'm sorry about the economy."

The Peace Medal is given by the Global PEACE Coalition in recognition of Bush's initiative to treat AIDS and malaria in Africa. This is perhaps the one area that he can take some credit for, although it's marred by his demand that one-third of the money be spent on abstinence-only sex eduation. He claims that it helped treat two million people; but that's a relatively small percent of those infected with AIDS in Africa, every single one of whom could be treated for a year with the money we spend in nine days of our war in Iraq.

The second headline touts an interview with Bush by Charlie Gibson. But don't let the headline fool you. Bush is expressing regrets about some things "that happened," but he's not taking an iota of responsibility. For example, he "regrets" that he was given "incorrect intelligence" that led to war. He takes no responsibility for not knowing what many of us on the street knew at the time.

On the economy: "I'm sorry it's happening, of course. . . . Obviously I don't like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401(k)s. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. I mean, we're in. And if we need to be in more, we will."

Again, regrets that "it's happening." But no responsibility. We WILL safeguard the system, Sir? Why DIDN'T you safeguard the system when it would have mattered? And do you now support replacing the safeguards you and your Republican scrooges tore down?

No, I didn't think so. Please spare us the crocodile tears, Mr. Almost-Ex President. Go peddle your "regrets" for "things that happened" somewhere else.

Ralph

Obama's emergence as a strong president

2008-12-01T11:30:00.000-08:00

Forget "inexperienced." It's been trumped by intelligence and competence. Forget Hillary's secret quote "he can't win." He won by bigger margins than Bill Clinton. Forget the attempt to smear with "socialism." Bailing out Wall Street is being called "corporate socialism," and the Republicans did it. Forget "most liberal senator." Thus far in his appointments, competence trumps ideology.

If anyone, at this point, has reason for concern, it is his liberal, progressive supporters. I don't share that concern. I have such confidence in Obama's judgment and his assessment of what is possible that I'm willing to relax and let him run the show. He doesn't need advice from me.

That may be short-sighted, but it is such a relief after eight years of gnashing my teeth over everything Bush/Cheney/Rove & Co. did. Still, Obama needs us progressives to keep the pressure on him to push forward -- despite the economy -- and at least make a start, by outlining plans for progressive legislation. He intends to do it; but faced with opposition in Congress, he will need a strong, grassroots pressure to back him up.

Thus far, Obama has assembled a team that will govern with intelligence, expertise, and pragmatism in the important areas of economy and national defense and law enforcement. Expect to see more liberal ideology showing up in later appointments: Health and Human Services (Daschle), Commerce (Richardson), and others such as Labor, EPA, Energy, Housing, Interior. Those are the areas for progressive policies and legislation.

So many myths the Repubs invented about the dangers of an Obama presidency are evaporating. I felt a rush of satisfaction as one more bit the dust: that the military will not respect him. He's already trumped that one too by quickly winning over the top military brass. He had a sit-down with Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other day. According to the Washington Post, Adm. Mullen "came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman 'felt very good, very positive,' according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby."

The Post continued:

"But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials . . . is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council of Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Sooner or later, Obama is going to make some missteps. Or he will run out of trump cards. But so far, his emergence as the President has been as nearly flawless as his campaign.

Ralph

I Hate to Agree with George Will, but...

2008-12-01T08:35:00.001-08:00

As conservatives go, George Will is certainly intelligent, thoughtful, and well-spoken. (He's also supposed to be a bit arrogant - people here tell a story about a reading at a book store in Raleigh where he allegedly threw a pen across the room because it was a Bic, and so not classy enough for him).

So there are times I feel his analysis of the situation is accurate. I think that's the case with his comments on the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

"She's run two things in her life," Will said, "her campaign, that did not go so well. It was faction ridden, it leaked a lot. And before that, the health care event that they could not even get to a vote in a congress they controlled. Her record as a manager raises caution signs."

Caution signs? How about whopping red flags? Hillary made a debacle of the health care plan, and that at a time when the country supported change. I remember feeling deeply troubled at the time with the way she handled it. Despite clear legal guidelines, she refused to keep records of who she met with, and what they said. She excluded primary care physicians from any significant input, and catered to the desires of the health care industry over the needs of citizen consumers.

She has always been secretive, controlling, and self-serving. In health care, in Travelgate, in the primaries, and generally throughout her career. Her campaign was a disaster, and full of factionalism and finger-pointing.

I'm afraid her position as Secretary of State could easily turn into a platform for making a run against Obama in 2012. At the first sign of a 'mistake', the behind-the-scenes whisper campaign could start a chatter about how the job is beyond him, he doesn't really know what he's doing, if only Hillary had won the primary, and for the good of the country and the Democratic party she will just have to go against him in 2012.

The Clintons have always put their interests ahead of the party. What makes anyone think they wouldn't do so again? Hillary and Bill are arrogant enough to believe they could unseat a sitting president from their own party and win the White House.

I'm hoping I'm wrong, that we see a new Hillary, Hillary the Team Player. But it's hard to believe she's nto going to be looking out for her own interests first, and last.

A primer on the economy

2008-11-26T07:56:00.000-08:00

Anyone like me, whose mind glazes over in trying to understand what has happened to our economy, could do no better than to read the clear and concise series on The Depression and on Deregulation by my friend Michey Nardo on his blog at http://1boringoldman.com/

I gleaned a couple of lessons from thinking about this:

1. Any system that lets people get rich by investing in loss is ultimately going to fail. It should be self-evident: if you can get rich by investing in others’ loss without taking any risk yourself, then it’s going to encourage loss in the system rather than success.

2. The ultimate result of deregulation and de-firewall-ization is the creation of financial institutions that become “too big to fail.” Then the taxpayers have to bail them out in order to keep the whole economy from collapsing (i.e., where we are now). Without these enabling measures, the market would punish smaller lenders when they take too much risk, some small institutions would fail, and others would learn the lesson

Instead, the loss-swap measures and the conglomeration of financial institutions kept the market from working to self-correct. I’m not advocating total free markets, like Ayn Rand does, because I think that ignores humanistic values that a humane society wants to insure.

Instead of a really free market or an effectively managed economy, we created a hybrid monster that pretended to be freeing up the markets, while also protecting them both from regulation and from self-correcting forces that would operate in a real free market.

So both governmental regulation and free-market self-correction were eliminated, while encouraging rampant piling up of "assets" that had no real value, only trading value.

I don’t need a PhD in economics to know that’s a formula for ultimate disaster.

Ralph

Humor for the Holidays, and Obama the Buddhist

2008-11-24T11:18:00.001-08:00

With Thanksgiving coming up, I decided to forego my usual rant and just pass along two long pieces - one a humor wrap-up from late night TV, the other a discussion of Obama from a Buddhist perspective.

"Pres-elect Obama's looking for a new White House dog. The search is on.
He's spent more time selecting a dog than McCain did selecting a running
mate."
- Jay Leno

"Pres-elect Obama met w/ former political rival McCain.
Both men said it's a relief to put their differences aside, sit down, &
make fun of Palin."
- Conan O'Brien

"According to the NY Post, Palin may appear in the season finale of
Desperate Housewives.
Palin said she's seen the show several times, which qualifies her as an
actress."
- Jay Leno

"Sen. McCain & Pres-elect Obama met, got together & had a nice visit.
Obama thanked McCain for choosing that nutty Alaskan chick.
And Obama said to McCain, 'I'm catching up with you. I just got a 2nd
home.'"
- David Letterman

"Obama agreed to sit down & talk to McCain without preconditions.
When Palin heard about McCain meeting w/ Obama, she accused McCain of
palling around w/ terrorists."
- Jay Leno

"There was a big meeting today btwn. Vice Pres-elect Biden & Vice Pres.
Cheney, or as they're calling it, plugged hair meets plugged arteries.
That does seem cruel.
I prefer to call them foot-in-mouth meets shoot-in-face."
- Jay Leno

"Cheney gave Biden tour of the vice president's living quarters.
Biden said he loves the house, & he'll probably turn the dungeon back
into a rec room."
- Conan O'Brien

"According to MSNBC, Palin could get $7 million when she signs her book
deal.
You know who's really excited about this? Neiman Marcus."
- Jay Leno

"Rumor is that General Motors will run out of money soon, unless the
govt. helps them w/ a bailout.
Isn't that amazing?
All those times a car salesman told you he was losing money on the deal,
he wasn't lying."
- Jay Leno

"Pres-elect Obama's meeting every day w/ his transition team, or in
Beltway lingo, his trannies.
They're helping him pick who'll be in his new govt.
7,000 presidential appts. are up for grabs. The Obama administration's
making history again, by being the only place in America that's
currently hiring."
- Stephen Colbert

THE MINDFUL CANDIDATE

Seeing Barack Obama's historic campaign in a Buddhist light

NASH SIAMWALLA

Barack Obama himself stressed throughout his campaign that he himself was not perfect and that he expected to make mistakes as president. This is a fundamental understanding of human nature and of dhamma.

It is my belief that Barack Obama's successful presidential campaign, which was based on the concept of "change we can believe in," and its underlying message are synonymous with Buddhist self-transformation. In Buddhism, people who are transformed become selfless and dedicated to serving others. This is what many people felt when they watched the broadcast of Obama giving his somber, determined victory speech in Chicago on election night. Something in the back of our minds said that we were witnessing history, and that we seemed to have arrived at the dawn of another chapter in a more principled humanity. In the candidate himself, there is a powerful lesson that we can learn from. It is not just for politicians who dream of running a successful campaign=2 0and a landslide victory; the lesson is equally valuable for the rest of us. It would be ideal, though, if the world's politicians could learn the underlying message that Obama delivers, and the values that drove him and shaped his character. As we now know, the global following of Obama's campaign was unprecedented. The American press attributed it to their country's position as the leader of the consumer economy: whatever America decides, the repercussions will be felt by the world. This is straightforward enough, but Lord Buddha also taught that every being and phenomenon in this world is interconnected, hence the need for us to always have good will and act accordingly towards one another for continuous peaceful co-existence. But in addition to that, a Buddhist view offers another explanation for the Obama phenomenon; it was not merely the result of economic dependence on America. For those who believe that what are important in this world are power and money, we beg you to consider the following facts and think again, as there are more profound things that Obama offers. Let's first admit, there was something about Obama that we were drawn to, and it was not just his charisma or his inspired oratory. What was it? Mindful candidates always stand out Looking at Obama's historic campaign, what strikes us most is how consistently mindful this candidate has been. By mindfulness, Buddhism refers to the ability to be totally aware of the nature of things as they are, in the present moment, without pre-formed judgment or emotional partiality. Obama, as we saw, was always able to remain calm and composed in any situation. He was always mindful of his thoughts, his words and his deeds. He never showed hate or anger. The only time he allowed himself to show his human side is only when he talked passionately about the well-being of his family. Even when the political process got heated with the opponent's campaign throwing aggressive comments at him, Obama refused to retaliate in a similar manner. Repeatedly, he made it clear he would not take, in his own words, "the low road." Mindfulness leads to clean politics By being constantly mindful, Obama was able to look at issues objectively. The result is a proof that human beings feel more comfortable with objectivity than with mud-slinging, name-calling politics. For example, Obama preferred to refer to the current problems as resulting from "failed policies" rather than "failed individuals." This brings to mind a Christian saying, "Hate the sin but love the sinner." Buddhism has a similar teaching which encourages us to address the mental defilements as separate, conquerable entities from beings, who, in fact, suffer from unknowingly harbouring such defilements. Obama also went out of his way to show his constant respect for fellow human beings, even when he has been the target of disappointing or harmful words and actions by some of them. In other words, we know that he values forgiveness and unity because he actually practices them. Accepting the congratulatory phone call from McCain, Obama was able to say, "I need your help. You are such a great leader in many areas." Obama also praised McCain for waging such a tough campaign, and he did not lie: McCain did deliver a tough campaign, which probably forced Obama to try harder to sharpen his own thinking. McCain must have felt exactly the same. McCain's sincere, heartfelt and gracious concession speech on election night, despite more than a year of gruelling campaigning as a political foe, is a testament to how Obama's mindful leadership and humility won over McCain's tough, war-veteran heart. Obama's values in a Buddhist perspective Obama was able to achieve this formidable feat simply because he believed in the virtues and capability of every human. How could a politician achieve such an ethical outcome? From a Buddhist point of view, it is because Obama has a firm grasp on the fundamentals of dhamma, the nature of things, as well as karma, the law of cause and effect of action. Obama himself stressed throughout his campaign that he himself was not perfect and that he expected to make mistakes as president. This is a fundamental understanding of human nature and of dhamma. And how did he plan to address this common-man drawback? In Obama's=2 0own words: by being humble and listening to advice and criticism of others. Humility is another admirable trait of this mindful candidate, stemming from his encompassing awareness of how things are. For example, in his victory speech, Obama appeared somber rather than self-satisfied, arrogant and triumphalist. He told the hyped-up Democrat crowd that they should accept this victory humbly, especially so because he simply followed the footsteps of one great Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. That reference to Lincoln alone is enough to make people realise that what really matters is the shared humanitarian values and not antagonistic divisions along party lines. Another important aspect we can learn from Obama's campaign is how he could inspire people. He could easily have taken advantage of the poor condition of the US economy to rev up the negative emotions of the crowd towards the current US administration, but he refused to do so. Instead, he inspired people to sacrifice themselves, to do more together and for each other so that they all would be lifted out of this troubled time together, Democrats or otherwise. This is the understanding of the law of karma. Everything in life is related to what we do now in the present moment. Lamenting and blaming each other for things past would not help us out of current suffering. The American press also gave Obama lavish praise regarding his steadfast refusal to run a "negative campaign" agai nst his opponents, even sometimes at his own cost. Lesson learned: mindful leaders who set their minds solely on the benefits of the people sacrifice themselves and bravely sustain the low blows while continuing to hold on firmly, never losing sight of their original purpose. Obama's call is not just idealistic, but an earnest call for action. By performing good deeds, good karma, together for society, Obama believes that good effects would naturally follow. What breeds mindful leaders? How could a relatively young presidential candidate have so much wisdom on life? A wisdom, we may add, that is usually associated with respected old sages. Looking at his formative years through a Buddhist lens, we understand why. Despite growing up with a loving family, Obama has experienced hardship at first hand. There were times when his mother had to rely on food stamps to feed the family. Obama himself recalled in a voice stirred with emotion how she had to spend the last few months of her life studying health insurance forms to make sure her medical expenses were covered. This is why the young Obama is so driven to provide affordable healthcare to all. Hardship, or, in Buddhist terms, suffering, apparently drove Obama to strive to work hard in all areas for the underprivileged. He apparently turned down offers from prestigious law firms and to go into politics because he wanted to work for the benefit of others rather than for himself. 0A In Buddhism, understanding suffering is the first requirement towards acquiring wisdom. Having goodwill to all and living life to serve others mindfully is integral to Buddhist Enlightenment. In Thailand, HM the King exemplifies such virtues. Elsewhere, Mahatma Gandhi gives us the example. Want to be like Obama? It's not beyond our human capacity. To be able to achieve this level of maha sati, Great Mindfulness, Buddhism prescribes vipassana practice with a detailed step-by-step guidance for anyone who cares to learn. Mindful leaders are transformational leaders Academically, Obama's type of leadership is known as transformational leadership. It is when the leader and followers inspire each other to rise to a higher moral level by sacrificing themselves for society, for a cause higher than themselves. In practice, transformational leaders are mindful people who transform themselves before going on to transform the life of others. By being constantly mindful, research shows that transformational leaders function better than other leadership models in time of change or crisis. The author had the privilege of being at Harvard Law School at the same time as Barack Obama, although Obama was a year ahead and we were in different programmes. We might have occupied adjacent cubicles in the library or even taken the same international law classes together. Certainly, we went through similar "suffering" for a period of time. Gruelling study aside, the author also recalled how classes were cancelled as students staged sit-in protests, demanding that a tenure position be given to an African-American female faculty. It was a cause Obama was known to support. Although we do not have evidence if Obama indeed had some mindfulness training at Harvard Law, we do know that mindfulness meditation is now a regular fixture at the school. The initial workshop was so successful it has grown into a full-fledged programme called Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative, aiming, among others, to train people to listen mindfully to others, which is doubtlessly the required basis of successful negotiations. If a predominantly Christian country can incorporate this Buddhist wisdom into its top law school's curriculum and in effect producing great leaders, so can we. Yes, we can. (Sorry, couldn't resist it!) Wakeup call for world leaders It may seem incredible that a person with such a humble beginning as Obama could have made it this far. Yet, when looking through the lens of Buddhism, it should not come as a surprise. This is a mindful and humble candidate with a deep understanding of dhamma running a thoughtful and honourable campaign, encouraging people to be selfless and join forces to create good karma for the purpose of lifting others out of suffering. It is precisely because of this that people all over the world were drawn to this campaign. It is not only about the economy, but also because the human mind responds naturally to inspiring virtue. The world cannot have enough of transformational leaders. Mindfulness, non-aggression, the understanding of true nature of things, recognition of the Buddha-nature in every human and tangible, action-based selflessness for the benefit of others, the campaign could not have been more Zen-like than this. As a Buddhist country, we should be happy to see mindfulness in action on a global scale, and Obama's embodiment of Buddhist values should be a wakeup call to us. A mindful candidate can surely achieve great things for society. This, inevitably, brings us to ask ourselves if this kind of clean, honourable campaign and mindful, selfless and focussed politician who enters politics to serve others is too much to ask for in a traditional Buddhist country like ours. Where and how should we start? How about some wise words from Obama himself as quoted in Time magazine, "We need to start over," he said, "speak gently, listen carefully, find solutions and keep our words." Mindful advice is always context-free. Surely, Obama's insightful advice can be applied everywhere and anywhere, not just to the current American political and economical mess. The answer depends on how soon we could say, "Yes, we can!" To make sure we reach that day sooner than later, perhaps it would help to at least mindfully refrain ourselves from the usual politics of, "No, we20can't!" The author is currently writing a dissertation on the role of mindfulness in transformational leadership development. Questions, comments and recommendations are welcome at http://zen-sense.blogspot.com

HolyJoe's diminishment

2008-11-24T04:43:00.000-08:00

As our readers know from my past blogs, I have an intense dislike of Joe Lieberman. One reason is his sanctimoniousness; hence, "HolyJoe."

I was outraged that the Senate Dems let him keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security, which I saw as kowtowing to HolyJoe's threat to have a temper tantrum and go join the Repubs if they didn't. I know the importance of the 6o vote filibuster-proof majority; but my rage was such that I was willing to let that go. Call his bluff. Just say No, and force him to decide if he really wants to join the losing side.

Yes, I know that Obama let it be known that he wanted HolyJoe to stay in the Dem Caucus, altho he didn't say (at least not publicly) that he should be allowed to keep his chair. I had about come to terms with that, thinking that Obama is a bigger man than I am and, quite properly, more interested in getting his agenda passed than in racking up vengeance.

A blog by Bob Cesca on Huffington Post a couple of days ago gave me a new perspective on it, however. He excoriates HolyJoe for his negative campaigning against Obama, especially questioning his patriotism. To me, that was unforgivable.

But then Cesca addresses HolyJoe directly, saying "you think you got away with it, right?":

Not so fast.

I submit to you, Senator Lieberman, that you were punished yesterday more than you realize. . .
In sharp contrast to your behavior, President-elect Obama hasn't shown any predilection for pettiness or disloyalty, nor has he undermined his allies for the sake of political expedience. He's proved himself to be a man of great character. . . .
You, on the other hand, have shown an unapologetic contempt for the party that once nominated you for the vice presidency -- . . . . You've betrayed your fellow liberals to settle a political score, Senator. . . .

This is behavior President-elect Obama doesn't appear to be capable of. Because he's clearly better than you. In fact, it's not difficult to hypothesize that had you possessed a fraction of his political instincts or any small measure of his morality, you would absolutely not be in this position, Senator.

See, by allowing you to keep your precious chairmanship -- by letting you off the hook -- President-elect Obama, through his political bigness, punished you without punishing you. He beat you yesterday, Senator. He beat you because he let you be you, and underscored it with his demonstrably better angels and strength of character.

In the final analysis, the hard reality is that by not choosing retribution, he made you look...

...small.

And that, Senator, is good enough for me.
Cheers!
Bob Cesca

Now that almost makes it tolerable for me. When you add that this also gives the Dems the upper hand for making demands on him for votes or for actually doing something useful with his committee -- maybe it is tolerable. Just as long as they keep him away from TV cameras. I don't want to have to look at HolyJoe's kewpie doll face ever again.

Ralph

Stop Blaming the Unions

2008-11-20T05:27:00.000-08:00

Predictably, the right wingers are blaming workers, not management for the US auto industry problems. The problem with that is that it isn't true.

The Detroit Free press ran this article disputing the allegation that unioin wages are out of line for American carmakers.

The UAW is losing its edge in pay compared with non-unionized U.S. assembly plant workers for foreign companies, even as Detroit automakers aim for deeper benefit cuts to trim their losses.

In at least one case last year, workers for a foreign automaker for the first time averaged more in base pay and bonuses than UAW members working for domestic automakers, according to an economist for the Center for Automotive Research and figures supplied to the Free Press by auto companies.

In that instance, Toyota Motor Corp. gave workers at its largest U.S. plant bonuses of $6,000 to $8,000, boosting the average pay at the Georgetown, KY, plant to the equivalent of $30 an hour. That compares with a $27 hourly average for UAW workers, most of whom did not receive profit-sharing checks last year. Toyota would not provide a U.S. average, but said its 7,000-worker Georgetown plant is representative of its U.S. operations.

Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. are not far behind Toyota and UAW pay levels. Comparable wages have long been one way foreign companies fight off UAW organizing efforts.

But Toyota workers' pay topping that of UAW members comes as the union faces contract negotiations this year with struggling Detroit companies that will seek billions in concessions, partly because they face higher costs for retiree health care and pensions than their foreign-owned competitors.

Who's to blame?

UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel said if Toyota workers were paid more than union workers last year, the blame lies with Detroit's auto executives. The companies have lost market share because of past mistakes, which have translated into fewer bonuses for workers, said Casteel, who is on the union's executive board.

"Our profit-sharing formula, I know, is better than theirs -- if our vehicles are selling," Casteel said.

Ron Lare, a 59-year-old Ford employee on pre-retirement leave, said Toyota workers shouldn't get too excited about their wages because bonuses fluctuate. The only thing consistent, Lare said, is union protection.

"The floor beneath their feet is basically what the UAW has won," said Lare of Detroit, who has worked at Ford for 28 1/2 years. "If the UAW gets beaten down, their pay is going to come down. You let there be a real recession in the auto industry -- that bonus won't be there for Toyota, either."

Union perks vs. nonunion perks

The pay comparisons reflect the relative profitability of the foreign and domestic companies more than shortcomings of the UAW. But the situation chips at the argument that workers united in solidarity can get better wages, benefits and job security -- especially as the UAW shrinks and growing foreign companies continue to ward off organizing efforts.

"How do you convince someone you're better off with the protection of a union when they're making more money than the union employee?" asked Alfred McLean, a 66-year-old hourly UAW member at General Motors Corp.'s Warren Tech Center. He has 28 years of experience.

Workers for foreign automakers don't pay union dues, but they do share the costs of insurance and retirement plans. UAW-represented autoworkers get health insurance and a full pension after 30 years -- valuable perks they will fight to keep during contract negotiations this year.

But even accounting for Toyota employees' health care spending -- $700 per year on average, according to the company -- the Georgetown workers still made more in 2006.

General Motors Corp., which lost $10.6 billion in 2005 and didn't issue profit-sharing checks last year, paid its production workers an average of $27 an hour, GM spokesman Daniel Flores said. That would be a base of about $54,000 a year, based on a 2,000-hour work year. The $30 average at Toyota's Georgetown plant, which includes a bonus, equals $60,000 a year.

Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler Group representatives said GM's base pay figures are similar to theirs. Only Chrysler, which had a 2005 profit, paid a bonus last year. The $650 bonus was not enough to surpass Toyota's pay.

For years consumers have been asking for fuel efficient vehicles. What has been the response from US carmakers? Build more trucks and SUVs because the profit margin is larger. Unfortunately management failed to provide American consumers with the high mileage vehicles they wanted- which is why Toyota and Honda sold out in the US.

But American carmakers did build them for Europe.

Here are some links to wonderful, fuel efficient cars GM is building in Europe. These would've sold in the US.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/european-car-of-the-year-goes-to-general-motors/

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/07/gms-new-europea.html

So enough of the BS about union wages destroying the car industry.

I sail bail out the carmakers - only if their entire management teams step down, or agree to work for free until profitability is restored.

Out with the old -- an update

2008-11-18T07:42:00.001-08:00

Well, yes, out with the old Bush administration, in with Obama's team. But there's the rub. By offering Hillary the Secretary of State position (if Bill gets a clean bill), Obama is flirting with keeping too much of the old.

The old team of rivals idea is great, and some say bringing in Hillary shows Obama's confidence that he can still be in charge. With anyone else, I'd agree. But Bill and Hillary are in another class altogether when it comes to dramatically using the media to stir up controversy and cause trouble.

But SoS would put her as the administration's leading voice and policy person in the very area in which they differed most in the primaries. Not only on the Iraq war but in her more hawkish position vis a vis meeting with our enemies and her hardline stance generally internationally. Disagree in private, yes. But will she then be a team player and accept his decisions? Or will she undermine him and subtly push her own views.

But even that concerns me less than the Clintons' affinity for drama and for using the media to promote their view and undermine the administration. And if (when) that happens, it would be a huge political risk for Obama to fire her. That's scenario is playing out even now. Look how they're talking to the media, making it seem inevitable even before Bill has been vetted, thus making it difficult for Obama not to give it to her.

Maybe it's worth it. In some ways, it would be brilliant. And I guess if Obama can forgive her for the primary negativity, I can. But I worry about her and Bill being able to accept being #2.

Ralph

Hillary for Sec. of State??

2008-11-17T06:02:00.000-08:00

My first reaction to news that Obama had offered the Secretary of State position to Hillary Clinton was negative. He's already surrounding himself with more people from the Clinton administration than seems consistent with "change." And then there's the over-riding problem of Bill -- his larger than life presence, his foundation contributors, and most troubling of all some of his financial dealings with important figures in other countries that might prove to be conflicts of interest with his wife as SoS (like the Khazakhstan uranium deal, or one with a Chinese internet company, and contributions to his library from several middle east Arab governments).

On the other hand, choosing Hillary suggests that Obama is not afraid of strong opposing voices in his cabinet -- in fact, he is embracing Lincoln's idea of a "team of rivals," in which he brought his political enemies into the cabinet. The Clinton name would definitely be an asset internationally, and Hillary would probably do a great job rebuilding our reputation.

On yet another hand, the messy, barely competent way her campaign was run does not bode well for Hillary as the administrator of the huge State Department organization, which is said to be rather demoralized after eight years of political ideology trumping career service.

Then there is the matter of Hillary's hawkish stance on the Iraq war. How well would that mesh with Obama's diplomacy and withdrawal stance?

Aside from the merits of the appointment (Kissinger has called it "outstanding"), how does it play out politically? Hillary supporters would be delighted. But what about Obama's netroot supporters, for whom Hillary is still something of a pariah after her negative campaign against him?

And what's in it for Hillary? She's still too junior in the Senate for a major committee chairmanship, and she's not likely to become majority leader in the foreseeable future. Ted Kennedy turned down her request for a new subcommittee on health care, which would have shifted the leadership on that issue from him to her. Although she's said she just wants to be the best senator for the people of NY, will she be satisfied to end her political career there? If she has any idea of another run for president, might SoS be a better launching platform for 2016 than the Senate? Obama may not be thinking this way, but if things don't go well for him in the next 4 years, it would make it more difficult for her to run against him in 2012 if she has a major cabinet position.

I'm puzzled by the undenied reports that Obama has offered it to her and that she asked for time to consider it -- alongside reports that he's also interviewing Bill Richardson. Now I read online that Richardson was interviewed on Friday, which is definitely after the leaks that Obama had offered it to Hillary. That seems strange. Either he didn't offer it yet but just discussed it, or maybe they both know she can't take it (because of Bill) and the offer is a gesture.

I'm eager to see how this plays out. I'm ambivalent about it myself, seeing both positive and negative factors.

Ralph

Obama's First Mistake

2008-11-11T06:19:00.000-08:00

I hope Howard Dean will have an important role in the Obama Administration, otherwise it's a big mistake not to reappoint him to lead the DNC. Without Dean's visionary ideas about politics, Obama would never have been elected. Dean was the first candidate to develop a plan for recruitng volunteers and raising money via the internet. He was the architect of the 50-state strategy, which most Democrats fought.

I don't know where we're headed in future elections, but I would hate to see a visionary removed from a position where he can guide the party where it needs to go. Especially if the pundits are right, Obama wants to replace him with Claire McCaskill of Missouri - a move which harkens back to the traditional notion of appointing people who might win you a state you lost.

Here's hoping Dean is stepping down to lead the push for National Health Care, and not just leaving as part of a traditional political shuffle.

Finding the meaning of the election

2008-11-10T08:32:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to capture in words what this election means, as I've experienced it. I think it's going to take a long time for us to fully appreciate the far-reaching significance. But here's a start, some thoughts that are coming into focus for me now.

1. Books will be written about the racial significance. It is indeed a milestone and a defining moment. The image of Jesse Jackson's tear stained face in the crowd listening to Barak's speech in Grant Park says it. It's the look of wonder in the eyes of African-American boys and girls who, even in this day, see this as affirming something new for them. Though legally permissible, the practical reality of one of them becoming president had not felt like a possibility. Now it is. It's what brought so many of us to tears that night, realizing that we hadn't even quite known how much we needed this defining moment until now it's here.

And this, that I didn't catch that night because -- who listens to the announcer? But now we read that Tuesday night with the crowd waiting for the speech and the hour at hand, the announcer did not say: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States." No, he said: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next First Family of the United States." And out onto the platform strode that beautiful, vibrant, comfortably assured young family -- Barak, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha -- who are all so devoted to each other and who genuinely find joy and love in their bonds and their time together. It's palpable, even from a distance. They will be a stunning role model as First Family, not just for African-American families, but for all families.

2. The Atlanta newspaper's Pulitzer winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich had another winner on November 5th. It showed President Obama sitting at his desk, taping back together the jigsaw puzzle-like fragments of the United States Constitution. Most of us don't even realize how much the Bush administration has shredded the fabric of our democracy. How fitting that we've elected a former professor of Constitutional Law to put it back together.

3. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was right; it matched Obama's wise plan to campaign in and for all states. Hillary was wrong when she said "He can't win." Not only did he win, he won all age groups except the oldest. He won a majority of both women and, by a narrow margin, men. He won urban votes but also suburban. There were remarkable flips, especially in Hispanics, who went for him by big margins and helped carry FL, CO, and NM. With the exception of the Appalachian region, down through TN, AR, OK, and Northern TX, the whole country shifted toward Democratic candidates. Even in states Obama didn't win, votes were closer than 2004, like Salt Lake City which McCain won by 2,000; Bush had won by 80,000.

4. Obama's popular vote margin of 6.5% and his electoral vote of 365 to 173 is a decisive victory, enough to call a mandate for change: on exit polls, those who put "change" as their most important criterion voted for Obama by 89 to 9. McCain's attempt to co-opt the mantra of "change," to portray himself and Palin as the Two Mavericks, failed to fool the people. In fact, none of their negative tactics worked; at most they activated their own base. One take away lesson from this election: the American electorate is not so easily fooled as it was in 2000 and 2004. Perhaps an economic crisis makes you think more clearly about where your real interests lie.

5. It means, for one thing, that we can trust our government again. I had not realized what a relief this will be. I no longer feel constantly tense, knowing "they" are screwing things up every day and lying about it, feeling it's up to me to do something but without power to do so. How odd that this seems remarkable: we can expect a government that is competent, transparent, honest and trustworthy, and one that respects science and welcomes the knowledge of experts. Now, we can relax and just trust our new president to do the right thing and to choose his administration based on intelligence, knowledge, and competence rather than political loyalty and desire to undermine the department they control.

6. I find it refreshing lately to be able to quote the other side in praise of Obama. Charles Krauthammer is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post and, in my opinion, he is usually offensively wrong. But here's his take on our President-elect; after discussing the mistakes of the McCain campaign, he says:

Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that, too.

With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.

7. One reason Obama's campaign was so drama-free and so successful is that he knew who he was and what he wanted to do, and he simply stuck with it. The campaign didn't have to spend hours every day figuring out how to change the message for political effect. David Axelrod said his concern at the beginning was whether Obama "had that pathological drive to be president. You know, so often, what defines presidential candidates is this need to be president, to define themselves. He didn't have that. And, you know, we told him, 'You're gonna have to find some other way to motivate yourself.' And he did, which was what he could do as president."

We have elected a mature, healthy, whole man, not someone whose drive for power can only be satisfied by the ultimate power job, or someone who is trying to work out his conflicted relationship with his father. His ambition seems to be primarily what he can do for the country and, ultimately, for the world. Critics would say that betrays a grandiosity, even messianic mania. But, if it is grounded in a mature, coherent self identity, instead of narcissism, it also happens to define the rare, transformative leader.

8. Most of all, I am filled with pride and admiration and contentment. We the American people have chosen an extraordinary man for a perilous time. He brings remarkable intelligence, wisdom, emotional maturity, and seemingly an ideal temperament for the demands of the job. Watching him grow over the past 22 months assures me that he will continue to grow in office and that he will be judged by history as one of our great presidents.

Ralph

Hatred from the Right

2008-11-10T07:36:00.001-08:00

It didn't take long. On election night four students at North Carolina State University spray-painted "Shoot Obama" and "Kill the nigger" in a tunnel on campus. What happened when they were caught? Nothing. They were scolded. I guess it's okay to call for the assassination of the president elect. The right wing whackos were apoplectic when someone hung a Halloween mock-up of Palin from a tree in California(following the Obama hung in effigy in Ohio). But - Surprise! Surprise! - I haven't heard one word from the right condemning the vile call for murder at NCSU.

Yesterday I saw an incredible one-man play written by Mike Wiley, based on Tim Tyson's novel "Blood Done Call My Name". It was about the racist murder of a young black man in Oxford, NC.

In 1970.

While I was graduating from Brockton High School, people down here were murdering young black men, and getting acquitted.

In 2008, we have college students calling for the murder of a man elected president just because he happens to be 50% African American.

Things haven't changed that much. And they probalby won't. Sarah Palin stoked the fires of hatred with her bitter, name-calling condemnatory campaign. And for a core group of fanatics, that hatred will continue to smolder. Yesterday I heard Limbaugh refer to Obama's government as "The Lewinskyites".

Besides the obvious idiocy of such a characterization, the use of that term speaks of a mind so narrow and prejudiced that he can't even attempt to tolerate, let alone understand, anyone whose views are different from his own. His 'dittoheads' will certainly mimic his hatred.

This came a day after he condemned a defeated Republican Congressman for daring to say the Republican Party needed to broaden its base, reach out to Blacks and Hispanics.

"No we don't," Rush screamed. He ended by saying good riddance to this Republican, he was glad he was defeated.

Obama has created an atmosphere where millions of people now feel safe to accept each other in the hopes of moving forward, creating, as cliched as it sounds, a more loving and just society.

We have to hope that the knuckle-draggers will soon die out, or find small caves to hide in where they can rail at the shadows on the wall and think they're talking to the world.

California marriage equality: not yet . . . again.

2008-11-09T14:27:00.001-08:00

California is at war with itself over gay marriage. For those who may not have been following this issue, here are the basic facts:

1977: From 1850 until 1977, California marriage laws were gender neutral, a contract between two people. In 1977 the legislature defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."

2000: In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which enacted a law that defined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.

2004: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, in defiance of what he considered an unconstitutional and discriminatory law, ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. These nearly 4,000 marriages were later annulled by the CA Supreme Court upholding the law, as it was then written.

2005: CA legislature passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages. Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed it. Again in 2007 the legislature passed a similar bill and again the Gov. vetoed it.

2007: In the fall of 2007, a valid petition by voters put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. The operative phrase was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the same as in Proposition 22. But, whereas Prop22 was for a statute, which could be ruled unconstitutional, Prop8 was for a constitutional amendment which could not.

May 2008: CA Supreme Court ruled that the statue put into effect by Prop22 was unconstitutional, thus granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which began in June 2008. Some 18,000 couples married between June and election day.

Nov 2008: Prop8 passed by 52% to 48%, thus nullifying the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. It officially changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. There had been a massive, $60 million campaign to pass the measure, launched by Mormon and Catholic religious organizations. Their advertising included misinformation and scare tactics to inflame emotions.

To get on the ballot, a voter initiative requires simply a petition of voters equal to 8% of the number who voted in the last (2006) election of governor. This process completely bypasses the state legislature.

Legal challengers are claiming that, because this takes away a right that same-sex couples had been granted by court decision in its interpretation of the Constitution, it in fact is not "amending" the constitution but "revising" it and therefore has the higher requirements of legislative approval. Obviously this would make a great difference, since the legislature has already twice voted to make same-sex marriage legal. This is unlikely to prevail, since courts turned down a similar argument to stop Prop8 from getting on the ballot. However, that might have been simply a procedural decision, based on not preempting a voter initiative. So it's worth trying.

There it stands. My own opinion about the process is that it makes no sense for it to be this easy to amend a constitution on such important issues. Why bother to have a constitution if a small percent of voter can put it on the ballot and a simple majority can adopt it? Usually it is made difficult to amend constitutions in order to avoid this kind of highly emotional campaign fervor leading to bad decisions. In Georgia, by contrast, it requires a supermajority of 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature, followed by voters adopting it by a simple majority.

On the other hand, in this particular case, it also makes it equally easy to undo with another ballot initiative. In contrast, in Georgia, we will have to get our Republican majority legislature, both houses, to vote by 2/3 majority, to put it back on the ballot at some future date. In the foreseable future, that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Granted that many people oppose marriage equality for gays, while still being fully supportive of equality of rights and benefits, withholding only the benefit of "marriage" itself. Many people want to keep this distinction either from religious beliefs or because of not wanting to change what is such a tradition, feeling that it would somehow take something away from the institution of marriage as we have known it.

However, first I would offer the evidence that, in the three years experience in Massachusetts of gay and lesbian marriages, there has been no discernable effect on heterosexual marriages or on the institution itself. Second, I offer this anecdote to ponder:

In the 2004 flurry of gay marriages in San Francisco, first-in-line to get their license were the lesbian couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, iconic leaders of the gay rights movement who had also been life partners for over 50 years. Their 2004 marriage was later annulled by the Court.

Just a few weeks prior to this, Britney Spears waked up one morning after a night of wild partying with an old high school boyfriend and discovered that, without quite meaning to, she had married him at a midnight ceremony in the 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas. In the 52 hours that it took Britney's handlers to get it annulled, she was entitled to more than 1000 government benefits that are available to married couples but that were denied to Del and Phyllis.

Fortunately, Del and Phyllis had another opportunity to get married, which they did last August. And this time it was legal. Del died a few weeks later at the age of 87 of the cancer she had been battling. But she died legally married to her long time partner.

Britney's subsequent troubles with drugs, divorce, second marriage, drugs, second divorce, child custody battles, scuffles with police as she shuttled in and out of drug rehab, raises the question: who demeaned the institution of marriage: Britney or Del and Phyllis?

Ralph

More on why HolyJoe should go

2008-11-08T04:56:00.000-08:00

Colin McEnroe in the Hartford Courant (Hartford, CT, Lieberman's home state) ponits out that Lieberman has broken with his party, not only by campaigning for its presidential opponent but by engaging in "loathsome fear-mongering against the man he once begged to come and save him."

What he's referring to is that, when Lieberman was losing the Democratic primary in 2006 to Ned Lamont, he tried to get Obama to come and campaign for him. Obama did not -- but then neither did he work against him. He just didn't get involved trying to save a man whose position on the Iraq war he strongly opposed who was about to be defeated by a strong anti-war candidate.

The party owes him nothing. He turned against it when he ran as an independent against his party's nominee for senator from CT in 2006, he turned against it when he endorsed McCain, and he sealed his fate when he joined the negative smear campaign against our next president.

If Harry Reid and the Democrats don't show him the door, then they are indeed spineless and short-sighted. His vote is not worth the message of letting him do this without consequences. Let him stay in the caucus if he wants to; but take away his committee and, I would say, his seniority.

It is grimly ironic, as McEnroe points out, because of the seniority system in the Senate, this mealymouthed turncoat chairs one of the prestigious committees (Homeland Security), while Hillary Clinton does not chair a committee at all.

Ralph

Election fraud in Alaska?

2008-11-07T13:32:00.000-08:00

Something is wrong with the vote in Alaska.

First, the total vote was surprisingly low, less than in 2004, despite a 12.4% increase in their August primaries, which were before Gov. Palin was put on the ticket.

Either people stayed home rather than vote for "the most popular governor in America," or something happened to some of the ballots.

Now, add to that the fact that apparently Senator Ted Stevens has won his race for reelection, despite having been convicted of felonies connected to political corruption and despite the fact that a poll taken by respected Research 2000 showed his opponent (Begich) leading by 22% points just days before the election.

Another respected national pollster, Rasumssen, who also predicted a solid win for Begich, correctly predicted every other senate race in the country within the margin of error in its latest poll -- except this one in Alaska.

Supporting the question about fraud even further, Representative Don Young, who is under investigation by the FBI for corruption, was also predicted to lose by multiple pollsters. He also pulled off a surprise "win."

I don't care if the people of Alaska found out they didn't like their governor so much after all and decided to stay home. But it seems, if anything, that would have reduced the vote for other Republicans as well, not increased it for Stevens and Young.

Something's rotten in the state of Alaska.

Ralph

No Way, HolyJoe

2008-11-07T13:18:00.000-08:00

This farce, wherein HolyJoe Lieberman thinks he is in a position to negotiate whether he keeps his chairmanship of a major committee as part of the Democratic caucus, is in fact . . . a farce.

HolyJoe not only endorsed McCain, which could possibly be forgiven as a kind gesture to a good friend; but he campaigned actively for him and would have gladly accepted the VP nomination, if offered. Worse, he repeatedly said unforgiveable things about Barak Obama -- guestioning his readiness (while presumably thinking Sarah Palin was ready), questioning his solidarity with Israel, questioning his patriotism, and revving up the Bill Ayers smear.

Now he turns around and starts saying nice things about Obama's victory. No, HolyJoe, you don't get to get away with that hypocrisy.

HolyJoe told Harry Reid that he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus but that losing his committee chairmanship is "unacceptable." Well, I say lettting him keep it is unacceptable. I have signed a couple of petitions on it. If you have the chance, I urge you to do so.

Forget the Senate 'gentleman's club' atmosphere; forget letting him apologize and move on, as Evan Bayh suggests. Kick the mealymouth, sorry ass out of there !!!

Ralph

Afterthoughts #2

2008-11-07T09:27:00.001-08:00

Drew Westen, Emory psychology professor, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, informal advisor to the Obama campaign, and friend of mine, has a concise summary of why Obama won: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html

He says that McCain was saddled from the start with 3 strikes against him: an unpopular president, an economic downturn, and an unpopular war, none of which he could really distance himself from because of his 90% support for Bush's policies.

But he also credits Obama with many positive factors that led to his win. He has an extraordinary ability to organize people and motivate them to participate. Like Bill Clinton, he has "both the general intelligence to govern and the emotional and political intelligence to win. And they finally abandoned the approach to campaigning that has been their downfall for generations: peppering voters with facts, figures, and policy positions and assuming they will see what a rational choice the candidate is."

Another comment from Drew: "What Democrats learned from this election is that if their candidate thinks like a professor but inspires like a preacher, they can have their cake and eat it, too."

Ralph

Afterthoughts #1

2008-11-07T08:12:00.000-08:00

As I just wrote in my comment on Richard's post, before cutting back to weekly postings, I will post some "afterthoughts" over the weekend. Here on this 3rd post-election day, my feelings about it still haven't coalesced into a coherent whole. Rather than wait until they do, I'm going to jot down some disparate thoughts, and we'll see about some grand summary later.

1. Starting with what I just read online, Obama's agenda for today: meeting with his transition team of economic advisers, holding his first news conference as President-elect, getting his first national security briefing, returning numerous protocol congratulatory messages, all the while confering privately with potential appointees. But this busy day began with his attending parent-teacher meetings with Michelle at their children's school.

What a guy !! We've had presidents with young children before, but I don't remember any who were so obviously involved in their children's lives. The photo of JohnJohn Kennedy crawling out from under his father's desk in the Oval Office became iconic, and the Kennedy's were noted for family events. But pictures of Barak with his daughters show a degree of authentic joy with them that's rare. And he routinely answered questions about the rigors of campaigning by saying the hardest thing was not having more time to be at home with his daughters. That is only one of the many things I admire about this man, but this is definitely one of them.

2. Where are Bill and Hillary? Since the election, I saw nothing in the media about them or their reactions. Of course it must have been a bittersweet moment for them. and they did better to stay out of sight rather than have that picked over. Hillary has spoken to the press today, saying she called Obama to congratulate him and praising his choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

3. Speaking of the Emanuel appointment, his former boss in the Clinton White House, Leon Panette, said he is "the perfect SOB for the job." I take this as a signal that Obama plans to run a tight ship and to get things done, to use tough negotiating tactics with Congress and to ride herd on the White House staff. Having someone like Rahm, for whom this comes naturally, will free Obama to attend to policy issues and be the diplomat. They'll be a great good cop/bad cop pair.

4. Good for Campbell Brown for calling the McCain staff on their hypocrisy as they go after Sarah Palin. Not that I'm any fan of Palin, but their scapegoating of her is overboard. Here's what Campbell said:

You are the ones who supposedly vetted her, and then told the American people she was qualified for the job. You are the ones who after meeting her a couple of times, told us she was ready to be just one heartbeat away from the Presidency. If even half of what you say NOW is true, then boy, did you try to sell the American people a bill of goods.

I would only add that, as he said himself in his gracious concession speech Tuesday night, John McCain is the one ultimately responsible.

Ralph

Reduced Posting, and Interactive Analysis

2008-11-07T06:06:00.000-08:00

The NY Times has an excellent analysis page on the 2008 election. Not only is there a chart broken down by various demographic categories, you can compare the results, category by category, to previous elections going back to Reagan.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

Perhaps the most important lesson candidates might learn from this election is that the old notion that you begin with a base of white voters, then add minorities to bolster your totals, is no longer necessary. A successful presidential candidate can build a base of African-American, Latino, and Asian voters, and use white voters to supplement that.

This should lead to a greater emphasis on inclusive elections and policies. If the Republicans continue to focus on rural, white fundamentalists, they will fail to adapt to the demographic realities of this country. That 'base' is not large enough to win a national election, and because their beliefs are so narrow and rigid you cannot build an inclusive platform around them.

It may get ugly in the South, as this group of voters feel their power threatened, but Obama's election should provide an impetus to move our country forward into an era of tolerance, accommodation and emphasis on shared goals.

As for this blog - I spoke with Ralph yesterday, and we have decided to cut back our posting. We will post on every Monday. Of course, we also leave open the option of posting more frequently, as the urge to spout off hits us. And if anyone feels the need to comment on something we haven't discussed, notify us by talking about it in a comment to the most recent post and we will respond.

But for now, look for our new posts to appear weekly, on Mondays.

Wrapping up the numbers

2008-11-06T10:52:00.000-08:00

I haven't yet found the right words to say what I feel about this historic election of Barak Obama, so I'll put that off a bit longer.

Just a few more words about polls. Now that North Carolina is officially called for Obama (thanks, Richard; you did good), it brings his electoral count to 364. Now, for all I've made of the great polling analysis outfits, RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight, there is one other measure of how the campaigns are going that is very simple.

It's called InTrade, and it's based on the idea that you get more accurate predictions if people "vote" with their pocket books. People actually place bets on who they think will win. Not who they want to win, but who they're willing to bet money on. Just like at the race track.

There are several of them, but InTrade does it state by state. Then they add up the electoral votes of the candidates by who is leading in each state betting pool.

The Obama/McCain split has been pretty consistent, with a few deviations from time to time, since last summer when I began following it.

And guess what that magic number for Obama has been for most of the past 3 months: 364

So, unless Missour's final count turns out to go for Obama, which looks unlikely, InTrade would have to take the prize for absolute accuracy. If it goes for Obama, then he would have 375, just 3 short of the 378 that George Will predicted and that everyone thought was way too high.

Ralph

Fox News Points Out How Scary It Was

2008-11-06T06:34:00.000-08:00

I know it's post-election, but Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron revealed information that makes it clear the choice of Palin was an outrageously dangerous one that could have put the entire country at risk if McCain had been elected. No matter who you voted for, no one should ever, ever nominate someone whose ignorance is so extreme.

According to Fox News - Fox, the right wing lap dog -

The McCain people felt Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency"

Partly because

Palin didn't understand Africa was a continent, or a series of countries. She thought it was 1 country in itself. She actually asked her aides if South Africa wasn't just a part of the country of Africa.

She had no idea which countries were in NAFTA(the US, Canada, and Mexico - DUH!). She couldn't name the countries in North America.

She was totally unfamiliar with basic conservative philosophical positions, like American exceptionalism.

She had "real problems" with basic civics, governmental structures, municipal/state/federal governmental responsibilities.

McCain wouldn't even let her go on O'Reilly - according to O'Reilly - unless McCain was sitting beside her to bail her out should her ignorance get her in trouble.

She refused preparation help for the Couric interview, then blamed her staff when she self-destructed.

Again according to both O'Reilly and Fox News' Cameron, Palin cracked under the pressure of the campaign. She threw tantrums, screaming and throwing things, when she viewed negative press clippings. She cracked over the 'pressure' or bad press? God forbid what would happen if she had a real crisis to deal with.

She was so angry and nasty towards her staff she reduced them to tears.

One of the stories the McCain camp tells now to show how Palin was clueless, is of the time the campaign went to her hotel room to pick her up and she greeted them at the door wrapped in a towel, having just stepped out of the shower.

She was a shopaholic who would go out and buy clothes even after the McCain campaign provided her with that $150,000 wardrobe. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.

This isn't about clothing, it's about deceit. Just like hiding her emails.

To McCain's credit he did not know about this. Aides knew he'd be pissed at the clothes shopping, so they kept that information from him. McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin and vetoed her request to speak at his concession speech.

Remember, the sources for this information - Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the McCain campaign. Not the 'liberal media'.

But this was beyond selecting an incompetent running mate. This was about making a crass political decision that willingly put the country at risk merely for political gain.

The morning after

2008-11-05T07:44:00.001-08:00

Hey, Richard. You're right, of course, your states came through and mine didn't. Thanks for that.

What a sweet morning after . . . although I have to admit, I'm a little slow getting going this morning. With sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion from standing for 8 hours as a poll watcher, and emotional exhaustion from 21 months of this . . . I'm a little numb.

I haven't quite assimilated winning into my emotional DNA.

Back to winners/losers: As of 10AM, it's looking like our GA senatorial candidate Jim Martin may force a run-off with Saxby Chambliss. With a Libertarian candidate taking a few 3.4%, Chambliss is leading with only 49.9% with 96% counted. It turns out they still had a lot of absentee ballots to count when we all went to bed last night. It's rumored that they are mainly in Fulton County, which went big for Obama. Now that would be huge and almost make up for not taking the state for Obama. In fact, moreso, because Obama's got more than enough EV's -- and he could use another conversion from R to D in the senate.

Also, here are my bragging rights, Richard. I couldn't deliver the whole state; but my current county of residence, Fulton -- as well as my home town county, Washington -- went big for Obama. And this is in Bible belt, semi-rural, middle Georgia. So, there !!

Ralph

PS: Not to rub it in, but my numbers guru was right on the money in almost every race -- Obama popular vote 52.3 to 46.4% (+ 5.9% and Nate predicted 6.0%. No Bradley effect.). And it includes a 1.0% win in NC and a 3.7% loss in GA. A few not-quite-on misses: He had predicted a 1.5% win for McCain in IN, and he underestimated Obama's surprisingly big win in NV. And Missouri is still too clase to call, and he gave it to Obama with 0.1%.

Hey Ralph, My People Came Through

2008-11-05T05:17:00.000-08:00

Hey Ralph, I noticed on the election map that the states I lived in came in big for Obama. Massachusetts 65%, Washington 58%, Pennsylviania 55%, and it even looks like he'll win North Carolina with 50%.

What happened in Georgia? You failed to deliver the 'Cracker State' for our candidate.

I hope you do better next time or we're just going to have to put you out to pasture.
richard

Voter Intimidation Already

2008-11-04T09:23:00.000-08:00

I received this eyewitness report from a person manning the polls in Virginia.

I showed up for my first shift handing out ballots and showing the flag
at about 8:50 and left at 10:15. Voting at that hour was very light,
but many federal workers showed up before the doors opened at 6:00 AM,
and through the first hour the line was out the door. By 8, I'm told,
waiting was zero or just a few minutes. This is typical of this
precinct, no matter what the total voters are. There will be another
pulse, probably larger, between around 4:30 or 5:00 PM and closing time
at 7:00pm.

The precinct offered two ways to vote: touch screen and optical scan.
We urged all Dems to choose the paper ballot optically scanned as that's
a far more secure way to do things.

We did have some trouble. There were 4-6 Democratic workers, including
an outside lawyer plus an inside watcher and inside lawyer. The
Republicans sent one middle-aged woman with a hard looking face. She
approached every voter and offered a Republican sample ballot. If the
voter turned her down & said he/she wanted to vote Democratic, the GOPer
got mad and began haranguing the Democrat. We took names and phone
numbers. the 7 year old son of one such victim began to cry when the
GOPer said that she was very upset, very frightened for the boy if Obama
won.

Finally the chief precinct worker came out and looked. Then the
school's security officer chatted with the gal who was told she could
hand out ballots and chat but could not intimidate. She asked if she
could walk further away from the voting place and continue. "No. Not
on school property."

When she wouldn't take that for an answer the school principal sent for
the County's police. When I left two officers were reading her the riot
act and demanding that she either quit voter suppression, or they would
remove her from the site. But shortly after I left to get some rest
before going back in the PM.

So anyway, voter suppression tactics are not limited to lower class and
black neighborhoods. The median income in Great Falls, VA is pushing
hard on $75K, maybe higher. Our lawyer said that 4 years ago at the
same polling place there had been genuine suppression going on inside
the polling place by Republican poll watchers.

Documented Voter Fraud

2008-11-04T06:20:00.000-08:00

Okay, let's not get paranoid but already voters in West Virginia, Texas and Tennessee have talked about computerized voting machines trying to flip their votes to the candidate they didn't vote for. Yesterday Mike Connell, the Republican IT guru who created Ohio's 2004 election result network, was deposed in relation to a lawsuit looking into vote fraud in the 2004 presidential election.

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/#071808a

And Princeton University reports that the voting machines used in New Jersey and elsewhere can be hacked into in 7 minutes by anyone with "basic computer knowledge".

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9118204

What does this mean? I guess, if there are surprises, we need to all be vigilant and persistent and follow up to make sure all allegations of vote fraud are investigated.

Obama's wunderkinds

2008-11-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

Much has been said about the young people who are such a vital part of the Obama campaign -- not just in supplying enthusiasm and willingness to work all hours, but the brains and organizational ability.

Sean Quinn, the FiveThirtyEight associate who has been making the national tour of campaign sites, finally reported on Georgia. Even with the "skeletal staff" left behind when the national campaign decided they needed to relocate some to more competitive states back in September, the Georgia operation still has 33 offices and 175 stanging locations in the state, more than 4 times as much as any prior Democratic campaign.

Communications Director Caroline Adelman "credited wunderkind field operator Alex Lofton, now in Ohio, with setting up the infrastructure before he was considered too valuable not to have in a more competitive state. He opened up all the offices, he trained all the kids, did conference calls twice a day," Adelman explained.

"He was 23 and doing things in a way twice his age couldn't accomplish." Such are Obama's young brilliant organizers the campaign's great underwritten story. . . . "Really, in Georgia, that's all we needed," Adelman said. "The rest of it was neighbor to neighbor. People needed to see people in their own neighborhood" talking about Barack Obama. "

Now THAT is community organizing, you Republican snobs !!!

Ralph

The last, final, end of game 'poll talk'

2008-11-03T15:34:00.000-08:00

Just think -- after tomorrow, you won't be bombarded with my poll obsessions any more. I didn't used to think much of them either until I encountered the super-brainy guys who crunch numbers and also analyze the numbers they crunch at RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight.

So, here goes -- last round.

New tracking polls reported by RCP today show Obama edging up another notch, with 14 polls taken over the past 5 days averaging out at 7.3%. The more recent ones, done just yesterday and today, are even higher: 7%, 8%, and 9%. Two of those are related to the conservative organizations WallStreetJournal and FOX News.

Late tightening, with uncommitteds moving to McCain, doesn't seem to be happening. The marginal tightening in some battle-ground states, where McCain is making a last ditch stand, seems offset by Obama also picking up more. He is now at 50 to 55% in 13 of those 14 polls. If you're over 50%, you can only lose if a lot of those voters desert you.

Meanwhile, over at 538, here's Nate Silver's final take: Barak Obama is on the verge of a victory, perhaps a decisive victory. In the electoral vote race, Nate predicts Obama will take all the states Kerry won in 2008, holding on to Philadelphia, where Obama retains a +8% despite McCain's late push there. He also predicts that he is almost certain to take Iowa and New Mexico, which will give him 264 of the 270 needed to win.

He then has the relative ease of picking up 6 more votes from among the "in play" states, in several of which he has a significant lead: CO, VA, NV, OH, FL, NC, MO, and IN. Taking NV or NM at 5 each would give him a tie, while taking any one of the others alsone would give him more than 270 and the election. Or the combination of any two would give him the win with votes to spare.

In contrast, Nate says:

Winning any one of them may be fairly difficult for John McCain, but winning all of them at once, as John McCain probably must do, is nearly impossible. . . . McCain's chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or "Shy Tory" Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama's support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

McCain's chances of victory are estimated at 1.9 percent, their lowest total of the year.

I saw an analysis of polling with and without cellphone calls, and the data suggest that including exclusive cellphone users increases Obama's vote by about 2%.

I rest my case. Let's all try to get some sleep tonight. We may be up late tomorrow night.

Ralph

Palin - Hopefully for the Last Time

2008-11-03T08:45:00.000-08:00

It's gotten to the point where I don't even know what to say about Palin anymore. Should I point out that she attended a rally in Florida where there was not 1 sign featuring John McCain's name?

Or stick with her stunning statement that we're at war with both Iraq and Iran?

Or rail, again, about her claiming anyone who points out the negativity of her comments is violating her First Amendment rights - but it's okay for her to be negative and spout lies about her opponent?

Or how about her response to a question, at a recent rally, asking her why there was not a single minority at the rally and what she could do about that. After flubbing around a bit, she spouted "The Constitution preaches..." Then immediately pointed to Todd and said how "We have to live with it every day," i.e. being a minority? I guess?

Now the internet is rife with rumors once again, people offering suggestions as to why Palin won't release her medical records. Maybe she had an abortion one person writes. Maybe she's manic depressive, writes another. Maybe Trig really isn't her baby.

The simple response to these sorts of rumors is to say it's unfair to offer such speculations about any candidate. You might also say, Well, she deserves it. Her entire campaign is based on unsubstantiated rumors and innuendos she spews forth about Obama. What goes around, comes around

For me all the rumors, and stories about her idiotic remarks, or falling for a prank by 2 guys whose French accents were so bad a 6-year-old could have spotted it - those obscure what is really the most serious issue I see with Palin. Her utter disregard for any sort of transparency in her public life.

For someone who claims to be a 'reformer', Palin has been particularly cryptic about her past life and her governance. We don't have any records of her 6 years trying to get a Bachelor's degree. She stonewalled the investigation into Troopergate, which ultimately found she had abused the power of her office. All her work emails were sent to a private account so she could avoid legitimate scrutiny. She refused to release her medical records, then said she would, then never released them. She wouldn't talk to the press at all, then only in tightly controlled circumstances.

If you conduct your life as a public figure with such blatant disregard for openness and honesty, then you get what you deserve.

I could go on. But the point is, here is Sarah Palin is at the beginning of what is threatening to be a political career that will last through my lifetime, and from the start she has conducted herself politically with such secrecy and disregard for the public's right to know that it borders on paranoia.

The simplest way to end rumors about her medical records is to release them. The same with questions about impropriety in her handling of official Alaskan governmental business - release the emails. Questions of her intelligence? Stand before a battery of microphones, unscripted, and take questions for an hour, just like every other candidate.

Bush was caricatured by the left as a buffoon. And what did that get us? He was elected twice, and left us an economy in shambles, a useless war, and lack of respect for the US around the world. Instead of focusing on his fractured syntax, maybe if we had focused more on his ideas we might have been able to prevent him from being elected.

Let's not make the same mistake with Palin. Yes, she comes across as uneducated, willfully ignorant, and ditzy.

But her most important, and dangerous, quality is her desire for secrecy and unaccountability. That's nothing to laugh at.

Last pre-election day

2008-11-02T19:12:00.000-08:00

The long, long trek is almost over.

For what they're worth, the polls have favored Obama for the past month and seem to be edging up even more for him here at the end, with several now giving him double digits, and the best of the weighted average tracking polls showing him up by about 7.0% with incremental daily trends toward him.

There are not enough uncommitted voters at this point to make the difference. The only nightmare is, as Richard keeps reminding us, whether people are lying to pollsters and how much effect Republican dirty tricks (voter intimidation, voter challenges, and machine tampering) will have.

The other huge factor now is the get-out-the-vote organization. This is the unrecognized secret weapon that has been operating for weeks and will be totally unleashed now. My favorite numbers cruncher, Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, has also had a colleague, Sean Quinn, who has travelled the states with a photographer visiting some 50 cities to look at the Obama and McCain campaign offices around the country.

For the full story, go to http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/big-empty.html

Typical of what they found is that the McCain offices were sparsely occupied by one or two volunteers, sometimes making calls, sometimes chatting, and that their offices would close at 5pm and remain closed on weekends. In contrast, the Obama offices would be bustling with dozens of staff and volunteers open all hours, and full of "explosive energy."

I can add from personal experience here in Atlanta that I get sometimes half a dozen emails a day from various local Obama volunteers, inviting me to parties to help make phone calls or to other volunteer activities, rallies, get-out-the-vote drives, etc.

Quinn has been reporting on this tour incrementally, but now he has a summarizing article at the above link. His conclusion is:

These ground campaigns do not bear any relationship to one another. One side has something in the neighborhood of five million volunteers all assigned to very clear and specific pieces of the operation, and the other seems to have something like a thousand volunteers scattered throughout the country. Jon Tester's 2006 Senate race in Montana had more volunteers -- by a mile -- than John McCain's 2006 presidential campaign.

The Democratic establishment scoffed at Howard Dean's plan to organize in all 50 states. The scoffing stopped with Hillary's defeat, largely by Obama's strategy of running in every state. Then McCain and Palin sneered at Obama's community organizer work. But this 50-state strategy and this organizing the electorate like a community may well prove to be what turns a good lead into a landslide election and a mandate to change our government down to its roots.

McCain and Palin are about to find out what community organizing is all about.

Ralph

Obama, the incumbent . . . ? ?

2008-11-02T18:43:00.000-08:00

SC SenatorLindsey Graham, McCain acolyte and chief spinner, has often sounded hysterical and unhinged when he gets going on TV talk shows. But does anyone have a clue as to what he meant this morning on Face the Nation when he said this?

On Face the Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham just said "we've seen a tightening of the race [and] I really believe Obama is the virtual incumbent and if he's not at 50 percent in North Carolina he's not going to win."

I didn't see it, just saw the quote on TPM. Let's see: George Bush is the incumbent president; John McCain hates to admit it now, but he is of the same party, voted with him 90+% of the time, and wants to conintue most of his same policies, especially on taxes and our various wars. On top of that, McCain has been in Congress for 28 years, Obama for less than 3.

So how is Obama the incumbent? Explain it to me, Lindsey. Or have we reached the super-silly season, where the losing side will "just say things" without thought or shame?

Ralph

It's hard to remain cautious

2008-11-02T09:32:00.000-08:00

Despite all the factors that should make this a Democratic landslide year, despite recent polls showing Obama leading by 3% to 13% (average of 6.3%), despite the electoral vote projections showing that a McCain victory would require him to win every single one of the tossup states and take Pennsylvania away from Obama's persistent, strong lead there -- despite all this we have to remember that it comes down to people actually going to the polls and voting for Obama.

OK. No problem. Obama's ground game, get-out-the-vote organization is going to swamp McCain's. He doesn't have the organization, the volunteers, or the money that Obama does. In addition, 25% of the registered voters already have voted, and Obama has already banked a sizeable majority of those votes.

McCain's campaign manager Davis was on TV this morning; but the best spin he could make is that McCain will win all the tossup states plus PA, that the polls are all wrong, and that the tide is turning toward McCain. But the evidence just isn't there.

It does not suggest an upset in the making when, in the last week, Arizona has been moved into the tossup category, forcing McCain to go home to campaign and use robocalls in his own state, and the leading newspaper in Tucson, the second largest city, has just endorsed Obama.

But my biggest reassurance came watching This Week With George Stephanopolis. Guests were George Will, Mark Halperin, Matthew Dowd, and Donna Brazille. They all agreed that at this late date, the few undecideds in the polls typically either don't vote or else split about even. That's bad news for McCain, because he would need them to break decisively for him.

Predictions of the electoral vote count ranged from 338 to 378 by the panelists. And who was the high 378? George Will, the sober, conservative, cautious one of the lot. What makes those numbers so impressive is that even the lowest prediction, Matthew Dowd's 338, is still 68 more votes than Obama needs to win. That's a whole bunch of the tossup states he doesn't have to win, and it could happen -- and probably will.

Will the fat lady please hurry up and sing? It's hard to keep up an appearance of caution and calm.

Ralph

What We Could Have Bought Instead of the Iraq War

2008-11-02T05:37:00.000-08:00

Obama was right on the Iraq War, and no matter how hard Palin(who held a rally in Florida yesterday where not one sign mentioned McCain's name) talks about 'victory' or 'winning' we would have been better off if we hadn't ever embarked on that path.

On a simple level, Obama's proposal to provide a $4,000 tax credit for college students, in return for the students performing 100 hours of community service, will probably not come to pass because it would cost $10 billion - the same amount of money we are spending each month in Iraq.

But let's look at the larger picture. Everyone, right and left, admits the total cost of the war will reach 1 trillion dollars. That's $1,000,000,000,000. What could we have paid for with that money instead of the Iraq War?

It could have paid for every high school student in the US to have a free college education.

It could have paid for off every penny of credit card debt in the US.

It could have doubled the number of policemen in the country - for 32 years.

It could have purchased 16.6 million homes, housing 43 million Americans.

It could have literally paved the entire US highway system with 23.5 karat gold leaf.

It could have produced enough ethanol, solar, and other alternative energies to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Or, we could have paid every single man, woman, and child in Iraq $36,000 not to fight us. And as the Bush administration points out, that's what they're doing now, and it's effective.

http://www.whatwecouldhavedonewiththemoney.com/

When I balance those things out, it's hard to make a case for this being a wise use of our money.

With friends like these . . .

2008-11-01T14:09:00.000-07:00

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 . . .

2008-11-01T00:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-31T13:59:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-31T12:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-31T04:46:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-30T11:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-30T08:44:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-30T08:33:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-30T04:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-29T15:05:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-29T07:53:00.000-07:00

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 . . . "

2008-10-29T07:15:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-29T04:26:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-28T05:09:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-27T19:04:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-27T08:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-27T04:07:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-26T07:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-26T06:27:00.001-07:00

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

Palin's pipeline deal

2008-10-25T12:23:00.001-07:00

Investigative reporting by the Associated Press has revealed serious questions about Governor Sarah Palin's vaunted 1,715 mile pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. She has touted this as her signature accomplishment, using it to claim expertise on energy independence.

Not so, it now seems. There is real question that the TransCanada Corp. that won the contract will ever be able to get it built, due to financing and regulatory difficulties, despite what begins to seem like a sweetheart deal. Rather than making the bidding attractive to the global energy giants that actually own the rights to the gas, as even Dick Cheney had advised her, Palin created a process that favored a few local pipeline companies. In the end, five bids were submitted. Four were ruled out as not meeting the bidding requirements, leaving TransCanada Corporation as the only viable bidder.

In addition, AP raises questions about improper, insider links with this company. The leader of Palin's project team had worked previously for a subsidiary of TransCanada, a connection that would have violated Palin's own regulatory ethical guidelines. A former TransCanada executive served as an outside consultant to advise on the adequacy of their plan. And Palin herself had a phone conversation a few months prior to the deadline with both the President and CEO of TransCanada, reportedly "to clarify the bidding process."

Even more problematic are questions of whether TransCanada can get financing to build the project, even with the $500 million supplement quaranteed by the Alaska government. "Most definitely TransCanada got a sweetheart deal this time," said Republican Sen. Bert Stedman, who voted against the TransCanada license. "Where else could you get a $500 million reimbursement when you don't even have the financing to build the pipeline?"

This is the maverick that will transform the way Washington does business??

Ralph

Odds and ends

2008-10-25T09:07:00.000-07:00

Nov. 4 is just 10 days away. Still time for disaster to strike or for the election to be stolen by intimidation of voters or dirty tricks in the machines. But as each day brings us closer to the actual election without a game-changing event, these seem less likely to be decisive.

Here are some miscellaneous items that bolster my hope for a transforming victory for Obama and the politics of hope and change.

1. Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan's Solicitor General, Harvard Law professor, and respected conservative thinker, has asked that his name be removed from several McCain campaign-related committees on which he serves. Although he expressed enthusiastic support for McCain last January, he now says that he has already voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

2. Fried joins other prominent Republicans endorsing Obama, the latest being former Governor of Massachusetts William Weld.

3. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is not joining. In a strong rebuke to these "ship-jumpers," he wrote, "I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings."

Note: "I will go down with the McCain ship."

4. Obama's support among white voters is now the highest of any Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. At 44%, he evens tops Bill Clinton's 43% in 1996. Admit it, Hillary, Yes He Can. In this New York Times/CBS poll, he leads among all voters 52-37%, among men 52-39%, women 52-36%. He is ahead in all age groupings, as well as in voters with incomes both above $50,000 and below that level. The only demographic group where McCain is significantly ahead has to do with religion. McCain leads among white protestants and especially white evangelicals, while Obama leads among Catholics.

5. Several news sources are reporting on the tension between McCain and Palin, especially evident in their joint ABC interview. She is increasingly speaking out and going her own way in her rally speeches. It's said that she is no longer listening to her "handlers," and that she's hardly speaking to those travelling with her from the campaign. I'm guessing that the reality of defeat is sinking in, and she's beginning to look to her political future. Alas, that may not be so shiney. A poll shows that she is now only 3rd choice among Republicans for 2012. At 20% she is trailing both Romney at 35% and Huckabee at 26%.

6. Leaks from the campaign speak about the infighting that is going on over the blame game. A lot of this seems related to the choice of Palin, who now seems to be a net drain on the McCain ticket as more people view her unfavorably than favorably. Just as McCain's picking her took "experience" and "putting country first" off the table, now Shoppergate seems to be destroying the "hockey mom" image. Even some insiders are speaking of the campaign in the past tense.

7. In contrast, as Obama's polls continue to creep up toward solid double digits, attention is turning to speculating about an Obama chief of staff and cabinet positions.

8. And my final hopeful indicator is the formidable ground game, get-out-the-vote organization that Obama has organized. Just here in Georgia, there are over 3000 volunteers working on GOTV, and because the race is getting close here they're sending in 100 more volunteers from out of state.

Ralph

Early Voting Comfortable for African Americans?

2008-10-25T07:25:00.000-07:00

The early voting trends are pretty astounding in some states, NC and Georgia in particular.

Although Republicans usually vote early more than Democrats, that has been reversed this election.

In NC, Democrats have nearly a 2 - 1 edge in the first 1 million votes cast. African Americans, who make us 21% of the electorate, account for 28% of those who voted early in NC. In Georgia, 35% of the nearly 1 million early votes cast have been by African Americans, although in last election they made up only 25% of the total.

Early voting is particularly attractive, I believe, to poor and working class people because it gives them flexibility. It's attractive to African-Americans because they don't have to go to the 'official' voting place, where they are questioned and harassed, but can go to community centers in their neighborhoods, where they are helped by friends.

The sky Could fall . . . but probably won't

2008-10-24T09:35:00.000-07:00

Richard and I sort of naturally fall into the good cop/bad cop -- or optimist/pessimist -- dynamic. He keeps us grounded and worried, I cheerlead for what's possible, maybe probable, and somewhat cautiously actually believe will happen.

To repeat what I wrote in a comment to his post, I think that the voters he's worried about are already reflected in the polls, explaining why Obama is not leading by at least 20% -- which he probably would if he were white and running in the midst of the worst economic crisis of our generation, in the middle of a war opposed by 60+%, against an incumbant party in deep disarray, with a discredited incumbant president, and with a jaw-dropping 85% of Americans who say the country is heading in the wrong direction.

In addition, McCain's campaign has been a disaster of incoherence, erratic shifts, and gaffes. His Karl Rove type negativity is backfiring (sure it stirs the base, but he's got those votes anyway), and his choice of Palin has excited many but turned off even more. He tries to run away from Bush (but it's hard to do when he's on tape as bragging that he supported him 90% of the time). And that's also a double-edge sword. The lower his support drops, the more his Bush-bashing is also bashing his base who still support Bush. They have nowhere else to go, but they might stay home.

Now in the home stretch, it's probably too late to introduce anything new; only a national disaster or a real, as opposed to a fake, Obama scandal would have much effect. At this date, it comes down to money for final TV ads and the get-out-the-vote (GOTV) ground plan -- and Obama has him way over-matched in both.

One other factor: of course, polls can change, but the trend is still toward Obama just 11 days before the election. The two strange ones that got some notice this week with Obama leading by only 1% have been explained by Nate Silver. One of them wildly oversampled evangelical voters and the other extremely distorted the 18-24 age voters. It had them going for McCain 74-22. Now, with all other polls showing that age group going for Obama by margins of 25-35 points, this is just not believable. Nate calculated the statistical odds of that 74/22 for McCain being a true reflection as 55 billion to 1.

Even with those two 1% polls averaged in, however, this weeks tracking polls average out at 7.4% lead for Obama, with 5 of the 15 polls giving him a double digit lead. And the statewide electoral votes tell an even bigger story. He's now leading in Indiana, and the latest poll in Georgia has Obama leading by 1% -- within margin of error, of course, but it's the trend. GA wasn't even considered a battleground state until about a week ago.

But don't worry, Richard. I do still worry. About surprises. About stealing elections in key, close states. And about Obama's safety.

Ralph

Let Me Play Chicken Little - Obama is Falling?

2008-10-24T05:36:00.001-07:00

Although everything points to an Obama landslide, there are some things giving me pause.

Recently McCain signs have been sprouting up in North Carolina like mushrooms - they're all over the place.

The statewide radio programs, even the moderate ones, are full of people worried about Obama's "terrorist buddies"(note the plural). I have heard an unending stream of outrage, locally and on national stations, about Obama's 'spread the wealth' comment; many people can't see past the notion of taxes. One radio dj tried to talk to a man about, So, you'll really give up plans to grow your business because of an increased 3% in your tax rate? The caller insisted he would, and refused to listen to any reasoned argument about the overall economic program offered by Obama and how that would help him. All he could see/hear was that his taxes were going up - to help people who were too lazy to work. It's apparent this man is being reached by the McCain ad referencing 'welfare'.

A man on a call in show on C-span said he thought people, his friends, were going to go into the booth and vote for McCain out of fear because McCain and Palin have sown enough uncertainty about Obama's character that, in unsettled times, they'll go for the known quantity and vote for McCain out of fear of the unknown.

On another show a man said he was voting McCain because of abortion and gay marriage. "It doesn't matter if the economy is a mess. You need to get yourself right with God first," he explained, "then the rest will fall into line."

In 2004 Bush won Ohio because he pulled double digit votes from the conservative African-American community who supported him primarily because of his stand against gay marriage - so let's not underestimate the level of prejudice on that issue.

A poll referenced on NPR showed that , when asked if they'd prefer a Democratic president who could work with a Democratic Congress to get things done, or a Republican president who could function as a check to a Democratic congress, 20% more people said they'd prefer a Republican. 20% more people preferred gridlock, to the real possibility of change.

This reminded me of many of the women I worked with who were abused. Many people are afraid of change. When it comes right down to it, they'd rather stick with the known abuser, than risk giving someone new a chance. McCain is the' known abuser'.

I think many of the undecided voters are planning to vote for McCain but don't want to admit it publicly, because they know in their hearts it's a stupid decision. I was on a plane flying to Greece the night Ronald Reagan was elected. When they announced the result literally the entire plane erupted in cheers. People stood up in their seats.

Then 80% of the people, who'd just been cheering sat down and began to murmur, "But I didn't vote for him."

I think the same thing will happen with McCain.

The difference this time, I hope, is that Obama, coming out of a community organizer background, can actually mobilize enough supporters to get out hsi vote to insure a victory.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the election turned out much closer than people anticipate. And in a close election, anything can happen.

McCain conceding defeat?

2008-10-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

The McCain campaign is planning an election night party in a hotel ballroom, but McCain will not be speaking there. Instead, he plans to address a small group of supporters and select reporters on the hotel lawn, and it will be piped into the ballroom.

Aides said the arrangement was the result of space limitations and that McCain might drop by the election watch party at some other point. What? they couldn't find a bigger place?

That sounds to me like someone who's anticipating defeat.

Ralph

Barry Goldwater for Obama

2008-10-23T10:03:00.000-07:00

Let's see, early on we had Susan Eisenhower, Ike's granddaughter, endorsing Obama. Over the weekend, Colin Powell and Ken Adelman, both of whom served in Republican administrations at high levels, came out for him. Add in several former Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits Christopher Brinkley, Francis Fukuyama, and Andrew Sullivan (with hints from David Brooks).

Now Barry Goldwater's granddaughter has written a piece saying that she and her siblings and cousins are supporting Obama.

We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics. . . . Our generation of Goldwaters expects government to provide for constitutional protections. We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket.

My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman's right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930's, a cause my grandfather supported. I'm not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. [Note from Ralph: Before he died, Goldwater expressed his love and support for his gay grandson and took a stand for gay rights, though marriage itself was not on the agenda at the time.]

. . . the Republican brand has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear. Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician. . .

Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it's standing in the world, that's why we're going to support Barack Obama. I think that Obama has shown his ability and integrity. After the last eight years, there's a lot of clean up do. Roll up your sleeves, Senators Obama and Biden, and we Goldwaters will roll ours up with you.

I well remember Barry Goldwater's race against Lyndon Johnson in 1964. "Mr. Conservative," as he was called, was the arch-enemy of the liberal-progressive agenda. But his granddaughter is absolutely right. He would have denounced the Republican tactics and John McCain's campaign in a minute. As much as we disagreed with him on issues, he would be a breath of fresh air in today's fetid miasma that Karl Rove and his acolytes have wrought; and he would not stoop to rescue John McCain from the cesspool in which his bartered soul is languishing in defeat.

Ralph

Something different

2008-10-23T08:12:00.001-07:00

With polls looking better every day for Obama (+12 and +14 in Ohio in 2 new ones today), and with the news media still salivating about Sarah's shopping spree, I thought I'd put up something less political than thought-provoking about Life Choices. It's been around a while, but I just ran across it again.

A boat docked in a tiny Mexican village; an American tourist complimented a Mexican fisherman on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took him to catch them.

"Not very long," answer the Mexican. "But then, why didn't you stay out longer and catch more?" asked the man. The Mexican explained that his small catch was sufficient to meet his needs and those of his family.

The American asked, "But what do you do with the rest of your time?" "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, and take a siesta with my wife. In the evenings I go into the village to see my friends, have a few drinks, play the guitar, and sing a few songs. I have a full life."

The American interrupted. "I have an MBA from Harvard and I can help you!" "You should start by fishing longer each day. You can then sell the extra fish you catch. With the extra revenue, you can buy a bigger boat. With the extra money the bigger boat will bring, you can buy a second one and a third one and so on until you have an entire fleet of trawlers."

"Instead of selling your fish to a middle man, you can negotiate directly with the processing plants and maybe even open your own plant. You can then leave this little village and move to Mexico City, Los Angeles, or even New York City. From there you can direct your huge enterprise."

"How long would that take?" asked the Mexican. "Twenty, perhaps twenty-five years," replied the businessman.

"And after that?"

"Afterwards? That's when it get really interesting,"answered the American, laughing. "When your business gets really big, you can start selling stocks and make millions."

"Millions? Really? And after that?"

"After that you'll be able to retire, live in a tiny village near the coast, sleep late, play with your children, catch a few fish, take a siesta, and spend your evening drinking and enjoying your friends."

Ralph

Winning

2008-10-22T07:31:00.000-07:00

I had already written a piece this morning about Sarah's shopping spree, and then I saw Richard had beat me to it. So I'm going to lift my moratorium on poll-watching and bring us up to date. Last week, I got worried about the tightening of the polls and backed off my cheerleading about landslides. But that trend seems to be reversing, and all the news seems bad for McCain.

It doesn't help when big Repubican names start embracing your opponent, when both senators from Maine publicly call on you to stop the robo calls in their state, when your opponent has way more money for the final month, when all signs say there will be no last minute calvary riding to the rescue in the form of Swiftboat ads because even the rightwing nuts don't want to throw away their money on a lost cause, and when your candidate(s) are making such gaffes and misstatements, like McCain saying to a Western PA rally:

"I think you may have noticed that Senator Obama's supporters have been saying some pretty nasty things about western Pennsylvania lately. [boos from the crowd]. "You know," he continued, "I couldn't agree with them more." [stunned silence].

Makes him sound befuddled, doesn't it? Or like Palin declaring, once again, that as VP she would be "in charge" of the Senate -- completely misunderstanding the Constitutional role of the vice president, which is only to preside over the senate and vote in case of a tie. She thinks she would have (or could take) constitutional power to make deals and control committees, apparently. Even VP Cheney didn't go that far.

OK. So, the polls. RealClearPolitics's average of 12 recent national polls gives Obama a 7.6% edge, with 4 of those polls giving him double digits, including the highly respected Pew Research group at 14%. In addition the Ipsos/McClatchey poll now shows Obama leading by 8% on taxes and on family values, which had been McCain's issues.

As for electoral votes: RCP counts them this way:
Obama 259 (solid), 27 (leaning), 286 (total).
McCain 137 (solid), 23 (leaning), 160 (total).
Toss-up 92.

Toss up states: FL 27, OH 20, NC 15, IN 11, MO 11, NV 5, ND 3.
Leaning to Obama: VA 13, CO 9, NM 5.
Leaning to McCain: GA 15, WV 5, MT 3.

Imagine: Georgia, Montana, and North Dakota are in play.

Could McCain possibly win? Yes, but only if he takes ALL his solid AND leaning states, plus ALL of the toss up states (Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota) PLUS Virginia AND either Colorado or New Mexico.

And how can Obama win? All he has to do is take his solid states plus 11 more EVs from his leaning states. Just Virginia would do it (he's leading by 6%), or both Colorado (leading by 7%) and New Mexico (up by 5%) without Virginia. Let me make this even starker:

Obama can lose ALL of the toss up states (FL, OH, NC, IN, MO, NV, and NC) and lose Virginia as well -- and still win the election ! ! ! !

Looks pretty good to me.

Ralph

$150,000 to Outfit a Populist? This is Hypocrisy, not Fashion.

2008-10-22T03:43:00.000-07:00

Politico.com is reporting that while Wall Street crashed Palin, this champion of the little guy, spent $150,000 on clothing in 4 weeks, or as much as the average American makes in 4 years.

For $150,000 I could have put both of my children through 4 years of college. And provided them with spending money for those 8 years.

I could have paid my health care for 30 years.

$150,000 is as much money as the average American - the Joe Six Pack - makes in 4 years.

I thought it was outrageous when Edwards spent $400 for a haircut - the same amount of money, by the way that Palin spends on 1 pair(of her 7) of her designer glasses.

But $150,000, at some of the most 'elitest' clothing stores in the US - Nieman Marcus($75,000), Saks Fifth Avenue($50,000).

Come on. This isn't about fashion. It's about hypocrisy at the highest level.

If Palin, and the Republican national Committee, want to outfit the Gov extravagantly, that's their choice. But don't pretend to be a populist, a champion of the little guy, a spokesperson for Joe Six Pack and Joe the Plumber.

For Palin, being in politics is like being a kid in a candy shop - she gets to fly first class, stay at exclusive hotels, spend oodles of dollars on designer clothes...and make somebody else pay for it.

And this is the person we're supposed to trust is capable of making wise financial decisions should she ascend to the Presidency?

Can't Somebody, Anybody, Stop Palin?

2008-10-21T16:44:00.000-07:00

So now Salon.com has a piece focusing on Palin 'going rogue' on McCain. We covered this aspect of her personality back on October 4. It was apparent then that Palin had her own agenda, and, as seems to always be the case with her, it was about acquiring power for herself. Dan Quayle was once considered the most unprepared and intellectually inferior person ever nominated for VP - until Palin. She has set the bar so low only a tapeworm could slide under it. She lets herself be humiliated on SNL and smiles vacantly, she questions McCain's positions, she tells a classroom of kids that the VP is in charge of the Senate, she charges the state of Alaska tens of thousands of dollars for her kids to stay in luxury hotels in NYC, and pull raffle tickets at dog races, she can see Russia, but can't name a newspaper she reads or a Supreme Court decision - I could go on and on. I live in NC - not the most progressive state in the US. Like most people, my uninformed notion of Alaska, prior to Palin, was of a semi-outlaw territory of smart individualists who were savvy and tough. Now? No one I know can conceive of how someone like Palin could be elected anywhere, to any office. The reputation of Alaska has taken such a hit because of her dishonesty and lack of intelligence it will take decades to recover. Which is a shame.

Can't somebody wrap her in an anorak, strap her to a dog sled, and send her off to the frigid white country of the north where she can inflict no more damage by her public ignorance?

The "Obama Effect"

2008-10-21T07:35:00.000-07:00

It's time to stop worrying about "The Bradley Effect," where white people, for fear of being thought racist, tell pollsters they plan to vote for the black candidate, but then vote for the white candidate, resulting in suprise election loss by the black candidate.

First, I think the racist effect is already evident in polls being much closer than would be expected, given all the dimensions of this contest: a horrible economy going into recession, a vastly unpopular incumbant president of the opposite party, and a vastly unpopular war grossly mishandled by the incumbant.

Now suppose Obama were white -- and otherwise had his same life story and his same skills and qualifications and was pitted against John McCain and Sarah Palin. His poll numbers would be off the charts. I'm suggesting that we're already seeing the effect of racism in this race. And it must be large, because it is also partially offset by the increased black vote for him.

Second, I think there is going to be a "reverse Bradley effect," or perhaps we should call it "The Obama Effect." I predict that there will be an unsuspected number of Republicans who will tell pollsters that they're voting for McCain, but who -- once inside the voting booth -- will vote for Obama.

Many, many moderate (and not so moderate) Republicans agree with Colin Powell's reasons for supporting Obama. Take Ken Adelman, a life long conservative Republican who campaigned for Barry Goldwater, worked for Nixon and Rumsfield, was a friend of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, and who still considers himself a bona-fide hawk and others call a neo-con.

He has annouced that, much to his own amazement, he is going to vote for Obama, even though he agrees with McCain on most of the issues -- and his reasons are based on considering the "temperament and judgment" of both candidates. Very similar to what Powell reasoned.

If these two high profile people have said it openly, how many more Republicans who have been tepidly supporting McCain will privately switch their votes?

Let's hope millions do. And then we can talk about the Obama Effect instead of the Bradley Effect. But the tightening of poll numbers still worries me, as do the frantic efforts by the Republicans to interfere with voters' access and right to vote. That's why I've just volunteered to help out on election day with the Obama Voter Protection Project.

Ralph

Pity Poor McCain

2008-10-20T16:21:00.000-07:00

It's sad, you know? John McCain really really doesn't want to run a negative campaign, but Obama is making him do it.

First, we had this: "If Senator Obama had taken my suggestion to have a series of town hall meetings, we could have discussed the issues. But he refused." So, nothing to be done, I guess, but try to smear him with Ayers and ACORN, and call him a socialist too.

Now his campaign manager is saying that they will probably have to bring back the Jeremiah Wright rants, because John Lewis hurt his feelings so bad when he said that he and Sarah were stirring up racial hatred at their rallies -- and it sort of reminded Lewis of the way George Wallace used to do it, you know? Man, that really hurt. So nothing to do but drag out ole Jeremiah.

I don't know. I'm not sure I want a president who can't take responsibility for his own actions but claims "the devil made me do it." What if he decides that Iran is forcing him to nuke them, because, duh, they won't destroy all the centrifuges in their nuclear power plants before he'll talk to them. By golly, that is an affront to all civilized people (including those that have lots of nuclear power plants . . . and nuclear bombs, too). So, sadly, McCain couldn't let that insult go. He'd just be forced to go ahead and nuke 'em. You betcha !!

Now, folks, I respectfully request that nobody show this blog to the good Senator. I'm afraid it might hurt his feelings and force him to . . . what? I don't know. Maybe come tear down my Obama-Biden yard sign.

Ralph

"Socialist, socialist, get out of here!"

2008-10-20T07:44:00.001-07:00

Campaigning in NC yesterday, Barak Obama entered a barbecue joint where an after-church crowd, mostly older white people, were eating lunch. A middle-aged woman began yelling from the other end of the restaurant, “Socialist, socialist, socialist -– get out of here!"

This latest "shouting point" is not a grass roots thing; it was prompted by none other than John McCain himself, who first raised the "redistribution of wealth" charge in the third debate -- actually part of his Joe the Plumber stunt. And then he used the word "socialism" himself on the stump on Saturday.

McCain's campaign has nothing positive to run on anymore, and most of the negatives they've trotted out aren't really working either; because at most they are firing up his base. It's true that the polls are tightening, as Obama has always said they would; but we aren't seeing any major swings yet.

So what about this? First of all, it's a long stretch to equate a progressive income tax policy, meant to decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots, with socialism. And secondly, when these people shout "Socialist!," what they really fear is totalitarianism. But that's beside my point here.

The income gap between the top and the bottom of the economic scale has become the widest it has been since the early days of the 20th century, along with an erosion of the "middle class." Is that not also "redistribution of wealth?" I guess it feels different to those who think it's ok if it is the result of laws that favor corporations, that give tax loopholes to the wealthiest, and that tax inherited wealth less than hard-earned income from labor. And then there's the little matter of using "taxpayer's money" to bail out Wall Street. Isn't that "redistribution of wealth?"

It's ok then to take it from the poor and middle class and give it to the wealthy, but not ok to ask for more from the wealthy to help those who are struggling to survive, to obtain health care, to send their kids to college.

It gets reduced to that soundbite "Socialist" so you don't have to think about what it really means. It has become an autonomous scare word. But we're going to hear it more often, and not in the way this woman yelled it at Obama. On one of the talk shows yesterday, someone put it this way: George Bush came into office as a "Social Conservative," and he's leaving as a "Conservative Socialist" -- a reference to the partial "nationalization" of some banks.

For me, I'll stick with Obama's plan to provide support for the lower class, enhance opportunities for the middle class, and ride herd on the runaway greed of the minority at the top. And I don't care if you call it socialism, because the word doesn't scare me.

And I don't believe it's going to be the game-changer for McCain either. Just like all his other stunts that haven't worked. I'll take one Colin Powell endorsement over a thousand people shouting "socialist!" any day.

Ralph

The Fake Race Card

2008-10-20T05:28:00.000-07:00

It's pretty despicable, albeit predictable, to see intellectual troglodytes like Limbaugh and Buchanan play the race card in trying to dismiss Colin Powell's decision to back Obama.

Despicable because they are essentially calling Powell a liar. They are saying all the carefully enunciated reasons why he said he was supporting Obama are falsehoods put out there simply to hide the fact Powell wants to support an African-American.

This is a smear on Powell's character, intellectual prowess, and his decades of service to this country, where he has consistently presented his positions in an articulate and reasoned fashion.

But now all of a sudden his words are meaningless? Now all of a sudden Powell is as simplistic and thoughtless as David Duke?

Funny, I don't hear the right wing wackos criticizing all the racists who are supporting McPalin because it's the 'white' ticket. I haven't heard one word of outrage from Limbaugh or Buchanan about the disgraceful, openly racist man in Ohio who hung a figure of Obama in effigy in his front lawn.

I haven't heard them come forward and say they are liars, and they're voting for McPalin because they want to vote for white candidates.

Powell has never played the race card in his life.

Unlike the people who accuse him of playing the race card.

There's a type of haikulike poem, known as jiji senryu, which is essentially about politics. Here's one for the morning.

his vote
is based on race
scream the racists

Last Chance Survey

2008-10-19T18:41:00.000-07:00

A research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. This stage of the study focuses on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election. They seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world) to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which will be completely anonymous..."

Here is the link to the survey: http://www.psychsurveys.org/brietruesdell/2008elections

We were chosen as one of the national blogs to participate in this survey, so even if you haven't posted, please take the survey.

But don't post a response to it. Thanks.

Powell for Obama !

2008-10-19T06:35:00.001-07:00

Colin Powell just made his endorsement of Barak Obama official on Meet the Press.

More later.

Ralph

SNL Humiliates Palin - And She Doesn't Get It

2008-10-19T04:57:00.000-07:00

Saturday Night Live took the opportunity of Palin's visit to the show last night to offer a stinging indictment of her lack of intelligence, and she didn't seem to realize it. Palin stood there with a vacant smile on her face while first Tina Fey mocked her small-minded prejudices, unwillingness to talk to the press, and vacant beauty pageant lack of intelligence. Then Alec Baldwin ran her down(while pretending to think she was Tiny Fey) and, in his most cutting lines, pretended to think she was 'hot'. Sarah didn't see the pretense. The mocking comments about her looks were the only time she seemed genuinely pleased. The rest of the time, she didn't even seem to understand the words they were speaking.

Later, during a Weekend Update segment, Palin was ridiculed by Amy Poehler who did a rap that savaged Palin for everything from her comment that she could see Russia, to her moose hunting. Palin sat there smiling, bouncing in her seat, dancing along as if they were complimenting her and not pointing out, to her face, why they think she's an idiot.

Palin chose to go on SNL. Nobody forced her. Certainly, the McCain campaign is familiar with the show, and their stinging satire of Palin. Yet no one questioned the wisdom of having her appear on the show.

What did Palin expect was going to happen? The entire cast would suddenly realize Palin was actually a brilliant observer of the contemporary political scene?

This was one of the more humiliating moments for the McCain campaign. I have never in my life seen a VP candidate destroy a presidential campaign so completely. But let's give credit where credit is due. John 'The Maverick' McCain denied his own instincts to pick Lieberman and let his advisors talk him into picking Palin.

That's all we need to know about McCain's inability to make the sound judgments necessary in a presidential candidate.

Palin makes Quayle look like he was ready for a Macarthur Genius Foundation Grant.

Odds and ends

2008-10-18T14:33:00.000-07:00

1. In a chilling reminder of Joe McCarthy's worst guilt-by-association tactics, a wild-eyed Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann on Hardball TV with Chris Mathews claimed that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle hold anti-American views and can't be trusted in the White House. She even called for the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." And she implied that holding liberal views is anti-American.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/gop-rep-channels-mccarthy_n_135735.html

2. You've heard about the massive robocall campaign across the country put out by the McCain campaign to smear Obama. Apparently it hasn't hurt him in Missouri, one of the most important tossup states. Today 100,000 people came out to hear him speak at a rally in St. Louis.

3. I just saw the new Oliver Stone film, "W." Pretty devastating just by presenting a more or less straight-forward portrayal of what we already know. Still, it has the effect of an "inside" view as it's all happening. It's not a hatchet job, nor a whitewash. I came away feeling slightly less contemptuous of Dubya, because it does try to provide some psychological context for his strivings (to gain Poppy's respect and love, as well as to succeed where his father failed).

But it does nothing to mitigate the effect of Dubya's failure on our country and the world; and, if the therapist in me felt a twinge of compassion for George the crippled man, the rest of me still feels appalled and enraged that this limited man was given such power to do harm. It was utterly predictable that he would.

Extraordinary portrayal of Cheney by Richard Dreyfus. Worth the ticket price for that alone.

Ralph

Who is the real Bill Ayers?

2008-10-18T07:17:00.000-07:00

Let's cut the McCain BS and see what someone who knows Bill Ayers has to say about him.

Friends--

I know Bill Ayers. He lives about the same distance from me as he does from Barack Obama. He was my son's Little League coach; he was on the Local School Council of one of our schools; he and his wife Bernadine have parties at each of my college reunions (Bernadine was in my class) and everyone comes to them from community organizers to neocons. They make it comfortable for us all.

I know Bill and Bernadine's lovely children. One played ball with my son. Another is a foster child who came to them with many problems but who grew up to become a Rhodes Scholar. It took a lot of good parenting to go from there to here.

I know Bill as a serious educational leader. He is a professor of education at the University of Illinois and he writes almost as much (and as fast) as I read. It's no secret that he wants change in our schools; who doesn't. When I was a school principal, I went to him for advice many times and got a lot from his suggestions. If you want to know where Bill stands on education, read Teaching Toward Freedom, A Kind and Just Parent or To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher.

Hundreds of people in my neighborhood know Bill the way I do. We have talked with him on the street, in the gym, at PTA meetings, on committees, at parties and in the grocery store. We know what he was 35 years ago -- more than half a life ago. Today he is a good neighbor, a good parent and a friend.

John McCain makes Bill Ayers out to be a demon and those who associate with him hardly any better. I'll tell you that in our neighborhood -- my neighborhood, Barack's neighborhood and Bill Ayer's neighborhood -- that would demonize an awful lot of people. Many are very fine people and at least one would make a great president!

Best wishes,

Jay Mulberry

P.S.: I urge you to pass this to others to help clarify the matter.

The message is entirely my doing. Neither Bill Ayers nor the Obama campaign had anything to do with it.

Please Fill This Out

2008-10-18T06:24:00.000-07:00

Please go to the previous link about the survey and take 10 minutes to fill it out. It is a non-partisan survey put out by NYU.

Robocalls from "McNasty"

2008-10-18T03:51:00.000-07:00

McCain's campaign has now become as mean, nasty, and sleazy as Karl Rove ever conducted against him in 2000. There are no excuses. Don't try to defend Hero John by saying it's his Rovian campaign managers, not really him. He chose them, he is responsible, he could tell them to stop.

In May 2006, John McCain was asked whether he was bending his principles for the sake of winning, when he courted Jerry Falwell in an effort to get the conservative base. He replied:

"I don't want it that badly. . . . I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."

As Richard Nixon's spokesman used to say, when confronted with his contradictions: "That statement is no longer operable."

If it ever was. Or maybe in 2006 McCain was just saying what he knew would sound good. As Peggy Noonan recently said about Sarah Pallin: "She doesn't even think out loud. She just says things."

It's time for other Republican senators and party leaders to step in and denounce these latest McCain tactics. It will only damange them. It won't win the election. And it is not right, John, and you know it.

Ralph

P.S. "McNasty" was McCain's nickname at the Naval Academy.

Conservatives for Obama

2008-10-17T16:34:00.000-07:00

The Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that has not endorsed a Democrat for president since it was founded in 1847, today endorsed Barak Obama. This venerable newspaper pointed out their previous endorsement of an Illinois son, Abraham Lincoln.

Conservative talk radio host Michael Smerconish, who is apparently very big in the Philadelphia area, said: "For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president."

And New York Times conservative columnist, David Brooks, did not endorse him but praised his qualities and said "It is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president" -- echoing what the Washington Post said about him yesterday.

Yes, We Can

Ralph

Joe The Liar, McCain the Liar, and the Pro-America America

2008-10-17T13:50:00.000-07:00

So Joe the plumber is NOT a plumber.
He does NOT own a business.
He does NOT make $250,000 a year.

Hmmm. That makes him a, what is that called? Oh yeah, a LIAR!

McCain mentions 'Joe the Plumber 21 times during the debate, implicitly fomenting lies about Joe's status.
McCain accuses Obama of smearing 'Joe the Plumber'(who is not a plumber, so McCain repeats that falsehood again), even though Obama never smeared Joe
McCain implies that Biden referencing the truth that McCain's Joe didn't have a license was a smear.

Let me see if I have this right - claiming, repeatedly, that someone is something they are not, accusing someone(Obama) for 'smearing' someone by a) not saying anything, and accusing another person(Biden) of 'smearing' Joe for b) pointing out the truth, that Joe isn't a plumber...

Hmmm. That makes McCain a, what is that called? Oh yeah, a LIAR!

But what do you call someone, like Palin, who dismisses millions of Americans as not being 'Pro-America' merely because they don't agree with her narrow, narrow, narrow, and uninformed view of the world?

Demagogue? Fascist? Idiot? I don't know, you tell me.

All Readers - Please Take this Survey, but Don't Post

2008-10-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

"A research team from the Psychology Department at New York University, headed by Professor Yaacov Trope and supported by the National Science Foundation, is investigating the cognitive causes of voting behavior, political preferences, and candidate evaluations throughout the course of the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. This stage of the study focuses on the information people use to inform evaluations during the last few weeks before the election. They seek respondents of all political leanings from all over the country (and from the rest of the world) to complete a 15-minute questionnaire, the responses to which will be completely anonymous..."

Here is the link to the survey: http://www.psychsurveys.org/brietruesdell/2008elections

We were chosen as one of the national blogs to participate in this survey, so even if you haven't posted, please take the survey.

But don't post a response to it. Thanks.

Obama -- Ayers

2008-10-17T13:04:00.000-07:00

It appears that Obama has tried to minimize his connection with Bill Ayers, not because there was anything wrong with their collaborative efforts to improve public education in Chicago, but because the McCain camp could (and has) so easily distorted it into a "palling around with terrorists" meme.

Walter Annenberg, Richard Nixon's Ambassador to the UK, funded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge in 1995. Obama was the Chairman. Other members of the Board included business, education, and civic leaders. The CAC partnered with the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, headed by Bill Ayers on a major, 5 year project of urban school reform which they hoped would bring about "an educational renaissance in the classroom.” In 1997 Bill Ayers was named Chicago's Citizen of the Year for his work in school reform.

A feature of the plan was to create Local School Councils to locate the center of control in local communities, with increased parental involvement, teacher improvement, and leadership training. This was controversial: it was promoted as democracy in action; opponents saw echoes of socialistic "reforms" which disguised authoritative control, and the legislature passed a law that returned full control of public schools to the mayor's office. This was more a political power ploy by the mayor than it was an ideological disagreement.

Nevertheless, The CAC put up $50 million dollars, which was matched 2:1 with other fund raising, for a total of $160 million. Some of the major donors were: Bank of America, Wallace-Readers Digest Fund, IBM, MacArthur Foundation. Not exactly a radical bunch.

In the end, the 5 year effort was not a major success. Children's academic performance did improve in the "Annenberg Schools," but not significantly more than in the school system in general.

Undoubtedly, Obama and Ayers worked more closely on this than he wants to imply. So what? It was an attempt to improve education, not to spread terrorism or socialism. It's sad when the simple truth cannot be told in order to avoid being fodder for smear campaigns.

Shame on John McCain and Sarah Pallin.

For more: http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/08/behind-annenberg-gate-inside-chicago.html

Ralph

Palin Rally Incites Violence in North Carolina

2008-10-17T10:52:00.000-07:00

This report from a blog at the Greensboro News-Record details a disturbing act of violence, and apparent censorship, that occured at the Palin rally at Elon college.

Apparently, some Obama supporters were chanting during the Palin rally, a legal but obnoxious activity. They were escorted out by the police. Reporters who were watching the protestors were yelled at by Palin supporters to stop watching the protestors and pay attention to Palin.

I guess it's no longer, accordign to Palin supporters, to look around the world at whatever you feel like watching?

Anyways, after the rally a reporter went to find the protesters who were evicted. According to Mark Binker's blog, this is what Joe Killian reported happened to him.

I sidled up to one of the Obama supporters and asked why they were there, what they were trying to accomplish.

As he was telling me a large, bearded man in full McCain-Palin campaign regalia got in his face to yell at him.

"Hey, hey, " I said. "I'm trying to interview him. Just a minute, okay? "

The man began to say something about how of course I was interviewing the Obama people when suddenly, from behind us, the sound of a pro-Obama rap song came blaring out of the windows of a dorm building. We all turned our heads to see Obama signs in the windows.

This was met with curses, screams and chants of "U.S.A" by McCain-Palin folks who crowded under the windows trying to drown it out and yell at the person playing the stereo.

It was a moment of levity in an otherwise very tense situation and so I let out a gentle chuckle and shook my head.

"Oh, you think that 's funny?! " the large bearded man said. His face was turning red. "Yeah, that 's real funny…" he said.

And then he kicked the back of leg, buckling my right knee and sending me sprawling onto the ground.

Earlier, when she was asked about her supporters shouting "Kill him" at a rally, Palin denied it happened and said of course she would have condemened it. I'll be wtaching to see if she condemns this act of violence. But I won't be holding my breath.

Of course, Palin might not hear about this , either. Apparently her handlers are not allowing her to watch the news because it might make her depressed. Depressed at press coverage of a campaign? This is the person the right wing is trying to pretend is capable of handling the pressure of being President? Someone who is too fragile to even watch TV news?

Give me a break.

Obama's potential

2008-10-17T09:18:00.000-07:00

Barak Obama has been collecting a slew of newspaper endorsements, the latest being the Washington Post yesterday. Their editorial said:

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.

Not only are we at a perilous moment -- our freefall economy, our dimished standing in the world, our debacle of two wars, the politicization of our justice system, our regulatory agencies dominated by the industries they are supposed to police, the cynicism of our people -- but new problems must be addressed as well: global warming, renewable energy sources, health care, global economy, world hunger.

Not since the Great Depression and World War II produced FDR has our need for great leadership been so imperative. The Washington Post concludes: "Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president."

Millions and millions of us agree. But we have to get him elected before he can become our next great president. McCain has lost on the issues; he has lost the advantage of "experience, leadership, and confidence." His only hope now is destroying people's trust of Obama, fanning the flames of racism, suppressing the vote, initimidating voters, and manipulating the actual vote counting.

But Republicans are formidable at just those dirty tactics. We have to get out the vote in such overwhelming numbers that they won't matter.

And Yes, We Can !

Ralph

Last ditch strategy

2008-10-16T15:52:00.000-07:00

Looks like the Republicans' last ditch strategy is nothing new. Today, they began a multi-state blitz of robo calls from "John McCain and the RNC" pushing an insinuation about Obama and Bill Ayers and ACORN.

If that's all they have in reserve for the end-game, then I don't think we have to worry much. Sure, both issues rev up the base. And FOX News will go 24/7 pushing these issues. But that's already old news that didn't really make much of a dent. The base gets excited, but their votes are already for McCain. And this kind of thing turns off the ones he really needs, the undecideds.

So, it raises my hackles a bit, the thought of a 2 week blitz of smear tactics. Still, if it's just old news, then it probably wont' work.

Nevertheless, we cannot let up. With all their attempts to suppress the votes with faux claims of "voter fraud" tactics to tie up the voting and intimidate voters, we're not home free. Fortunately, the Obama campaign knows this. Their message, coming on the news and on multiple emails today, is that we cannot be over-confident.

We should be home free, but the reality on the ground is that Republicans will do everything they can get away with, and then some, to take this election. They know they can't win. They can only take it. But they've done it before. Remember 2000.

Ralph

Morning after

2008-10-16T08:08:00.000-07:00

Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.com says what I've been saying for weeks. It's over.

Here's how he put it: "That dynamic is this: People have decided that Obama is the guy who's offering real solutions for the economy; and they've rejected McCain's basic argument that Obama is unprepared for the gig of President. That has put McCain in an ever shrinking box: Anything he says that doesn't try to explain, in the most direct and substantive of terms, why his plans for the economy are better than Obama's come across as noise at best and stunts at worst. . . . [and tries] to avoid the subject that, judging by every poll, is foremost on the minds of voters right now."

Joe, the plumber, won't save him any more than Joe Sixpack. That was a carefully chosen talking point, hoping to trip Obama up in one spot of vulnerability in his economic plan. But it doesn't change the overall vast differences in McCain looking out for the big guys and Obama looking out for the little guys.

McCain's other big moment was to declare "I'm not George Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have run four years ago." It was well-rehearsed and pithy, but so what? Can you imagine anyone thinking, "Oh, thank god, that obliterates all my worries about a third Bush term." It's sort of in the same category as his mantra "I know how to do it." "I know how to fix the economy." "I know how to catch Osama bin Laden." Trust me, I know how. Fine, John, why haven't you shared that knowledge before now?

My favorite line from the night's comments was from Alan Schroeder, professor of journalism at Northeastern University, who said:

"However much McCain gnawed at his heels, Obama blithely shook him off, reinforcing an already established aura of unflappability."

Ralph

Obama 3 for 3

2008-10-15T21:24:00.001-07:00

To me, the debate was painful to watch. McCain was such a loose cannon, firing shot after scatter shot at Obama, so that initially Obama was a bit off balance trying to respond to it all -- and frustrated to be on the defensive. It showed. But then he got his balance back, pivoted and was very effective in countering McCain's exasperating, picky approach.

McCain's base thought he was good, simply because he was aggressive. That soon wore very thin, especially with undecided voters. I thought he was obnoxious, and I wasn't even watching on a channel with split screen images to show his reactions while Obama was talking. Apparently that made it even worse.

Marty Kaplan wrote: "Ninety minutes of John McCain making faces was more than enough for a lifetime. He smirked. He grimaced. He sneered. He fake-smiled. It's hard to imagine anyone willingly inviting that antic lemon-sucking grinfest into their homes for the next four years."

And then the instant polls came in and exceeded my wildest hopes: CBS instant polls of a group of uncommitted voters on who won: Obama 53%, McCain 22%. Similar results at CNN, 58-31.

And the internal questions were ever worse for McCain:

Who expressed his views more clearly? Obama 66%, McCain 25%
Who seemed to be the stronger leader? Obama 56%, McCain 39%
Who was more likeable? Obama 70%, McCain 22%
Who spent time attacking opponent? Obama 7%, McCain 80%

In another focus group of undecided voters in Colorado conducted by Stan Greenberg, changes in favorable/unfavorable ratings were dramatic:

McCain, before debate: 54 favorable / 34 unfavorable
McCain, after debate: 50 favorable / 48 unfavorable

Obama, before debate: 42 favorable / 42 unfavorable
Obama, after debate: 72 favorable / 22 unfavorable

In previous debates, similar instant polls have been more or less matched by later polls.

Obama's team can start measuring the drapes now.

Ralph

And now the last debate

2008-10-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

My phone service and internet have been down most of the day, so I'm just now trying to catch up on the day's news, blogs, stock market, and polls.

Electoral tracking polls still give it to Obama 361.4 to McCain 176.6. Obama is leading in all the battleground states, and West Virginia is essentially tied.

Polling in half a dozen states with heavy early voting shows this being dominated by Obama voters. That doesn't translate into final totals, but it suggests the Obama ground game, getting out the vote, will be a formidable force.

My thoughts about the debate tonight: What can McCain do to turn it around? Probably nothing. If McCain attacks, it backfires.

Both have unveiled economic plans that are predictable: McCain wants to invest at the top (tax cuts for the wealthy, for big business, lower estate tax); Obama wants to help middle and lower income people (with mortgages, jobs; help small business owners, eliminate Bush tax cuts for wealthy, stimulate jobs and economy by investing in infrastructure.)

I suspect it will come down, as before, not so much to issues as to the two men, themselves.

Simply by appearing on the same stage with Obama, McCain loses. He looks old, cranky, unfocused, mean, petty. Obama looks cool, collected, focused, on issue and on message.

He will win.

Ralph

Working Class Shows Support for Obama

2008-10-15T05:39:00.000-07:00

I live in a neighborhood of ranch houses built sometime prior to World War II. In fact, I have an apple tree in my back yard that was planted during WWII as part of the government's war effort - apple orchards were planted in all the yards here. The neighborhood is relatively stable, but diverse. A lot of conservative, retired Southerners alongside families of African-American, Latino, and Korean descent. And, like me, the occasional white trash thrown in for seasoning.

While walking my dog on Monday I saw something that I had not witnessed before - 7 Obama signs. I only saw 1 sign for McCain, in the yard of the neighborhood Grinch.

Last election, I was the only one in my neighborhood who planted a Kerry sign. There were about a dozen Bush signs.

So the 7-1 Obama edge in signs is significant. It is only one neighborhood, but this is precisely the type of neighborhood Obama needs to win if he is to prevail in North Carolina - and other parts of the country.

More importantly, unlike in 2004, when my elderly neighbors were politely icy towards me after I posted my Kerry sign, everyone has been warm and friendly, and my Obama sign has been up since the primaries.

A good 'sign' I think.

McCain's defamed legacy

2008-10-14T12:52:00.000-07:00

McCain has sneered at Obama's surge toward assured victory with the tired cliche "he's measuring the drapes for the Oval Office." [Note to McCain's staff: that's not a good line for him to use. It was Poppy Bush's line, and remember, you're running away from the Bush name; and Poppy said it about Bill Clinton. Who won, by the way, and did change the drapes in the Oval Office.]

The counterpart to that line might be that John McCain should be measuring his post-defeat legacy. What's it going to be like, going back to the Senate? Even pal HolyJoe Liebermann hasn't been too much in evidence lately. Post-defeat McCain legacy is not going to be pretty. He led his party to defeat in a way that further damaged its moral and idealogical bankruptcy.

By the negative campaign he has run, he has destroyed his once vaunted reputation as a decent man of integrity, who promised to run a civil campaign. Trying to put the blame for the negative campaign on Obama's refusing to meet him in weekly town hall events is simply a silly excuse. Adult people know that.

By the confused, incoherent campaign he has run, with constant lurches and reversals and lack of a persistent theme, he has destroyed any reputation for clear thinking and leadership. If you can't choose your staff and then supervise them to do a better job than this, what kind of administration would you run? Are you listening, Hillary?

By fanning the flames of partisanship, and even going over the line to demonize his opponent and, yes, to stir up violent crowd emotions, he has destroyed any reputation he had for bipartisanship. Just saying that all's fair in the heat of a political campaign, won't do, Senator. You went too far.

By making repeated gaffes and revealing a poor understanding of the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, he lost the reputation he once had as strong on national defense and the credentials to be commander in chief.

And now today, Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for George Bush's reelection campaign, has eviscerated him for choosing Sarah Palin. Speaking at a Time-Warner Summit panel, Dowd said "[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that."

So, there goes his mantra of "putting country first."

Maybe after the furor of this campaign has died down, I might feel a little sorry for John McCain, as I often do when a man's long career ends ignominously and thus obliterates a better legacy. But I'm not sure I will get to that point. One of the things that we've learned in this campaign is that the "old John McCain" that everyone keeps wishing would come back, wasn't the man that we thought he was anyway.

Ralph

George Bush - Socialist; Sarah Palin - Lady MacBeth

2008-10-14T06:12:00.000-07:00

Well, who would thunk it? Arch Conservative George Bush is the first president to (partially at least) nationalize US banks. That little mouse you see occasionally scampering out of the white house to squeak in front of a mic, then scurrying back inside, has decided Socialism may be a better solution to our current economic crisis than Capitalism.

I want to applaud him for having enough wisdom to recognize the way business is done in the US needs to change, but the thought of Bush embracing Socialist principles is too mind boggling.

Meanwhile, you have Lady McPalin, who has publicly criticized John McCain for - hint, hint - not being 'man' enough to attack Obama, hoping this will spur him on to verbal violence, has quickly decided this election is not about McCain winning the White House, but about positioning herself for the 2012 race.

Palin, who obviously revelled in the bloodlust of acolytes screaming 'terrorist' and 'kill him' at her rallies, resents McCain's desire that there be some modicum of decency to this campaign and, according to the London times, is concerned that McCain is "throwing away her chance of becoming vice-president".

I'm sorry Sarah, I forgot it was all about you.

The Times quotes Mark Salter, McCain’s long-serving chief of staff, as having told campaign insiders that he would prefer his boss, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, to suffer an “honourable defeat” rather than conduct a campaign that would be out of character."

Honourable. That's a word you won't find in Palin's vocabulary. Slash, and burn, and lie, and kill - now that's more her style.

The Big Picture

2008-10-13T11:00:00.001-07:00

For a moment, I will put aside poll numbers and try to look at the big picture. There is no way, short of some major national security disaster, that Obama can lose -- and perhaps not even then.

He has crossed the crucial threshold of being seen as presidential and trustworthy with that awesome responsibility. Voters now see him as the stronger leader and better at handling the economic crisis. Voters overwhelmingly think he is more in tune with their beliefs. Though it's close, they now would choose him as the one they trust in the event of an unexpected major crisis (aka terrorist attack).

Doubts about all of those issues were what kept the race close up until recent weeks. Obama's steady, calm, assured responses in the two debates and in the economic crisis have turned this around. McCain's own poor performance in all those has only helped Obama; but Obama won it for himself.

McCain had few choices, and he blew those. He tried, but couldn't really run away from his support of most of Bush's policies. So he had to run with the baggage of the worst president in history, an unpopular war, and now an economic tsunami. All factors that promise a landslide defeat.

Unless he could discredit Obama personally and exploit people's fears and prejudices, he could not hope to win. So he tried that, and it backfired.

Don't look for him to give up yet. He will try one more dramatic stunt, one more Hail Mary pass. It could be the only thing he hasn't tried: ressurecting the old John McCain that people used to like and respect.

But it is too late. He's stuck with his choice of Sarah Palin, and he's stuck with the campaign he's created, and he's stuck with an economy he has no fix for. And, in the end, he's stuck with himself, who as we've learned isn't really that "old John McCain" we thought we knew either.

Ralph

Obama-Ayers smear

2008-10-13T08:38:00.000-07:00

Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed a reader's letter, which parrots the McCain campaign's vicious smear and lies about Obama's association with Bill Ayers' "multi-million dollar projects to teach radicalism and anti-Americanism in Chicago public schools."

I wrote a letter in response; but, since they probably won't print it, I'll post it here:

"A writer claims that Obama and Ayers colluded "to teach radicalism and anti-Americanism in Chicago public schools" ("Obama-Ayers link," Oct 13). This was thoroughly researched and debunked by the non-partisan PoliticFact.com.

"The Chicago Annenburg Challenge Foundation worked to improve education in Chicago's schools. Obama was a Board member, Ayers an Advisory Committee member. He neither determined its content nor controlled the program.

"The foundation was funded by Walter Annenburg, Nixon's Ambassador to Britain and a Republican business leader whose widow has endorsed John McCain. Board members were mainstream business, education, and civic leaders.

"The McCain smear campaign cited as “evidence” a letter inviting applications from "schools that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn." Please! This refers to education methods, not political radicalism.

"They also cited programs on a United Nations peace effort and African-American studies. That's as "radical" as it gets, folks."

[I was limited to 150 words, so this is the briefest possible summary. For the full PolitiFact article, go to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/]

Ralph

Voter Fraud - Who Has the Most to Gain?

2008-10-13T04:05:00.000-07:00

With all the allegations swirling around fraudulent voter registrations, and a lack of clarity as to who is responsible, a simple question that might cut to the core of this problem is missed - who gained from these events? Answer that question, and you have the most likely answer to who is behind them.

In the thousands of ballots mailed with Obama misnamed as Osama, the answer is clear. McCain. It should be a simple matter to figure out 1) who was responsible for writing up and proofing the ballots prior to printing, and 2) who printed the ballots up. Look into those two areas, and you should find out who is responsible for that fraud.

The Acorn question is equally simple to answer, although several plausible answers present themselves.

Workers who canvas for ACORN get paid by the number of ballots they turn in. ACORN does not pay well for this job. A simple way to boost one's paycheck would be to sit in a coffee shop for an hour and write up a full shift's worth of 'registrations'. Worker fraud is pretty common these days, esp. among young people unused to actually working 8 hours a day. The people who gained were workers who got paid without having to work.

ACORN must have access to information on who turned in which ballots, who worked in the specific areas where they were generated. It is a simple matter to find those workers. Why has this not been done?

Obama? This might seem to be the case on the surface, but common sense will tell you it's impossible for thousands of non-existent people to show up at the polls, with fake IDs, and vote. So fake registratiosn of this scope do not translate to fake votes.

And since the fake registrations were so obviously false - there was no attempt to hide or disguise that they were written in the same handwriting, and some of the names and addresses were so obviously fake(they barely stopped short of signing up Daffy Duck at Disneyland) it appeared whoever filled out the forms wanted to be caught.

Why? Well, if it was caught out, the immediate spin would be that this was somehow a plot to help Obama. So he didn't have anything to gain under this scenario either.

Which brings us to another likely scenario

McCain has the most to gain by this story about voter fraud. Given that Palin/McCain have run a campaign based on lies and attacks, it's entirely plausible some of their supporters, with or without the campaign's knowledge, signed up to canvas for ACORN, then deliberately falsified registrations in a manner designed to insure they would be caught, hoping this would create negative press for Obama.

And of course there's ACORN. The more registrations they turn in, the more effective their organisation looks, the more money they can raise for themselves. ACORN has had past problems with one of their officers embezzling funds, so their hiring at the executive level is suspect. And in 2005 four ACORN employees falsified 3,000 ballots. So there is a past history of organisational malfeasance.

The problem with this now is similar to the point I made above - the registrations were so obviously fake, it seems whoever filled them out knew they'd be caught. It's ahrd to concieve ACORN, knowing they'd been scrutinized in the past, would falsify registrations and make no attempt to hide the fact they were falsified.

So again we're back to, Who had the most to gain by this? I only see two plausible answers. Underpaid and/or lazy workers. The McCain campaign. And ACORN coming in a distant third.

Election thoughts

2008-10-12T20:41:00.000-07:00

John McCain's negative advertising has backfired. Internal tracking polls show that his, not Obama's, unfavorable ratings have gone up and now exceed 50%.

Further, the few remaining undecideds are not the kind of voters who tend to be swayed by negative ads. In fact, they react negatively to negativity. And yet, McCain and Palin continue on that same track. Let's hope they don't catch on.

McCain announced today that "I'm going to whip his you-know-what Wednesday night." Yea, that's about the right tone, Johnny Mc. Schoolyard bully taunts. I prefer my presidents with a little dignity and intelligence, especially in such a grave crisis as we face.

He's also trumpeting that he will release, maybe at the debate, his new plan to save the economy. So far, all his plans have fallen like duds, and have generally been poorly received even by his own party.

RealClearPolitics breaks down the electoral vote (as of today's standing): Obama 277, McCain 158, Toss-up 103. Even if McCain wins every one of those toss-up states (FL, OH, NC, MO, IN, CO, WV, NV) he still doesn't get the magic number of 270. And of those Obama has a good lead in FL, OH, NC, CO, and NV; IN and MO are tied; and McCain has a lead only in WV.

Nate Silver, the genius with the statistics at FiveThirtyEight.com, calculates the electoral vote, if held today, at 350.5 to 187.5 (he allocates the toss-ups).

Nate has made a statistical prediction, based on the historical accuracy of the Gallup poll at this point in the campaign. Obama has held at least a 7 point Gallup lead consistently for 2 weeks. Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Somehow he calculates this into the prediction that Obama has a 94.1% chance of winning the electoral votes and becoming the next President of the United States.

Even with all this good news, it feels very risky to actually begin to expect that we will win. My head says we will, maybe even a landslide. But my gut clutches up: remember hanging chads, butterfly ballots, voter suppression, voter intimidation, last minute SwiftBoat vicious lies.

Ralph

Milestone

2008-10-12T12:41:00.000-07:00

100 days and counting.

99 . . . 98 . . . 97 . . . 96 . . .

Ralph

Racism, Hatred in Georgia and South Carolina - no surprise

2008-10-12T10:34:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I traveled to Atlanta for the Writing and Wellness Conference. On the drive both ways I was treated to that radio 'dead space' that occurs just South of Charlotte and continues until you begin to approach Atlanta.

The only available radio stations featured preachers, Mexican music, and extreme right wing talk shows. Now, I do try to keep up with what Limbaugh and his ilk say, but I was still shocked at what I heard coming form the mouths of conservative female hosts. The attacks on Obama almost - almost - made Palin sound reasonable. Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan, Sharpton were trotted out consistently. Audio clips were played not just out of context, but deliberately misinterpreted. Obama's middle name was repeatedly used in a derogatory fashion, as was the word Communist. No evidence was ever offered, of course, for the claim he was a Communist or Islamic terrorist. Which, of course, he isn't. Michelle Obama was accused of secretly being a co-conspirator with Bernadine Dorhn. What evidence was provided? Three years before Michelle was hired by a Chicago law firm, Bernadine was hired by that firm.

That was it. All the evidence. This was before Michelle and Barack were even married.

The manner of expression was so vitriolic I expected to see spit flying out of the radio speakers.

McCain is at the top of the ticket, and he certainly deserves a share of the blame for this. His name is on the ads after all; his approval. But much of the blame for the incendiary, racist agitation being shown by followers of the Republican ticket has to be placed on Palin. She was the one who began the name-caling, pointedly began to stir up crowds to frothing anger by her smears that Obama was a terrorist, and 'not one of us'. She is the one who is deliberately catering to the basest attitudes of the base. She is the one who, even today, told McCain he needed to be even more aggressive in his attacks on Obama.

Palin has created a brush fire of hatred that is threatening to get out of control - as witnessed by the way McCain was booed when he tried to quiet some of his most ignorant supporters. By the way he is publicly challenged to be more negative by hotheads at his rallies, by offensive and exclusionary 'prayers' offered at his rallies by preachers who are totally out of touch with any God who is compassionate and all-loving.

Economic crisis

2008-10-12T08:51:00.001-07:00

Most everyone is now agreeing that part of the rescue package must include the government stepping in to rescue banks by buying equity in them, thus becoming part owners and giving taxpayers the potential for recouping the investment when the economy improves.

George Stephanopolis asked Jim Baker why he supports that move, given that it is diametrically opposite to Ronald Reagen's economic policy when he was Reagen's Secretary of Treasury. Baker said, "yes, but it's necessary now because of the circumstances. This crisis is simply too big for the private sector to be able to manage without government help."

Hello??!! Doesn't this sort of prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that an unregulated and unfettered private sector is not the answer they declared it was? That without deregulation this might have been prevented instead of frantically bailed out at the cost of trillions? It seems to me that Obama is right, that this economic crisis is the final proof that the Republican economic policy doesn't work.

The economy has to be stabelized quickly -- but then the system has to be fixed. We should not let this lesson get lost: the Reagen revolution didn't work and it is over.

As they're now saying in Britain, "We're all Socialists now." I doubt many here will go that far, but in fact what they're talking about is partial nationalization of the banks.

There is a difference, however. The equity shares that the government will buy are to be non-voting shares. The government itself may re-impose regulations on the industry and the system, but the ownership of non-voting bank equity shares will not give the government voting power as a stockholder in those individual banks.

Ralph