We Are Voting Yes

Update.

2009-04-11T12:58:00.008-04:00

Clearly things have not been very active around here recently - for anybody who has been checking in, I apologize. I have been very busy in the past few months with work and some other life developments, and I have not had much time to stop by here to write.

If you'd like to get a taste for what this blog was all about, I'd recommend checking out these posts:

August 24, 2008:

Blue Collar Biden

September 3, 2008:

The Palin Problem: Why John McCain Missed the Mark

October 19, 2008:

Colin Powell provides Obama with dual opportunities against McCain.

And just for fun:

John McCain and Barack Obama are apparently hilarious.

In the meantime, the archive is active and you can pull up past posts via the interface on the left hand side of the screen (just scroll down). Clearly, the bulk of posting was during the election, with a variety of odds and ends since then.

I hope to return to We Are Voting Yes in the not too distant future, but for now, this shop is closed up. With some luck, I'll be back soon. Thanks for stopping by and for reading, as always.

Yours,

Chris Connelly

The GOP releases critiques of the stimulus.

2009-02-03T11:51:00.003-05:00

The GOP has released a list of specific spending programs that they have issues with in the stimulus package. While I don't agree with all of them, I do agree with some. I've listed them below, along with a link to the original CNN article.

The items that I agree should be removed, via CNN:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Total: $3.624 billion

Granted, these things are a bit of a drop in the overall bucket when you look at it in the grand scheme of the size and scope of this package - but there is also no need to fold a lot of this into this bill just for the sake of getting funding for certain projects.

But come on - some of these can't be that big of a deal, and the Democrats could buy some goodwill if they show a willingness to compromise on them.

Religion and The Left - Halting Progress

2008-12-16T14:08:00.003-05:00

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend reading Lisa Miller’s recent Newsweek piece about the religious case for gay marriage. It is a prime example of a troubling movement in the progressive sphere towards reclaiming religion – and religious argument – for the left. Ms. Miller articulates (with notable skill) the amazing and totally controversial point that the Bible plus gay marriage does not necessarily equal the horrific ascent of extra-spicy Satan. She states that “the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.” I agree. It’s true. But where does this get us?

Well… nowhere… So the Bible “lives,” so what? The very “life” that makes the Good Book so adaptable to new and changing times also makes it a ready tool for bigotry and exclusion. (Ms. Miller dismisses the passages in Leviticus that condemn the act of love between two men as “an abomination,” as though they don’t really have that much value. They do. They’re written in the Bible.) Yet still, members of the progressive movement try to apprehend Biblical authority, to wrest it from the manicured hands of televangelists and talking heads that preach a conservative message, as if one day every pious, God-terrified puritan will get the liberal point. It’s infuriating to watch.

The difficulty with faith based arguments is they’re inherently cyclical. They have no resolution. Religious scholars have spent millennia, literally, arguing over the meaning of the Bible. Is God angry or merciful, is Jesus actually The Lord or just a divine arm of His will, Trinity or Unity, is there sex in heaven, the list goes on… These arguments have spawned wars and inquisitions. Christianity has splintered countless times into various sects, with mutually exclusive messages and rituals, because Churches couldn’t find One Good Answer. In religious debate, you cannot win and you cannot compromise, you can only run to your corner and prepare to spend infinity defending your cause. For this very reason, arguments of faith have no place in the democratic sphere. (Keen cynics have argued that democracy has never found One Good Answer. I disagree – we’ve found many good answers. We then accept that they are not, and cannot be, final, and move to the next problem. At least, when democracy functions... which is kinda hit or miss…)

Progressives must pull themselves from this field and take a position of debaters and thinkers, not believers. The religious right will claim they are being victimized, as is their wont. (He died on the cross, His apostles were martyrs, He is under-represented in Bio textbooks…) They’ll cry foul and ring church bells and preach the demise of Man. Let them. Just because they fight from the church does not mean we have to meet them at the pulpit.

There’s a logical argument to be made here, a position couched in reason, not belief. It must be emphasized above all else: Gay Marriage in no way infringes upon the rights of straight members of society, religious or not. (Sorry if gay marriage disgusts you, it is not your right to be free from disgust. And – actually – I’m really not sorry at all.) The rest is just discrimination.

Why Are Politicians So Cheap?

2008-12-09T12:50:00.011-05:00

So if you haven't seen yet, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois just got indicted for massive corruption. To summarize the accusations:

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."

You can read more here.

This whole situation is itself worth a whole disposition (Obama effects, history of Rod, etc.), but the larger thing is that this is a great example of one of the most puzzling aspects of politicians: how little they're willing to sell themselves for.

Being from Illinois, I'm more used to this than many other (our last governor is currently in jail on similar charges). My good friend Guillermo (who is also from IL) and I have discussed this issue at length many times. Our general feeling is utter bewilderment that politicians will sell themselves for so little money, or at least money comparable to what they could earn legitimately outside of public office. If you wanted to make money, why the hell would you go into politics anyway??

Blagojevich was basically willing to sell the senate seat for about $300,000, about the same amount a lawyer at his age could make in private practice (especially a former governor). Heck, you may even be able to make that just sitting on corporate boards, lobbying or doing "consulting" work. Duke Cunningham sold out for a similar amount of money, as did Bill Jefferson and Ted Stevens (losing your seat b/c you didn't report a free chair??).

I don't pretend to know the answer of why politicians are so cheap, but I can take a few guesses:
- Politicians are natural risk takers. It takes a lot of cajones (men or women) to run for office, and almost every successful politician had to battle against the odds to win one or more seats
- Politicians aren't very good in the private sector. Why do people go into any field? Some of it may be circumstance, but those that rise to the top are usually good at what they do, but may not be good at other things. So politicians are great at politics and getting elected (although maybe not governing), but could be baffled by complex legal cases and situations where personal charisma won't get them very far. And as they've spent most of their careers doing politics, they don't have good experience on the private side of things.
- Politicians are lazy. After working at the heights of political power, media exposure and public adulation, it's hard to go back to drudgery of "normal" work. That may be why so many politicians become lobbyist. They stay in the game, but can still get paid. All they have to do is throw out their ethics.
- Politicians don't think they'll get caught. A version of the explanation for why politicians are always caught in sex scandals - so many people do corrupt stuff and don't get caught so they don't think they will ever get caught. Which means we're only scratching the surface of corruption.
- Stupidity / narcissism / hubris. No magical analysis on this, just that anyone willing to go on a "corruption crime spree" has to have something wrong with them. They've reached the heights of political power, but see that they still don't have economic power and think that they can get that too.

Anyway, would love other people's thoughts on why politicians are so cheap, both in terms of legal and illegal influence. If I were selling out my ethical principles, endangering my family, putting my career at risk, and opening up the possibility of serious prison time, I'd make sure I got something in the high 7 digits at least!

Artist of the Day: Mugison

2008-12-05T15:37:00.005-05:00

Chalk this up a gem of a find: an Icelandic one-man band calling himself Mugison. And it is freaking awesome. Even if Iceland's economy is in shambles, they still put out some pretty great music.

This has so many elements of traditional American blues, R&B and rock, with a deliciously low-fi edge. Dirty guitars, dirty organs, dirty everything. The man himself (Örn Elías Guðmundsson, for anybody who has a clue how to pronounce that) has a voice that recalls an amalgamation of Tom Waits and Beck, which he somehow manages to layer into fantastic harmonies on top of everything.

Mugiboogie dropped in September. I'm looking forward to learning more about this guy - and hopefully somebody will bring him stateside for a tour.

Jesus is a Good Name To Moan - Mugison

Mugiboogie - Mugison

To The Bone - Mugison

For fans of: Tom Waits, Beck, The Black Keys, The White Stripes, Drive By Truckers

Surgery Via Text Message a Success

2008-12-05T12:16:00.006-05:00

Normally I would have a problem with a surgeon whipping out his cell in the middle of a life-saving operation, but I'm giving this guy a pass.

It seems that Peace Corps doctor David Nott ran across a boy in the Congo with a particularly... difficult... situation, and ended up amputating his upper arm and shoulder by following directions he received via text message from another doctor in London.

Secretly, I don't know whether I find this encouraging or terrifying. It is not a small part of me that wants to believe surgery is performed exclusively in zero-gravity environments with the help of space-age lasers and Data from 'Star Trek: The Next Generation.' (Yes, I know that's not really that case, I have seen 'Gettysburg,' lay off me...) Either way, I'm in awe of the accomplishment. My hat goes off to the man.

Jack Black as Jesus in Prop 8 - The Musical

2008-12-04T13:34:00.002-05:00

I mean, the headline pretty much says it all. Watch:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Thanks to Nate for drawing my attention to this.

Artist of the Day: Yeasayer

2008-12-04T12:31:00.010-05:00

I'll give it a shot of trying to keep this segment updated semi-regularly...but no promises.

I went to see Yeasayer last night at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite concert venues in the city. The people who work there are always a pleasure, and the acoustics are unrivaled by any other spot in Washington DC proper. But I'm not doing concert reviews here...at least not yet.

Yeasayer is an odd band, and I'm certainly a bit behind the times in writing about them. They're probably destined to remain a niche group with a niche audience. But that doesn't change the fact that they're well worth checking out if you're open to something that sounds...well...like nothing else. Their debut album - All Hour Cymbals - is chock full of masterful musicianship, odd vocal samples, and insane, incredible beats that would appeal to hip hop heads as readily as indie rock kids. And they can bring it live - vocals were dead on, harmonies were interesting and beautiful, and their technical ability as musicians is mind blowing. I challenge you to find a bass player that executes live the way that Ira Wolf Tuton does.

Sometimes I find the best music is the most difficult to describe, because it is doing something that is foreign and challenging to the listener. The album as a whole isn't completely consistent - but there are certain highlights, some of which I've posted here. There are elements of world music here, electronic music, psychedelic and folk music...but it works as a glorious mess of sound and style. I'm not sure where they'll end up going with it, but I remain impressed - and I would see them again. Check 'em out.

Sunrise - Yeasayer

2080 - Yeasayer

For fans of: Animal Collective, MGMT, Fleet Foxes, Kanye West, Santogold, M.I.A.

Peter Beinart on National Security

2008-12-03T22:40:00.003-05:00

Most of my writing on this blog will focus on foreign affairs and sports. Not in relation, but those are two of the items which I feel most comfortable writing about. So...

In addition to a forthcoming post on changes in Philly sports in the aftermath of actually winning a championship, I wanted to point out a recent article by the man who I think deserves more acclaim and credit for his insight than he receives. His editorial in this week's issue of TIME Magazine encapsulates his analytical abilities, writing style and profound ability to look at all angles of a situation. Every time I read something by Peter Beinart, I come away thinking two things: that he's a really smart guy and that I agree with him. While you might not concur with him as often as I do, I believe you will agree that he possesses an intelligent grasp of political, and particularly international, events.

The link below will take you to his recent piece on why President-Elect Obama is selecting those like Senator Hillary Clinton and General Jim Jones for his national security team. Not only is Obama attempting to mollify the political right for the future with these moves, but Beinart also somewhat assuages me, an opponent of choosing Clinton to be his Secretary of State. I am certainly not alone, as numerous experts much more well-versed than I have labeled the appointment of Clinton in particular as dubious. These selections are not signs that Obama will abandon his position of leading U.S. foreign policy in a new direction from his presidential predecessor, but rather delineate a vital recognition that in politics you must protect your flanks while working with people who can still carry out your policies. A clean break with the past is not procluded with the (temporary?) inclusion of someone like Bob Gates in his Cabinet.

Beinart does an excellent job of synthesizing this material in his piece. He also wrote a great cover story for TIME just after the election on parallels in political shifts between 2008 and previous political eras. Great articles in TIME Magazine sadly stand out these days, and Beinart seems to author his fair share of them.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1862446,00.html

Artist of the Day: Ladyhawke

2008-12-03T12:13:00.008-05:00

I won't keep up with this every day, but now and again I'm going to start posting some tracks from musicians that I find particularly interesting.

Today - I give you Ladyhawke. She's a New Zealander that sounds fresh out of 1987. These tracks could soundtrack a John Hughes movie - I can't help but think of Molly Ringwald every time I put this album on. But beyond the obvious cues from past decades, this music still manages to sound fresh to me - I think it has to do with the ways in which she sings, the lyrical content, and the guitar tones (which I think are fantastic). Not to mention: the hooks are outrageous.

Listen and love (and know that the full album is just as good):

Magic - Ladyhawke

Paris Is Burning - Ladyhawke

Another Runaway - Ladyhawke

For fans of: Cut Copy, Cyndi Lauper, Moloko, Stevie Nicks, Annie, The Knife

Barack Obama knows how to party.

2008-12-03T12:08:00.002-05:00

From the Washington Times:

These are heady times.

Hoping to tap in to an inaugural bonanza, the D.C. Council Tuesday night voted 12-1 to push back last call to 5 a.m. and allow bars and restaurants to serve food around the clock during inauguration week.

As a resident of the District proper, I'm starting to get excited and a bit nervous about what this city is going to look like come January. It certainly is going to be a switch to have all of the bars in my neighborhood open three or four hours later - especially given that the window next to my bed faces a city street heavy with foot traffic from a few dance clubs and bars up the street.

Hooray for people stumbling home drunk past my house as the sun rises! Just don't wake me up (assuming I'm not out there with you...). Undoubtedly, Washington is going to be the place to be in January.

Reasons I Can't Wait for the Future: Lilypads

2008-12-02T13:07:00.006-05:00

This is the first post in what I hope will be a long series about real and potential advances in technology that make me jump up and down in my desk chair. Just a little. I have to keep it somewhat professional here at the WAVY offices.

Posts will range from "entirely plausible" to "Indiana Jones 4." To kick everything off, I'm going with the latter: I give you The Lilypad, a floating metropolis that can supposedly provide life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness for 50,000 people. No word on shuffleboard, but I've got my fingers crossed.

I'd put up a picture, but they wouldn't let me copy anything from the site, and I'm terrified of breaching terms of use since the MySpace case. In its place, I give you... this thing... which is kinda the same idea...

(Which could probably also get me (read: Chris) sent to jail...)

Every now and then these floating city ideas come up, inevitably looking fantastic and making me wish for the high seas and handheld devices that make Skittles appear out of thin air. Fortunately for me, my gleeful anticipation is not sullied by little things like "science." Thinking about that might make me ask questions about waste management, energy efficiency, and disaster prevention (didn't these people see "Poseidon"?? Rogue waves are for real). For now I'm just excited about getting an underwater apartment in 2057.

That is, of course, assuming that we're not all reduced to grey goo by then.

Janelle Monae is going to be a star.

2008-11-14T12:29:00.004-05:00

I have to give credit to my friend Sam for turning me on to this, but the more I've watched it, the more convinced I am that Janelle Monae is going to be a huge star. I'm not sure if this record will get her there, but she'll get there eventually - she just has too much of that intangible star power to ignore for long. She can dance, she can sing, and she's beautiful in a completely unique, odd way. I love it.

I think the song below is better - it is what got her the deal with Bad Boy Records. And it sounds like a lost Michael Jackson tune to me.

Billy Corgan can still write great songs.

2008-11-13T11:58:00.008-05:00

Song for a Son

99 Floors

After being horribly disappointed by their show at D.A.R. Constitution Hall on Tuesday, I admit that I doubted that the Pumpkins had songs like these left in them in the current incarnation. But this gives me some hope for the band yet.

Update

2008-11-13T11:21:00.003-05:00

Just a quick update.

No, I haven't gone away. Yes, I plan to keep writing here.

I'm at the tail end of a ridiculously busy run with work - after that passes, I expect to be back much more regularly.

2:00 AM at the White House: November 5, 2008

2008-11-05T13:53:00.009-05:00

November 4th, 2008

2008-11-04T11:48:00.017-05:00

I've been missing in action for the close of the campaign. In fact, I've got a lot of unfinished drafts in my blogger interface right now. Fact of the matter is that I'm swamped at work, and I haven't had much time to write, as I've been working evenings quite a bit. My apologies to any readers who've been disappointed. I hope to get back to a more regular writing schedule after the next couple of weeks have passed, and work has calmed down a little bit.

But I did want to say one thing here, on the record, this election day.

This is an election cycle that will be studied and remembered for decades if not centuries, and we've been blessed to have a front row seat for all of it these past two years. Am I glad that it is coming to a close? Yes, I am - but that said, I feel privileged to have watched this election. I feel privileged to be alive at a time like this in American politics, even though it means we're facing real challenges as a country and as a people. I feel privileged to have voted this morning for a candidate that I actually believe in - Barack Obama.

There aren't many days where you wake up believing that you're going to be telling your kids and grandkids about it someday. But today, November 4, 2008, I woke up believing just that.

This is our time. This is our election. This is our country. This is our chance to stand up as a new generation to speak in our voice about what matters to us.

As Andrew Sullivan would say: know hope. And please, go and vote.

UPDATE: if anybody is curious, here is my official prediction about the electoral map. I have Obama winning all of the Kerry states, plus: Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri.

Total count: Obama, 364 | McCain, 174

Sarah Palin: Constitutional Scholar

2008-10-31T20:45:00.004-04:00

Who knew? Sarah Palin has some pretty fantastic views re: her First Amendment Rights.

Quoted from Glenn Greenwald, Sarah says of the MSM:

I don't think they're doing their job when they suggest that calling a candidate out on their record, their plans for this country, and their associations is mean-spirited or negative campaigning. If they 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.

This... well this isn't even really worth commenting on, but if you haven't heard it already... you need to...

If I weren't very confident about this election I'd be terrified of it.

Raid Syria and Pakistan? "No Comment."

2008-10-31T19:48:00.007-04:00

You know what terrifies me more than pontificating the potential of President Palin? The executive branch of my government delivering “no comment” responses like Enron executives on the way out of a brothel.

What’s worse, this isn’t a personal or corporate scandal, these baffled reporters are talking about recent reports of US military strikes on Syria and Pakistan.

This is not small time, kids.

Watch:

There’s a not-so-small part of me that’s bracing for post-election W to go batshit insane.

Happy Halloween

2008-10-31T18:00:00.003-04:00

Next year I'm carving my pumpkin with a laser.

Charles Meets Obama.

2008-10-29T16:33:00.001-04:00

This was just a nice reminder of what a lot of this is about to so many people. I can sit here and dissect strategy and policy until I'm blue in the face, but for a lot of people - myself included - this election, and Barack Obama, goes beyond just that.

Rachel Maddow Airs Obviously Edited Interview with Howard Dean

2008-10-27T23:28:00.015-04:00

Okay Rachel Maddow. Time for YOU to talk ME down.

Tonight, Maddow welcomed DNC Chairman Howard Dean to her program to "talk her down," which is a segment of the same name that airs nightly. Maddow takes on a guest related to an issue that has been particularly bothering her - and on this night, Maddow spoke with Dean about a potential gap between enthusiasm and turnout that may be facing Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency. Watch the video here:

But the video is clearly edited. Dean's portion of the above video begins at 3:21, in a segment that is obviously taped.

How do we know?

Clue number one: the red "LIVE" tag disappears from above the MSNBC logo. Watch the rest of the broadcast, and it is there every time Maddow is live in the studio. It is gone during the Dean piece.

Clue two: you can note that the audio is different. There is a little less ambient noise in Maddow's microphone - she sounds more present in the audio feed than she does before they break to the segment.

And what follows is an interview - if you can call it that - which is edited together, giving no real indicator as to what is preserved and what is cut.

But not only does this segment alter the live interview with Dean, it is TERRIBLE at disguising the editing. Take, for example, at 4:24, where Maddow abruptly interrupts Dean mid-breath. The video technique changes, switching between a split screen and a focus on each individual, which is certainly to hide the fact that their split screen doesn't work when you cut sections of time out from the video.

It happens again at 5:38, at 6:23, and at 7:09 - Maddow's entrances to the conversation don't match how an interview would actually flow. It is clearly off from the original, live discussion. And Maddow may even have edited out a portion of her own question! View at 6:56. While perhaps this is more conjecture, it simply doesn't sound as though Maddow has finished her natural train of thought. Her vocal inflection would seem to show that there was more to the question. This seems the least egregious of the errors - but to my ear, it still serves as a sign that cuts were made.

Howard Dean is an important guy. Certainly he doesn't have the clout that he once had, nor the presence on the talk show circuit that some of Obama's chief surrogates do - but he's still the chairman of the party. And Maddow advertises her show as a live program. It is obvious that Dean (and possibly Maddow herself) had more to say than what was aired on this program. Well, what did they say? Isn't it reasonable for critics of MSNBC to say that Maddow could have edited out some gaffe or misstatement that could embarrassed Dean, MSNBC, or have done damage to the Obama campaign?

Look, I'm aware that news programs often air edited interviews. However, the fact that Dean seems interrupted mid-statement - rather than say, only airing a few of his answers in full - is problematic for me. Maybe this is more of a common practice than I realize, but the fact that he is so clearly cut off before finishing his thoughts just leaves too many questions about what he was going to say. Additionally, there is no disclaimer that they are airing a taped interview. Couldn't Maddow simply have said, "earlier today we spoke with Howard Dean," prior to entering the "Talk Me Down" segment?

Look, I like Rachel Maddow and her show a lot. But this is lousy, irresponsible journalism - of the same type that Fox News is often guilty. If Maddow wanted more time to get questions in to Dean, then they should have bumped some other segments to make room for the complete interview, or saved the extra material to be aired online or at another time.

If this aired on Fox News, with Bill O'Reilly airing such a clearly edited piece with say, Mike Duncan, I guarantee that Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow would all be taking shots at it. The blogosphere - myself included - would be up in arms, and would want to see the unedited interview.

Come on Rachel. Talk me down.

McCain's Campaign Literally Calls "Bullshit."

2008-10-24T17:35:00.007-04:00

I’m not usually one to kick a war hero when he’s down, but things over at the McCain campaign have not-so-spontaneously combusted. From The Atlantic, we get word that they’ve officially gone off the deep end and hit their heads at the bottom of the pool.

Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, e-mails:

“Just read your post. This is on the record. This is cleared by HQ. It is a fact that Barack Obama was palling around with terrorists. It was a fact before Governor Palin said it in a fully vetted speech and it is fact today. It is bullshit to claim or write anything else.”

Can this be real? You’re swearing on the record in an email to an online journal? Guys.

Guys.

This is America. Unless there’s sports involved you don’t call ‘bullshit’ on the record. At least not in those precise words. These people are starting to believe their own fear-mongering.

What troubles me most is the McCain campaign’s complete and utter dedication to this talking point. They’re clinging to the rhetoric so much they have run the risk of people actually researching the situation and discovering its… shall we say… nuance, and turning around and calling "bullshit" even louder back at them. With ballots. But there's no control here, just a full on dedication to angrily, profanely spewing negativity at an opponent.

I’m going to quote my good friend and (non) editor Chris on this one:

“We've watched a complete meltdown of a presidential campaign.”

I know I’m not the first to ask how in the name of all things holy McCain came to this, but I can't help it. I continue to be astounded by the events of this election. I’m riveted. You know what it’s like? It’s like those level-ending bosses in Revenge of Shinobi where this tiny ninja slowly annihilates the massive monolithic monstrosity with patience, precision and guile. We’re at the really shaky, fiery stage just before the game’s over.

Apple takes a public stand against California's Proposition 8

2008-10-24T17:34:00.007-04:00

If you visited the Apple start page today, you saw this message from the company (hyperlink is mine):

No on Prop 8

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

I just wanted to say thanks to Apple for publicly opposing Proposition 8 - the gay marriage ban up for a vote in California this fall. It was originally titled the California Marriage Protection Act. It would change the state constitution to specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman.

In California, TV ads have been run supporting Prop 8 by attacking policies in schools:

But the California Superintendent of Public Schools has called the ads completely untrue, stating "our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage, and using kids to lie about that is shameful." View the counter ad here:

I fall firmly on the side of the "Vote No on 8" crowd here.

So often we hear negative things about corporations, and to me, Apple's choice is an extremely positive move that deserves credit. So hats off to Steve Jobs and the Apple crew.

Thanks Charlie.

2008-10-24T14:55:00.005-04:00

Just a quick welcome and word of thanks to any readers directed here from Undiplomatic. Charlie and I have been trading emails for the past couple of weeks, and he's been nothing but kind and helpful as we've been getting things off the ground here. He's a stand up guy, and provides some great insights to me and many others. Thanks to him for the kind plug today, and for the work that he's been doing at Undiplomatic and the Huffington Post.

Oh, and if you've got any rare Clash songs or They Might Be Giants bootlegs, you should probably send them his way.

A video you won't see about me on November 5.

2008-10-24T12:39:00.003-04:00

Oh MoveOn.org...I don't always love your methods. But this is a clever way of reminding your friends to get out and vote on November 4. Create you own video here.

Scientists Erase Specific Memories in Mice: Mice Succumb to Fascism

2008-10-23T18:46:00.005-04:00

To be filed under “seriously creepy.”

Scientists have figured out a way to Eternally Sunshine lab mice, effectively erasing specific memories.

I’m going to reword that statement and write it for you again because I’m not sure you got it.

People who play around with lab animals for a living have figured out how to make their subjects forget portions of their lives. Completely.

What if this stuff works on humans? The initial concept is that it could be used for "therapeutic reasons" which is a terrifyingly vague goal. Imagine, if you will, a culture where painful memories hold no real consequence, where forgetting is equivalent to healing. Welcome to the world of fast-food mental health, would you like fries with that? (Sidebar: If someone is struggling with post-traumatic stress, does erasing the stressful memory eliminate the symptoms?)

Or, if we want to get really Orwellian: Is it entirely outside of the realm of imagination that Military and Police forces might use it to erase memories of corruption or excessive force, effectively crippling oversight? (Am I insane, or is this a serious question?)

I'm all for scientific advancement and intellectual curiosity, but this makes me long for an abacus.

Ticketmaster buys out Irving Azoff's Front Line Management

2008-10-23T16:46:00.007-04:00

Via Bloomberg:

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Ticketmaster agreed to buy a controlling stake in Front Line Management Group Inc., challenging Live Nation Inc. and adding musicians including Jimmy Buffett and the Eagles.

Ticketmaster, the largest U.S. ticket broker, will purchase the stake from Warner Music Group Inc. for $123 million in cash. Front Line co-founder Irving Azoff, who has managed the Eagles since 1974, will become chief executive officer of the renamed Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc., the West Hollywood, California- based company said today in a statement.

This is a really interesting move for Ticketmaster - and honestly, I'm not entirely sure what they're trying to achieve with it. Clearly, it gives them a steady source of income from something other than tickets - they now have a vested interested in artists themselves and their revenue streams.

This is definitely in response to Live Nation expanding into 360 degree music deals, and Live Nation's impending split from Ticketmaster to create their own ticketing system. But those deals are predicated on a lot of different revenue streams - live performance, album sales, licensing, merchandising, and quite a bit more. Ticketmaster is now taking in profits from any of the artists that were Front Line artists - which includes enormous names like Jimmy Buffett, Eagles, Guns n Roses, and others.

But what confuses me is what Ticketmaster is going to do with this responsibility - and what infrastructure they have in place to help Azoff. What can Ticketmaster get for Azoff's artists that he couldn't already get them? Is it simply because he'll have more financing in his pocket through Ticketmaster's coffers to sign more artists? Doesn't it seem a bit precarious to put somebody who has made his name in artist management in charge of the world's biggest ticketing company - a field where he has zero experience? And what can Azoff do for Ticketmaster, apart from sprucing up profits with takes from his artists? What real benefits does being in artist management offer for the ticketing company?

My guess is that Ticketmaster feels they're going to be able to exert a lot more control over what rooms Azoff artists play while touring - thus limiting them to rooms that use Ticketmaster, in a direct form of competition with the new Live Nation ticketing system. But this seems like a sort of backwards, difficult way of accomplishing that goal. It will also make it more difficult for Live Nation to sign artists that Azoff represents, if indeed they were interested in any of them for future 360 degree deals.

I'm very surprised by this news, and I'll be really curious to see what happens going forward as more details become apparent. Perhaps Ticketmaster has more plans that are not yet clear...

Cognitive Dissonance and American Political Thought (or: Why Your Uncle Will Never Vote for Obama)

2008-10-23T12:34:00.005-04:00

Do me a quick favor and take half a second to recall the most frustrating political argument you’ve ever had. You know, the one where you listed myriad facts to support your argument and your temperature rose and you left in absolute disbelief that people could be so blind and ignorant. (Remember that argument? Odds are it involved that friend-of-a-friend you hate who wears topsiders. God, that guy sucks.) Did you ever wonder why that debate was so maddeningly stagnant? It’s not just because your counterpart was a prick (even though he definitely was).

Recent studies of the human cognitive process have revealed some very interesting and entirely depressing things about the way our supposedly rational minds work.

We all know that someone’s opinion is formed and reinforced in great part by the information to which they choose to expose themselves. If you’re getting all your news from Daily Kos, you’re probably fairly certain that Bush is building a mutant army to enslave us all and McCain is some sort of Tyrannosaur. But what if someone were to correct you, citing facts and historical information, wouldn’t that change your mind?

Turns out, probably not. From ArsTechnica (bold is mine):

“[A] study by John Bullock of Yale showed volunteers a political ad created by NARAL that linked Justice John Roberts to a violent anti-abortion group, followed by news that the ad had been withdrawn. Interestingly, Democratic participants had a worse opinion of Roberts after being shown the ad, even after they were told it was false.

Over half (56 percent) of Democratic subjects disapproved of Roberts before the misinformation. That rose to 80 percent afterward, but even after correcting the misinformation, 72 percent of Democratic subjects still had a negative opinion.”

So. Um. Darn? If this study is correct, truth and facts are pretty much useless once you’ve formed an opinion. Just a matter of who gets to your brain first. That’s… well, that’s just plain disheartening, if you ask me.

How do we combat this dissonance, you may ask. Well, I’m not a head doctor, but I’d say that maybe we should all take just a little more care in forming opinions in the first place. Then maybe you wouldn't be so wrong all the time, like I've been saying for years.

Polls are Inherently Flawed.

2008-10-22T14:38:00.005-04:00

First, just want to thank Chris for having me. Quite honored.

I was going to lament the fact that I missed the bus on the whole Obama/McCain "presidential election" thing, seeing as this thing is pretty much over according to 538, Zogby and - you guessed it - FOX.

But then I saw the most recent poll results regarding the outcome of the World Series, which starts tonight between the Tampa Bay Worship the Devil Rays and The Philadelphia Phillies. The results are outrageous, and patently incorrect.

What does this tell us? Two things, if you ask me (and you have asked me. You clicked and you're reading. Those are the rules of the Internet. You can Google it).

First: Polling is total crap. Obama is losing and Democrats need to fight harder. Don't ease up, unless you want a planet that's 47% on fire (this means you too, Indian Ocean) in 72 months.

Second: Pennsylvania voters will single-handedly decide the outcome of this election.

(Then again, this thing is totally in God's hands, according to Palin. And "she's the most qualified of anyone recently who has run for vice president to tell you the truth..." That's right. Qualified. Joe Biden doesn't have Sarah Palin's Honesty qualifications. He lacks the training.)

John McCain interviewed on Don Imus.

2008-10-22T12:27:00.005-04:00

Courtesy of Mark Halperin at the Page.

Audio link is here.

I have a hard time listening to this and even imagining what a John McCain presidency would look like. He sounds like he is angry, frustrated and in denial. I also want to give some props to Don Imus - I don't agree with the guy, but he's not afraid to ask McCain some really tough questions in this interview.

I wonder if one of Andrew Sullivan's readers hit the nail completely on the head:

As it turns out, even those flashes of biographical fact included in most of this reportage do not in themselves tell a true story, or at least not the whole story; the John McCain we have seen in this campaign is, alas, probably the man he has always been.

Welcome to Kyle Ferguson.

2008-10-21T11:05:00.003-04:00

Please welcome Kyle Ferguson, who will be chiming in on film, politics, music, sports and some green tech issues, as well as whatever else he'd like.

A quick note as well: we now have contributors based in New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC.

Welcome to Dan Malessa.

2008-10-20T18:19:00.002-04:00

Welcome to Dan Malessa, who I mentioned in my previous blog in regard to the Phillies. Dan will likely be chiming in with thoughts on sports, politics and geography, or whatever else he'd like to write about.

Why Barack Obama is secretly glad the White Sox aren't playing the Cubs in this year's World Series.

2008-10-20T13:56:00.011-04:00

Barack Obama is widely known around Chicago for being a White Sox fan. He said he'd be rooting for the Sox over the Cubs if the two teams were to meet this year in the World Series.

But let's get real. Barack Obama is secretly thrilled that the White Sox aren't playing the Cubs in the World Series.

Why?

Because he was just gifted with a once in a lifetime chance to reach voters in battleground states during primetime television. Florida's Tampa Bay Rays and Pennsylvania's Philadelphia Phillies - two teams that make the rest of the country tune out completely, but the only two teams in this year's MLB playoffs that hail from states at the heart of this year's presidential race. UPDATE: my roommate Dan, an ardent Phillies fan, takes issue with me saying that the rest of the country will tune out the World Series this year. "People are sick of the Sox and Yankees," Dan writes, "I bet many are saying 'who are these new, young, exciting players?'" Well, I can't say that I agree with him...but I'll give props to his argument and his team.

For the presidential campaigns - and due to his enormous cash advantage, Obama moreso than McCain - this is an ideal venue to place ads going into the home stretch of the presidential race. I expect Obama will buy every available spot he can get for each and every game of the series - and that's on top of the fact that he'll have 30 minutes of uninterrupted airtime on Fox directly before a possible game six.

So my guess? Obama and his campaign are thrilled with how the playoffs panned out this year - and will be rooting for whichever team lengthens the series to the maximum seven games.

Colin Powell provides Obama with dual opportunities against McCain

2008-10-19T22:50:00.017-04:00

The way in which Colin Powell endorsed Obama yesterday morning has given the Democratic campaign a window of opportunity to take it to John McCain. In case you missed Powell's statement, you can view the interview here - his thoughts on the candidates begin at approximately 6:30 into this video:

Powell gives two openings - to respond to the ways in which McCain has tried to drive a wedge over faith, and to preemptively attack the new McCain shift toward calling Obama's economic policies socialist. From the Meet the Press interview:

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

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

The story about Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan will resonate with countless people around this country, and Powell invokes it clearly and effectively. It is a brutal strike at the heart of the nastiness of the McCain tactics. Andrew Sullivan provides links to much of today's resulting coverage here - with the notable image that Powell mentions here.

Powell's eloquence gives weight to the charge that McCain has been divisive in and about his rallies, and will likely yield lead to stronger objections to the strategy. Even Chris Wallace raises the issue with John McCain on Fox News, asking the Senator directly about his use of Bill Ayers in robocalls to voters in swing states:

We are only going to see more of this type of rhetoric going forward, and the Obama campaign knows it. They should take the opportunity that Powell's endorsement presents - to fight back hard on McCain's ethics in this campaign. And it appears that they will do just that.

Joe Biden gave a rousing speech yesterday afternoon in Tacoma, Washington and offered his reactions to Powell's endorsement:

From CNN's coverage:

“From the very beginning, this Republican party has tried to suggest that Barack Obama, Senator Barack Obama, wasn’t ready to be commander-in-chief,” said the Delaware senator to more than 11,000 supporters in a minor league ballpark, his biggest crowd to date when campaigning without Obama.

“With all the three and four star generals, with the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former National Security Adviser, the former Secretary of State, one of the most respected men who have ever worn the uniform, endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain today, no more questions! Barack Obama will be a commander-in-chief we can all respect!”

CNN also offers the later rhetoric in Biden's speech. Notably:

"So don’t anyone even indirectly imply to me that there’s one more patriotic part of the country than another part of the country!” Biden thundered to loud applause from the crowd. It doesn’t matter where you live, it doesn’t matter your color, it doesn’t matter your religion, we are all Americans! We’re all Americans! Governor Palin may have stepped back from some of the divisive rhetoric she’s been using, but the Republican Party has stepped up their attacks that are just as divisive.”

Biden has hit on what seems to be his new role as the campaign's attack dog. I am willing to bet Biden will hammer this point home in every stump speech he gives from now until November 4. It is a unification message, an inclusive message and a positive one in the face of very divisive, frightening attacks that appeal to a very emotional base - "we are all Americans" is powerful rhetoric. It is precisely the message that Powell's invocation of Khan solidifies as a new message to the Obama campaign.

Khan, in many ways, could become the Democrats' version of Joe the Plumber - a normal individual, an American hero, representative of a broad cross-section of this country. It is a reminder of the religious and cultural freedoms that make this country great - a reminder that we've found long and hard to prevent exactly the type of divisions that McCain/Palin's rhetoric is enabling. A reminder of ALL of the people that put Country First. The door has been opened to have this narrative take hold.

As much as some partisan Democrats and Republicans loathe to admit it, Colin Powell is one of the most respected figures in American politics. Sure - some liberal Democrats criticize him for his role in the Bush administration and the Iraq war, and loyal Republicans haven't forgiven him for his vocal opposition of the party - and his endorsement will only fuel GOP critiques. But people trust Colin Powell, they believe him, and they like him. By and large, Americans view Powell as a man who has dedicated himself to service of this country in an honorable and honest fashion, without appearing to act out of self-interest or hubris. This perception, combined with his obvious experience and qualifications, makes his judgment unimpeachable in the minds of much of the American public. His pointed critiques of McCain are devastating.

But he did more for Obama this morning that allow him to address the past few weeks' strategies. In answering questions from reporters after his appearance on Meet the Press, Powell spoke specifically to foreign affairs, emphasizing the ways McCain's divisive strategies damage our standing in the world. View his comments after appearing on Meet this Press this morning here:

I mean, think about that - how do Europeans, Asians, Africans view the ways in which Americans spew hatred at McCain/Palin's rallies, a couple of which I've posted here? What does this say about us? How does it impact our standing, our credibility, and the respect the world has for our country? And isn't that important?

They are powerful questions. I'm afraid I know the answers - and I wonder what that would mean if McCain/Palin were to win on the back of these arguments.

Finally, Powell opens up an opportunity for Obama and Biden to strike back against the charges of socialism that have become the new focal point of the McCain strategy. Powell's remarks after Meet the Press echo many moderate conservatives - those who don't like to pay taxes, but see the new economic news as an unfortunate reality that may demand they concede the issue:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them - in roads and airports, hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more and who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.

I don't want my taxes raised, I don't want anybody else's taxes raised. But I also want to see our infrastructure fixed, I don't want to have a $12 trillion national debt, and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over $500 billion and heading toward $1 trillion. So how do we deal with all of this?

Many, many people identify with these words. Republicans don't want to be taxed more than they are, but they also recognize the serious mess that we're currently in - and the fact remains that McCain's economic policies would more closely mirror those of a Bush administration that failed to act to prevent this crisis. Obama's plan is simply not socialism - it is just another way of looking at taxation. Thoughtful Americans can all agree on that point.

And that's opportunity two - Powell has opened the battle against McCain's socialism charge. Again, Powell's gravity as a figure both honorable and bipartisan strengthens his statements - and he articulates them with poise and clarity. To older generations of Americans, socialism is a scary word - on par with terrorism in today's climate. If they can defuse the issue before it takes greater hold, it removes one more weapon in McCain's arsenal of dirty tricks as we get closer to election day. Obama and Biden should seize upon his message as a rational, reasonable explanation for Obama's tax policies, and continue to question the McCain's campaign ethics in distorting the facts to prey upon peoples' fears.

UPDATE: Obama begins to integrate this response into his stump speech. View him here in North Carolina:

Will McCain ultimately end up shifting to the center if these tactics fail in the closing days of the campaign? Perhaps it depends on how swift and effective Obama's reaction to this latest attack is.

You want a cookie?

2008-10-19T15:00:00.003-04:00

I was sort of flabbergasted at this quote from a conservative historian that met Palin last summer. It comes from a great New Yorker piece on how the Palin buzz grew this summer in the conservative elite media.

Here's the quote: "Hanson, a farm owner, found it appealing that she was married to an oil worker, rather than to an executive."

Now maybe the reporter took Hanson's words out of context, but it reflects a larger reality in conservative circles. For all the talk about Joe Sixpack, they don't have that many leaders who are not wealthy in some sense. So it's funny that they see someone who has a spouse with a real job as something so amazing.

Just another reason the public views conservatives as so disconnected when the economy hit crisis mode.

Baghdad John

2008-10-19T14:25:00.007-04:00

So I think things are reaching the point where John McCain and the Republicans have reached the wall for how dirty, nasty, etc. they can be (or rather, diminishing returns - I still fully expect them to sink lower). The next step is complete denial of reality.

Now there has always been a strong streak in conservatism to dismiss the "reality-based community," so to speak. But the current dissonance must be creating really psychic damage among the conservative right.

You could see this pretty clearly in John McCain's interview on Fox News this morning. He sees no commonality with the Robocalls he's running and the ones run against him in 2000. Just like in the debate, he viciously attacks Obama on the Ayers association, and then in very next sentence talks about how his campaign is all about the economy. He bashed Obama on the "spread the wealth" comment, linking him to socialist thinking, and then immediately defended the decision to inject capital directly into banks, something that is literally a socialist action, by saying that it was necessary.

These are just a few examples with "straight talk" John McCain. It's much the same with the rest of the conservative commentariat and his campaign surrogates. In the last few days alone, they've gone on crazy rants, implied that those who vote for Obama are not "real Americans", and have come up with crackpot theories about election fraud.

And they're also in deep denial about the polls, getting their online hatchet-man Drudge to cherry-pick results (the real winner of this election has to be fivethirtyeight.com).

Marc Ambinder has a great take on this general phenomenon.

*********

So I think we're heading towards Baghdad Bob territory here. Everything is fine, they say, no need to believe your lying eyes as the tanks near the city. Now, of course, none of this is new. We've seen this type of denial of reality from the beginning of the Bush administration (and before). But I really think the only proper analogy that can be made is with propaganda coming from a dictatorship.

And I don't mean this in a "oh, they're evil dictators" sort of way. I mean this in a "they're so ridiculous" sort of way. It must be pretty embarrassing to have such bad spin on your side. Putin's people could have done a lot better.

Bush and McCain may have overthrown Saddam and Baghdad Bob, but it has now led to Baghdad John as the Republican presidential nominee. And I'm pretty sure their regime is going to be overrun pretty soon as well.

Supreme Court Overrules Ohio Appeals Court on Voter Registration Questions

2008-10-17T12:16:00.008-04:00

Breaking news:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio's top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio's top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Fantastic news, given the countless ways this would have been awful. Kudos to the United States Supreme Court.

The McCain Shift

2008-10-17T11:31:00.009-04:00

I will have more thoughts on this later, and will point to some other examples - but you're starting to notice a new McCain shift in tactics, and it might be the best closing move he can make. Watch this video from Letterman last night:

At about 3:40 or so, McCain openly praises Obama without being prompted. You saw it in the closing of the Al Smith speech as well, posted below. I think now that he has aired all of the Ayers laundry (no pun intended) and been able to cement his base by coming off as tough in the debate, McCain is going to make a hard, strong shift to the center to close out the campaign. He'll be the moderate McCain that has been missing for most of the campaign. He will come off as magnanimous and reasonable and likable. He'll hammer Obama almost exclusively on the "share the wealth" line from the Joe the Plumber saga. And I bet you start to see praise for Obama creep into McCain's stump speech with regularity in the closing days of the campaign.

It would be an interesting strategy shift. And it could work.

But as McCain gets more appealing personally, remember how he has campaigned. Remember the the vile venom Sarah Palin still spews from podiums around the country while having yet to face a press conference, the robocalls McCain's campaign is making about Ayers while stating in the debate it isn't an issue that matters to him, the complicity in allowing the Virginia GOP to use mailers like this one and encourage GOP operatives to draw connections between Obama and Osama bin Laden.

Even if John McCain suddenly becomes the man we had all hoped he would be throughout this campaign, remember the man he has been from the beginning of it.

John McCain and Barack Obama are apparently hilarious.

2008-10-17T09:11:00.010-04:00

At the 63rd Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner last night in New York, Barack Obama and John McCain proved one thing: they're both much, much funnier than any of us realized them to be. Both of these videos are hilarious - and so refreshing to see the candidates from another angle. Watch John McCain and Barack Obama roast one another below.

McCain:

McCain's closing statements:

Obama:

Obama's closing statements:

Two things surprise me about these speeches.

First: John McCain is a far, far superior speaker in this capacity than he is on the stump. It is videos like this that must make Republicans cringe in wondering what could have been. If McCain could communicate this effectively while on the campaign trail, this might be a completely different race. It is a striking reminder to me of why so many people liked John McCain in the first place. Makes you wonder why we haven't seen more of this side of the man.

Second: Barack Obama has great writing in this speech. This sounds like something that could easily have come off of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, and he delivers the lines every bit as well as he does any other speech he gives. I also thought it was interesting to see him work off of notecards every bit as effectively as he uses a teleprompter. He also uses a vernacular that is notably younger and more vibrant than McCain (ie: Facebook, the Superman references, use of "I am a little too awesome").

My thoughts? McCain is naturally funnier. He seems more comfortable doing this, and looks to genuinely enjoy it. But Obama more than holds his own, and is funny in a completely different way. It is amazing that the very real differences in these two candidates even translates to their humor.

Generally, though, the most remarkable part of these speeches are how well they meld policy and jokes. I used to do speeches like this in high school - Special Occasion Speaking in the IHSA's Speech Individual Events program is almost exactly like this in structure - and it is so, so hard to balance the two as effectively as McCain and Obama did in these speeches. They managed to make some real policy points in the course of their humor - McCain hitting Obama on ACORN and Joe the Plumber, and Obama parrying with jabs on the financial meltdown.

This was a complete breath of fresh air. Enjoy.

The 56 Trillion Dollar Deficit

2008-10-16T17:43:00.005-04:00

Bill Maher interviews former Comptroller General David Walker on Real Time:

Thanks to Anna for the link. And here is the I.O.U.S.A. trailer. Have any readers seen the movie?

ACORN Update: FBI Investigation Underway

2008-10-16T14:29:00.004-04:00

I was glad to read about this today:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election.

A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday. A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.

This should answer some of the questions I raised in my article the other day, and I feel the investigation is completely warranted. Kudos to the FBI for taking it up.

Voter Registration Ridiculousness: How Ohio is About To Disenfranchise Thousands on Technicalities

2008-10-16T12:59:00.017-04:00

I'm having flashbacks to my time working with juries as I'm reading this report out of Ohio, now highlighted in red on the Drudge Report. From the article:

CINCINNATI (AP) - Close to one in every three newly registered Ohio voters will end up on court-ordered lists being sent to county election boards because they have some discrepancy in their records, an elections spokesman said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimated that an initial review found that about 200,000 newly registered voters reported information that did not match motor-vehicle or Social Security records, Brunner spokesman Kevin Kidder said. Some discrepancies could be as simple as a misspelling, while others could be more significant.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party on Tuesday and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides those names to county elections boards. The GOP contends the information will help prevent fraud.

On the surface, this sounds very sinister. 200,000 irregularities in voter registration information? In a year where Democrats are engaging in enormous voter registration efforts? Is something amiss?

The answer is probably not. Any time that you're creating a vast new list of people based on information that they fill out quickly with the help of other people, you create innumerable ways in which this information will not match up against past records. I saw this a lot when working with jury administrators and clerks across the country as they worked to update their jury lists - which actually use voter registration lists very, very frequently all across the country.

What kind of irregularities? Let us pick out one big one - which is actually one of the biggest problems jury administrators face in summonsing people to serve.

Anybody who drives knows what a joy it is to go to the DMV. Long lines, rude clerks, inexplicable delays, confusing requirements...in general, it is not a pleasant experience. As a result, a lot of people avoid it at all costs.

So, a quick poll - how many of you have your current address listed on your driver's licence?

If you don't, and you're a new Ohio voter registered at your new Ohio address - congratulations. You almost definitely qualify as one of the 200,000 irregularities the article mentions.

Across the country, it has been widely reported that youth voter registrations are through the roof. Rock the Vote, for example, has registered over two million young people in the 2008 election cycle, in what they call the largest youth registration drive in history. In Virgina, 40 percent of new registrants are under the age of 25, and using the numbers Virginia has released, that amounts to approximately 174,400 new, youthful voters. I don't have specific statistics for Ohio, but I expect that they would mirror these national trend.

What's the point? Well, young people move. A lot. They go to college, they change apartments, they move out of their parents' homes, they get new roommates. They move a lot more than older people. According to the Census, 25% of people aged 18-29 changed residences from 2006 to 2007, compared to 10% of those aged 30-69, and 13% when you look at all residents. And consequently, it is FAR more likely that their voter registration information will not match their driver's licenses on record with the DMV.

So let's use similar statistics for Ohio that we have for Virginia, for sake of argument. If even 30% of the newly registered voters in Ohio were young people, that would mean 198,000 of the 666,000 Ohioans who have registered to vote since January are under the age of 25. So using the national averages, 25% of those voters moved in the last year, or 49,500 people. This number is actually probably larger, as it would compound over the multiple years between elections - but I'm just using simple math for this argument. If half of that number didn't update their driver's license before registering to vote, you've just found about 25,000 people of Ohio's 200,000 with irregularities

This is, of course, rough math and approximation. But it is meant to illustrate that these types of irregularities can result from completely innocuous, innocent activity that is NOT indicative of some kind of sinister intention.

These are the irregularities that are now forcing the Ohio Secretary of State to create some kind of database that will provide these names to elections officials by this FRIDAY, so they can begin to verify this information independently. So elections officials - in addition to everything else that they have to do - will have to somehow manage to contact 200,000 new voters to verify their information. Another quote from the article cited at the top of this page:

County election officials were trying to determine Wednesday how they will respond once they get the information.

"I'm very concerned with these new requirements as we get closer to Election Day," said Steve Harsman, director of the Montgomery County Board of Elections in Dayton. He said his staff already is working 16 hours a day, seven days a week.

"It's clearly going to have an impact in regard to resources we have to expend to resolve discrepancies," said Jeff Hastings, chairman of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Cleveland.

If they fail to resolve these discrepancies before election day, voters will probably have to cast a provisional ballot - which may or may not be counted. From the article, by an Ohio State professor:

Even worse, in some states the provisional voting process operates very differently in different localities within the state. In Ohio in 2006, percentages of provisional ballots that were both cast and counted varied wildly regardless of demographics, a strong indication that different county boards were applying their own rules in the face of insufficiently specific directives from the state. States must have basic, uniform rules in place on these matters to prevent different counties within the states from applying their own rules and thereby opening the state up to voting rights lawsuits based on equal protection.

Is it possible that within those 200,000 registrants that there are some serious offenders? Yes. But given how easily these kind of discrepancies can arise, is it worth a potential problem for the entire electorate? You tell me.

The District loses a great company and great people in XM Radio's purge

2008-10-15T11:37:00.003-04:00

From the Washington Post:

Nobody has announced anything yet, but about 80 Washington-based XM employees, including many of the on-air voices and program directors of the service's most popular music channels, have learned this week that today is their last day of employment. They found out in the worst possible way: One worker routinely signed on to the company's payroll system and saw that his final day of employment was listed as October 15. Word spread like a virus through the building and by the time everyone had checked the system, it was clear that Sirius boss Mel Karmazin was ready with his bloodletting.

There's no word yet on the future of XM's headquarters building at New York and Florida avenues NE in NoMa, but it's hard to imagine that Sirius will hold on to an emptied-out building for long. Karmazin's plan, according to several radio industry news outlets, is to merge XM and Sirius programming into one stream on or around Nov. 5--directly in opposition to Karmazin's repeated and vehement promises to keep the two voices separate and distinct for some time to come.

This sucks. Big time. It goes without saying that notifying your people this way is awful, but beyond that, this is just a poor call. I know a lot of people at XM Radio, and they were great for music, great for Washington DC, and above all else, great people. The XM building is truly incredible - one of the most beautiful music buildings I've ever been in.

Tobi and Billy Zero at XMU were early supporters of Soft Complex, and were wonderful to put our EP into rotation on Channel 43. Gavin at In-DEED played some of our remixes. I know from conversations with other artists and friends that XM helped many, many musicians reach audiences and parts of the country that they would never have been able to reach before. The staff was always supportive of local music and local musicians. My personal thanks and thoughts go out to everyone impacted, and more specifically to Tobi, Gavin and Billy to being such steadfast supporters of the scene here in DC.

This is a great loss for our music community and the DC community as a whole. Ugh.

John Cleese on Sarah Palin.

2008-10-15T11:15:00.001-04:00

Thanks to Matt for the link.

And for good measure, Monty Python on parrots.

Examining ACORN: Why the Justice Department should investigate more fully.

2008-10-14T10:28:00.015-04:00

I have to admit that I'm late to following the ACORN story with a lot of detail - but as more stories emerge about their fraudulent voter practices, I'm bothered by it. To me, voter fraud and disenfranchisement are some of the most onerous affronts to democracy - it doesn't matter which side a group is on.

So a quick background. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It was founded in 1970, and has been headed by Maude Hurd since 1990. It claims to be non-partisan - but the issues it advocates for (including improved housing and wages for the lower class, community development, and better education) generally fall on the Democratic side of the political spectrum. Voter registration is always a large part of these efforts around election time, as they view community involvement in the electoral process as one of the central ways to make progress on their relevant issues. Their opening mission statement is as follows:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority constituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.

ACORN also offers this video as an introduction to the organization. View it below.

The current controversy over ACORN relates to their extensive voter registration efforts, which has been a central part of the group's activities since 1970. In the current election, a rising number of voter registration fraud cases are emerging linked to ACORN organizers. Today's headline story on the Drudge Report details how the group registered Mickey Mouse in Florida, while other stories detail rampant fraud in Ohio. Other voter registration issues have cropped up Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Missouri and Connecticut. UPDATE: a kind reader pointed out this article that ran in the Michigan Messenger regarding ACORN. From the article:

Gerald Hebert, a retired U.S. Department of Justice voting rights expert who served under Republican and Democratic presidents, says the kind of fraud that the GOP is charging ACORN with — deliberately registering fictitious people or registering the same person in two different precincts — is extremely rare. Hebert is now executive director of the Campaign Legal Center in Washington. The nonprofit organization was founded by Trevor Potter, who represents the McCain campaign in lawsuits over voter suppression.

The Michigan Messenger piece offers some great point counterpoint as related to ACORN, and illustrates how some of these voter fraud charges may be over exaggerated and picked piecemeal over years of registration efforts. Again, of note:

The charge that ACORN engages in “outright voter fraud” and “illegal voting” activity seems to be based on a handful of cases over many years. For example, three ACORN canvassers pleaded guilty to voter fraud in Seattle in 2007, and eight pleaded guilty to fraud in Missouri in 2004. By comparison, ACORN had thousands of canvassers across the country and more than 100 canvassers working in Michigan alone in these instances.

This answers some of the overall GOP accusations that ACORN is a radical group that is systematically trying to defraud the electorate. However, it doesn't speak to the current allegations in some of the battleground states.

The GOP has raised this as an issue against Barack Obama, putting together an admittedly creative website called Barack Obama's ACORN Tree. The Obama camp has responded in kind by adding the ACORN issue to their Fight The Smears website. Frankly, I avoid getting information from either of these sources as much as possible, as they tend to only give partial truths. So looking to other sources...

A Google search on Obama and ACORN reveals the first three links to be to prominent National Review columnists Stanley Kurtz and Michelle Malkin - which to me, is an immediate red flag that this is likely more of a partisan story than a real one.

To me, there is little doubt that ACORN is far more aligned with the Obama campaign than with the McCain camp. However, that in and of itself doesn't mean anything. In fact, non-partisan fact check group Politifact.com emphasizes that many conservatives emphasize ACORN's involvement with liberal groups while ignoring others. From the article:

And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

In any case, the Wall Street Journal ran an article this morning detailing some of the connections between Obama and ACORN. Two paragraphs are noteworthy:

Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls.

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn. More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for "staging, sound, lighting." It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.

Now, Obama's camp claims that ACORN was not involved in Project Vote - though the current incarnation is tied to ACORN directly, this was not the case in 1992 when Obama was director of Project Vote. The Huffington Post reports on these connections, stating that the official association of the two groups happened in 1994, and that at the time, the only official involvement in Project Vote was a member of the 40-person advisory board. One of the direct connections that the Obama campaign admits is that Obama served as an attorney representing ACORN in lawsuit, alongside the Illinois Department of Justice, related to voter access.

As for the Obama donations to an ACORN affliate, the Washington Times has the story. During the primary campaign, the Obama campaign did donate $832,598 to Citizens Services Inc, a fact verified by Federal Elections Commission reports. The Times details the connection between ACORN and Citizens Services:

Citizen Services is inextricably tied to ACORN. Along with nonprofit sister organization Project Vote, Citizens Services and ACORN share the same New Orleans address and the same executive staff while money flows freely between the three entities. In 1996, Project Vote's tax returns show it paid ACORN more than $4.6 million for campaign services and Citizens Services more than $779,000 for legal and administrative services.

The article goes on to examine the actual work that Citizens Services did - with a mixed verdict that probably isn't easily resolved:

Brian Mellor, legal counsel for ACORN and Project Vote, said the Citizens Services was not involved in the voter-registration drive. He said Project Vote provided the funding and ACORN provided the local ground operation and ran day-to-day activities.

But James Terry, the chief political advocate for the nonpartisan Consumer Rights League who tracks ACORN issues, said Citizen Services and ACORN are one in the same.

"There is no way it is not coordinated," he said. "It is a multimillion-dollar coordinated effort."

I think the truth is probably that the Obama campaign funded ACORN as a part of their voter registration drive in their attempts to best Hillary Clinton in the primary. The reality is that they're a big organization with offices in many of the areas filled with potential Obama voters, and I imagine the campaign's decision to work with them was based upon a cost-benefit analysis that indicated they'd be best able to register the votes they needed to win.

Does this make Obama complicit in voter fraud? No, not by itself. Until there is some evidence that the Obama campaign knew that ACORN was engaging in fraudulent activity, I consider them independent from ACORN's fradulent actions. Not even the Kurtz piece goes so far as to claim that Obama was complicit in voter fraud or knew of fradulent activities at any point in his activity with ACORN. But was it a mistake to have funded ACORN now that these fraud issues are coming out? Absolutely - ESPECIALLY given the amazing work that so many Obama volunteers are doing to register voters legitimately all over the country. Obama should take responsibility for that mistake and condemn ACORN's fraudulent registration practices publicly and forcefully.

UPDATE: In rereading, I'd like to clarify - I don't mean that Obama should condemn ACORN unilaterally - there would be no need for that unless it was found that there was systemic, planned fraud originating from the top down within the organization. But Obama should absolutely speak out against any illegal activity occuring within ACORN's ranks - it is possible to do that without speaking out against the organization as a whole. ACORN does work apart from voter registration that is important and relevant to countless people across the country, and it is important to remember that in this discussion.

I haven't been able to find any articles from organizations that don't have some kind of partisan reputation. The Times is known as a conservative paper, as is the Wall Street Journal and the National Review. Dear readers - anybody know of a rundown that originates from a centrist or fact-checking source?

UPDATE: This article from Pajamas Media has more details on the history of ACORN and its voter registration efforts; it is clearly written from a right-wing perspective, but it cites many cases and provides sourced materials.

UPDATE II: Talking Points Memo makes an outstanding point on this discussion - and points out a problem in referring to this as "voter fraud." From the article:

Let's be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they're not entitled to cast. It doesn't and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely.

The article is correct - false registrations really don't mean anything unless those false registrants try and vote. In all likelihood, many of these fake registrations are not being submitted to try and influence the election, but rather, to make individual volunteers look better to the organization. Get more voters registered, advance farther through ACORN, appear to be a better organizer, etc. etc.

But this is splitting hairs to a degree - the problem of fake registrations is that it makes creating accurate lists much more difficult, and could provide a screen for actual voter fraud to occur. If elections officials are too busy weeding out fake registrations, then they're distracted from the job they should actually be doing. It also forces purges of the voter registration lists, as these lists are used for more than just voting. For example, jury duty. Voter registration lists are used almost universally (along with DMV records) to summons people for jury service. If there are thousands of false registrants on the books, it yields enormous waste and problems with having inadequate numbers of jurors at the courthouse. I did a lot of work with list management when I was doing my jury administration work; creating accurate lists is horribly difficult.

Regardless, I agree with the closing paragraph of the Wall Street Journal's editorial:

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime.

Members of Congress have urged the same kind of investigation. Whether or not you trust the Justice Department (which is absolutely worth debating), this is an answer we all deserve. If it is found that ACORN is systematically and deliberately violating election law to register voters fraudulently, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Barack Obama proves he is a real feminist.

2008-10-13T11:28:00.006-04:00

I've long made the contention that true feminism cuts both ways - if one argues for gender equality, then you have to take the good with the bad. And thus, Barack Obama today helped prove to me that he is a true feminist, by stating that women should have to register for the Selective Service, and considering opening combat positions to women as well as men. From the article:

"There was a time when African-Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Mr. Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal.

"And I think that if women are registered for service -- not necessarily in combat roles, and I don't agree with the draft -- I think it will help to send a message to my two daughters that they've got obligations to this great country as well as boys do."

Is this a more difficult issue than the surface would suggest? Sure - there are compelling, practical arguments against these policy suggestions. But that doesn't mean that we can't work within or around whatever constrictions might exist.

I am no fan of the draft. I don't want there to be a draft. I also recognize its necessity at times, though I doubt it will be used again any time soon. But if men have to register, then women should as well. It is an issue of respect - all of us should trust that women are equally capable of serving this country's military as men are. Those who demand that there is no difference or preferential treatment based upon gender should agree - and take issue with the fact that John McCain does not.

Who is Barack Obama?

2008-10-10T19:19:00.003-04:00

Here is the Obama campaign's response - behind the scenes footage.

To answer some questions I've been getting...

2008-10-10T14:59:00.004-04:00

Yes, I know Google is displaying John McCain ads on my blog.

No, I'm not thrilled about it.

But yes, you should probably click through on the ads on my page to help support the blog anyway.

John McCain, please put country first and calm your supporters.

2008-10-10T12:08:00.009-04:00

I'm starting to become more and more fearful of what could happen between now and election day. The videos that are coming out from the campaign trail are terrifying - some are posted below. McCain and Palin are stoking a fire that they don't identify with and don't believe in - I don't think that either of them to be racist or believe Obama to be some kind of Manchurian candidate.

But some of their supporters believe all of these things and more. You see the real fervor of "true believers" in some of these folks - people who actually believe that Obama is a terrorist with some kind of hidden agenda to destroy the country. These are exactly the kinds of people that have the potential to do something crazy and violent - true believers who see themselves as patriots acting in defense of the country.

Jonathan Martin reports on the atmosphere on the most recent campaign rallies, since McCain has fully devoted himself to the William Ayers non-story. Some key quotes:

"...voters this week have shouted out insults at the mention of Obama, pleaded with McCain to get more aggressive with the Democrat and generally demonstrated the sort of visceral anger and unease that reflects a party on the precipice of panic...

**

With McCain passing up the opportunity to level any tough personal shots in his first two debates and the very real prospect of an Obama presidency setting in, the sort of hard-core partisan activists who turn out for campaign events are venting in unusually personal terms.

"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”

"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."

Was it reasonable to bring up Ayers as a connection that needed to be explained? Perhaps - I can grant that to people who want to fully vet Obama's connections to people in his past. But this has been asked and answered. McCain knows this - it is why he didn't bring up any of these issues to Obama's face during the last debate.

McCain also knows this doesn't play to the middle. McCain has made an overt shift to play to prejudice and ignorance.

Ta-nehisi Coates at the Atlantic connects the McCain campaign's shift to Jerry Falwell invoking fears about Communists in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an excellent post - he correctly notes that using Obama's middle name is "nothing more than today's red-baiting, and it is what it was then - a cover for racists."

Andrew Sullivan draws a comparison to Israel in 1995, noting that the atmosphere McCain is helping to create in the course of his campaign is similar to the emotions raised before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. His role in the creation of the Oslo Accords incensed radical elements within the Israeli Jewish community, those who believed any deal with the Palestinians was simply unacceptable. From Wiki:

On 4 November 1995 Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a radical right-wing Orthodox Jew who opposed the signing of the Oslo Accords and believed he was saving the country from a dire fate. The shooting took place in the evening as Rabin was leaving a mass rally in Tel Aviv in support of the Oslo process. Rabin was rushed to the nearby Ichilov Hospital, where he died on the operating table of blood loss and a punctured lung.

Daniel Lubetzky at the Huffington Post examines the same corrollary, directly looking at the similarities in the run up to Rabin's assassination and the current climate that John McCain is helping to further:

This eerily reminds me of the atmosphere before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in Israel. Far-right Israelis had been engaging in a campaign of vilification against Rabin for months. Right-wing politicians had done nothing to discourage extreme incitement or death threats against Rabin. Posters filled the walls across Israel with horrifying statements and dehumanizing captions against Rabin. Extremist Rabbis said Rabin was betraying Jews and was cursed to death.

Then came Yigal Amir, the assassin who shot Yitzhak Rabin at point blank. When asked, he said he was inspired to kill Rabin to avenge the Jewish people and prevent him undermining Israel.

Suddenly after Rabin's chilling assassination, everyone was against dehumanization and incitement. Everyone had condemned such vitriol all along. Everyone loved Rabin, the martyr and hero. It was unclear how all those posters got posted on the walls, or who had made all those calls into radio stations with threats against Rabin.

What exactly were people saying about Rabin? Take this article from the New York Times, published November 6, 1995, in which some of these attacks on Rabin are described:

There was a sense that the killing of the Prime Minister by a right-wing militant had exposed the real, terrible scope of the division among Jews, in Israel and abroad, over the peace he had tried to achieve.

Though the level of invective had been rising steadily since the peace agreement was reached, and Mr. Rabin was frequently denounced by ardent foes as a "traitor," or pictured with an Arab head scarf or a Nazi swastika, most Israelis seemed to assume that the passions would never reach to murder.

"People who didn't agree with him said all sorts of things, but nobody ever believed that this could happen, that a Jew would kill another Jew," said Toby Wolf, a graphic artist, standing with hundreds of Israelis who gathered to light candles and chant psalms outside the Prime Minister's official residence here.

This is exactly the same type of rhetoric occurring at McCain/Palin rallies today. Calling someone a terrorist today in the United States is no different than calling someone a Nazi in Israel in 1995.

We cannot allow it to stand.

This is an exceedingly dangerous part of this campaign. John McCain owes it to all of us to step up to the plate and speak out against irrationality, against those who indict Obama the man, against those that would use race and xenophobia to fan the anger and fear of the worst parts of our society.

The fact that McCain hasn't stepped up to say or do anything to temper these types of feelings - to emphasize that this is a campaign about ideas and not identity - is just flat out wrong. If you're a McCain supporter and can't see or admit that, then you're worse than any Obama supporter that you've ever called a Kool-Aid drinker. If you stand by and tacitly endorse this type of campaign, then you've sacrificed your integrity along with John McCain.

The McCain-Palin Mob

2008-10-10T10:37:00.003-04:00

Amazing stuff from Blogger Interrupted.

Shout out to my brother

2008-10-09T00:19:00.003-04:00

My brother was a big part of a long Huffington Post article that came out today about Obama's Ohio field operation. He's doing some great work down there and has finally found a job where people pay him to talk all day. Its a win-win situation.

Foo Fighters fed up.

2008-10-08T12:09:00.003-04:00

This just in from the Foo Fighters' publicist:

FOO FIGHTERS DENOUNCE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THEIR MUSIC BY MCCAIN CAMPAIGN

Having received confirmed press reports that John McCain has been using Foo Fighters' "My Hero" as the latest in a number of unauthorized theme songs at his campaign rallies without seeking permission from the band, its management, record label or publisher, Foo Fighters have issued the following statement:

"This isn't the first time the McCain campaign has used a song without making any attempt to get approval or permission from the artist. It's frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property. The saddest thing about this is that "My Hero" was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential. To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song. We hope that the McCain campaign will do the right thing and stop using our song--and start asking artists' permission in general!"

Don't wear your Obama shirts to the polls on November 4

2008-10-07T12:09:00.004-04:00

Props to DCist, who reports on this from the DC Board of Elections and Ethics:

D.C. Municipal Regulations sections 708.4, 708.5 and 708.8 cover restrictions on “political activity” within 50 feet of the entrance of a building used for voting. Section 708.8 clearly states that “the term ‘political activity’ shall include without limitation, any activity intended to persuade a person to vote for or against any candidate or measure...”

This means that if a voter is showing an outward sign of support for a candidate (i.e. wearing hats, buttons, t-shirts, etc.) the voter will be asked to remove or cover the article before entering the polling place.

This is likely true in MANY STATES. So please - tell your friends, family, friends of friends. Don't wear your Obama gear to the polls. Save it for the parties on election night.

UPDATE: Snopes has some information on passive electioneering (wearing shirts, buttons, etc.) on their website. They also note that sometimes it can extend further than candidate approved materials - they cite an instance where wearing Cowboys jerseys or apparel could have been construed as supporting a referendum in Texas. Best bet: IF IN DOUBT ABOUT WHETHER AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING OR ACCESSORY WOULD QUALIFY AS PASSIVE ELECTIONEERING, LEAVE IT AT HOME.

Sarah Palin owes tens of thousands in back taxes.

2008-10-07T11:14:00.007-04:00

It just gets better and better. Should John McCain have looked a bit further into Sarah Palin's background? You betcha!

Via the TaxProf Blog:

Jack Bogdanski (Lewis & Clark) & Bryan Camp (Texas Tech) have independently reviewed the tax issues raised by the release of Gov. Palin's 2006 and 2007 tax returns and financial disclosure form, as well as the remarkable opinion letter issued from Washington D.C. tax lawyer Roger M. Olsen. Jack and Bryan conclude that there are serious errors in Gov. Palin's returns as filed and that she and her husband owe tens of thousands of dollars in additional taxes.

No wonder McCain/Palin are for additional tax cuts. Clearly Joe Biden had it wrong - it is FAILING to pay your taxes that is patriotic! After all, country first!

UPDATE: Some additional thoughts. I agree that the tax code is very confusing. And it seems as though the clauses that the tax professors above are pointing out are complicated. But when you're the governor of a state, shouldn't you be able to hire an accountant that can handle your taxes accurately? If Sarah Palin can't handle that, are we comfortable with her being involved in decisions to appoint people to work in the United States Treasury? Or, even better, the IRS?

Just wondering...

2008-10-03T15:44:00.002-04:00

Does anybody know where I can put down a big fat bet that Sarah Palin will go to work for Fox News after McCain/Palin are defeated in November, and she loses a subsequent reelection bid in Alaska?

Just wondering...

Palin has become inauthentic

2008-10-03T11:26:00.015-04:00

Like many people, I thought Palin did better than expected, but still not very good. But that's probably fine for the McCain people as they just wanted to stop the bleeding.

The one thing I thought was interesting though was what happened to the focus group dial on CNN (WAY too addictive to watch during the debate for my own good) when Palin started doing her cutesy routine. When she said, "doggone it" or "joe six-pack", etc. the numbers nose-dived.

Now this is contrary to conventional wisdom which said that these "authentic", "real-American" inflections were the key to her popularity. As David Brooks said today in the NYTimes, "It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America — and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, “you betchas” and “darn rights.” Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling."

No doubt there's some truth to this in the past five weeks, but what was interesting to me was how it just seemed fake last night as opposed to her convention speech and debates/speeches from Alaska. And the focus groups dial showed it (it was in Ohio by the way, not exactly a bastion of east coast elitism).

I'm from Chicago and have lots of family in Michigan that have that wonderful, earnest, midwest twang (friends from college claimed I have a strong accent, something I deny to this day). And while the sayings and inflections of the upper midwest (and I guess Alaska) are distinct, there was something very cartoonish and inauthentic from Palin. I think she's so conscious of her image that she's overplaying it, and the American people smell a rat.

All Palin really had was her down-to-earth authenticity, and now that's gone. Oh well, that was fun while it lasted.

Update: Andrew Sullivan catches the same thing.

McCain's big strategic error - going to the right instead of the center

2008-10-02T20:46:00.004-04:00

Assuming nothing major changes from now until election day (a big assumption to be sure), John McCain will lose the 2008 Presidential election to Barack Obama.

And although the fundamentals have always been strongly in Obama's favor (unpopular war, bad economy, general evilness of Bush/Republicans), McCain's impending loss was not inevitable. It springs from a fundamental strategic decision he made once he won the nomination.

McCain decided that he would run as a conservative, but try and keep the "maverick" label. The thinking behind this is/was that he needed the Bush base, but had enough political capital from his "maverick" days of 1999-2004 to make the American people believe that he'd be real change.

This was wrong/stupid for many reasons:

1. You run a base election when your base is bigger than the other guy's. This is how Bush ran in 2004 obviously, and while you usually try to do what worked last time, it has been painfully obvious this year that things have fundamentally changed since the last election. Democrats are far more energized and have picked up independents.

2. McCain overestimated how much the public remembered him. Sure they had vague memories of "maverick" McCain, but these weren't so embedded that they couldn't get different views of him given the opportunity. And, by running to the right, Obama has had a relatively easy time of trying him to Bush.

3. This year, he chose "maverick" issues that people either didn't care about or didn't like. Nobody really cares about pork-barrel spending when push comes to shove. Sure they don't like it, but people who will vote on it will already vote for Republicans. And even though people are happy the Surge has tamped down violence in Iraq, McCain's stand on it reminds them of his general hawkishness. Compare that to 2000 when he chose campaign finance reform and corporate greed as his issues, things that had real resonance to independents. This brings us the last and most important reason McCain's strategy didn't work...

4. People only buy that you're a "maverick" if you get shit from your own party. Just as people never really bought Obama as an independent Democrat, they only bought McCain's "maverick" image in 2000 because he pissed off a lot of conservatives & the GOP establishment. So when he went out of his way this year to brand himself as a conservative he seriously damaged his "maverick" brand.

So what should McCain have done instead? Here are a few big things that could have changed the tenor of the race:

1. Go hard to the center after winning the nomination. I was dumbfounded when McCain, after he wrapped up the nomination, starting going farther to the right. There's a reason why its such a strong political rule that you always run to the center after you win your party's nomination. The strong idealogues may grumble, but its not like they're going to vote for the other guy. And again, if your base is smaller than the other person's you have more to gain by going for the middle than going for the edges.

2. Pick a fight with the Bush administration. There's certainly no love lost between McCain and Bush so its not like he owes the President anything. They could have even talked about it beforehand - what the hell does Bush care about his popularity anymore. When people ask McCain what he disagrees with the Bush Administration on, he only gives a lame answer like government spending. Sure McCain may hate pork much more than Bush, but its not like Bush is out there saying how awesome pork-barrel spending is (in fact, he says the opposite). Compare this to when McCain was for campaign finance reform, against the tax cuts, for global warming legislation - everyone knew they had a real, substantive difference.

3. Pick Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge instead of Sarah Palin. McCain's VP pick was probably the decision that best crystallized his big strategic error of going to the right instead of the center. He could have picked Lieberman or Ridge, both of whom would have signalled a strong swing to the center, both of whom would have underscored his (then) message of experience. Both Lieberman or Ridge would have been a risk, but at that point they were the only picks that could really attract the center (especially Lieberman). They were high risk, high reward. Palin on the other hand with high risk, relatively low reward. As Mike Murphy, the smartest political thinker around (and close McCain confidant) has said repeatedly, Palin was a base pick, and McCain needed to move past his base. So even if Palin hadn't bombed her interviews and become a laughingstock, it would not have been enough to win in a year like this.

So McCain made a fundamental strategic mistake to run to the right as opposed to the center. That's the root cause of all the other problems in his campaign. He's now focusing on short-term political tactics because their strategy is wrong. He's attacking Obama and sounding angry because he doesn't have a great message for himself. He's doing a political hail-mary a week because he doesn't have any other shot to win. He's attacking the media because he's lost their trust.

So this was a bad political choice, and it was a bad moral choice since he basically chose cynicism over real reform which McCain had traditionally championed. In my mind the hard part for McCain was winning the nomination - I never thought he'd screw it up this badly after he got it.

McCain is pulling his campaign out of Michigan.

2008-10-02T14:40:00.004-04:00

I think today is the day that we realized that the election is over, and Obama will likely carry the election in a landslide, barring something completely unexpected.

Jonathan Martin reports:

John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.

McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.

McCain's campaign didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

If the McCain campaign doesn't think he has a chance of even COMPETING in Michigan, then how will he compete in Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin?

At this point, what possible pathway is there for John McCain to win this election?

John McCain seems to think he's entitled to the presidency.

2008-10-02T12:07:00.006-04:00

CNN reports:

John McCain said Thursday that Barack Obama’s poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn’t fair.”

....Wow.

Wow.

So life would be fair if John McCain were leading in the polls? Is that what McCain is saying?

Is this how a President McCain would respond to sinking world opinion of the United States? Or his own approval rating while president?

What on earth happened to John McCain's presidential campaign?

Even better - what on earth happened to John McCain?

View the video here:

Welcome to Andy Frank.

2008-10-01T18:16:00.001-04:00

Please welcome my good friend Andy Frank to the site. He'll be chiming in whenever he likes - probably discussing politics, baseball and whatever else he'd like to write about.

Will Palin be pulled from the debate due to revelations about Gwen Ifill's book on Barack Obama?

2008-10-01T10:44:00.006-04:00

According to this morning's headline on the Drudge Report, Gwen Ifill - the moderator of tomorrow night's vice presidential debate - is releasing a laudatory book on Barack Obama in January, 2009.

Frankly, I almost expect that John McCain and his campaign will use this as an opportunity to cancel or postpone this debate - especially since FoxNews is reporting that they were unaware of Ifill's book. It plays perfectly into their already established narrative that the media is in the tank for Obama, and gives them an opportune excuse that they will be unable to get a fair shake in the course of the debate.

I can't believe that this didn't come out before today - but we'll see what happens. UPDATE: It did come out before today, as the comments have aptly noted. So is the McCain camp lying about not having heard about it, or did they just not research their moderator?

Here is video of Ifill discussing her book:

The Breakthrough: Gwen Ifill - The best home videos are here

Sarah Palin's Supreme Failure

2008-09-30T23:20:00.025-04:00

Chalk this up to another unreal turn in the Sarah Palin Saga. Apparently, we are about to see the mother of all revelations from the Katie Couric interview: that the Republican vice presidential nominee is incapable of commenting on a Supreme Court decision apart from Roe v. Wade. Note: this post has been updated with the release of the video.

Buried on the third page of Howard Kurtz's "Media Notes" column published yesterday, Kurtz quotes anonymous sources, stating "CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely be embarassing." We likely saw one of them today - Palin walking with Couric, after slamming Joe Biden from the stump on his age and experience, and her later comments about what newspapers she reads. Palin also makes alarming statements about abortion rights for victims of rape and incest. She also speaks of her belief that her friend chose to be gay. You can watch the full video here*:

Watch CBS Videos Online

And apparently, we have yet to see it all.

Sources have told Jonathan Martin, who reports yesterday on his blog, CBS is holding an ace in the hole - footage of Palin failing to give any response at all when asked to comment on a Supreme Court case apart from Roe v. Wade. No verbal acrobatics, no attempts to answer - just silence. Assuming Martin's sources are correct - which I have little doubt they are - I will post this video as soon as it is available. UPDATED: view the video here. Apparently Palin does try and answer the question, after initial silence.

Watch CBS Videos Online

This is perhaps the most damning footage of Sarah Palin yet. If - for whatever, god unknown reason based upon what we've seen - you still had any doubt about whether Palin is capable of running the country, this seals the deal. And I'm not even going to touch her statements about the Constitution protecting the right to privacy immediately after stating Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

To begin with, you cannot be Vice President of the United States of America without being able to recall at least one of the following: Plessy v. Ferguson, Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, the Dred Scott case, or even Bush v. Gore. Surely she should be able to discuss one of these in the abstract, about how these cases caused divides and disagreements throughout the United States. But let's give Sarah Palin a break. She doesn't really study "history" or "political theory" or "law" or "civics." She can see Russia from her state, even though she's never bothered to visit the spot where it is visible. She's a maverick. Who needs those journalistic "gotcha" questions anyway?

Well, when you're governor of Alaska, you have to be able to comment on the most important Supreme Court decision ever to directly impact your state - the recently decided Exxon Shipping Co v. Baker, ruled upon on June 25th of this year. You can read the opinion here. The case dealt with punitive damages in a lawsuit filed by 33,000 fishermen, Native Alaskans and landowners for the spill. A jury had awarded the group $5 billion dollars; on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that amount was slashed to $2.5 billion. The United States Supreme Court further lowered that amount to $500 million with this decision - which was seen as a defeat for the people of Alaska impacted by the spill. The Washington Post reports on the case here.

This decision took nearly 20 years, and involved the most disastrous domestic oil spill in North American history - the Exxon Valdez, the impact of which is felt to this day. Studies from the University of North Carolina in 2003 show that the spill is still having dramatic effects on the state's shorelines and wildlife. Parts of the Alaskan tourism industry have yet to recover. And Alaska's fishing industry took dramatic hits.

Sarah Palin is governor of Alaska.

In fact, I'll say it again. Sarah Palin is GOVERNOR OF ALASKA.

Let's put this in perspective: 33,000 litigants is equal to 5% of the population of Alaska (with a total of 626,932 citizens, according to the 2000 census). This is a huge deal there. But if that isn't enough for you?

The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) reports that Todd and Sarah Palin could have been plaintiffs in the case, but missed the February filing deadline. After all, Todd Palin is a lifelong commercial fisherman. It is likely that the Palin family was directly impacted by the spill. The entire article on BLT is worth reading - they go on to report that Sarah Palin commented on the case in June, calling the decision "tragic." Watch one of her responses on the evening news:

You be the judge - does she sound fully informed on the court case at the time it was decided? Does she give substantive responses to these questions? Sarah Palin doesn't once mention any legal principle that would give her cause to criticize the decision. She doesn't offer any insight into the court opinion. In my read, she simply recites the facts, and expounds upon her current relationships with big oil - but that's another discussion. At least she knew enough to answer some basic questions about the case.

And now, not even four months later, Sarah Palin can't comment on ANY case to Katie Couric? Not only can she not comment, she can't muster any response at all? On a question that was even teed up for her - "what other Supreme Court cases do you disagree with?" Nothing? Not the case you vocally disagreed with just a few months ealier? Buehler? Buehler...? (SIDENOTE: this article by Ben Stein is fantastic and highly recommended as an easy to understand summation of the financial crisis)

You can believe one of two things here: 1) Sarah Palin froze up and couldn't recover, feeling under pressure from Couric and became incapable of recalling anything when put on the spot, or 2) Sarah Palin doesn't know enough about any Supreme Court case - and perhaps even how the legal system functions - to discuss why she disagrees with an opinion. And frankly, I don't think it matters which you choose to believe. If Palin can't think on her feet well enough to recall huge legal events in her own state, how can we reasonably expect her to represent our interests to a hostile Congress, or even worse, the rest of the world?

Folks, I'm sorry, but it is not elitist to expect the Vice President of the United States of America to be able to comment on a Supreme Court decision in a softball interview. Not only should she know her history, she should damn well be able to comment on the major affairs of her own state. This was a carefully controlled and orchestrated outing with a handpicked interviewer.

There are no longer any excuses for Sarah Palin. This should not and can not stand.

Sarah Palin should take the advice of Kathleen Parker and step down. She won't, but she should. It would be putting country first.

****

*NOTE: It seems CBS is a bit overloaded on their bandwidth, as the videos don't appear to be loading properly. I checked the CBS website, and they aren't loading properly there either. I assume if you check back later they will be up and running.

Moving the web address...

2008-09-30T12:53:00.003-04:00

If you run into problems loading the page in the next day or two, it is likely because I'm trying to move this page over to my own domain name.

In the near future, you'll be able to visit us online at www.wearevotingyes.com - until then, it'll probably be a bit spotty until I get the technical issues worked out.

Thanks for your patience.

"Crawl (for Connelly)"

2008-09-29T15:10:00.003-04:00

As a way of introduction on the site, here's a bit of history--in poetic form--between myself and the We Are Voting Yes founder:

"Crawl (for Connelly)"

4 pitchers of Guinness

And he said, "I need

to expunge some liquid."

He left to pee.

I, sitting alone now,

Took out my notepad

And wrote it down.

[this was originally published by the good folks at The Common-line Project in Seattle]

Soft Complex this Friday with Glasvegas at Rock and Roll Hotel

2008-09-29T11:08:00.006-04:00

Well, I'd be silly not to plug my own show here - so might as well.

This Friday, October 3, Soft Complex will play our first show of the year in Washington DC at the Rock and Roll Hotel. We'll be joining Glasvegas and DJ William Alberque. The show begins at 9:30 PM.

Tickets are on sale now - buy them by going here.

Some Glasvegas and Soft Complex press:

"The best Scottish band since Franz Ferdinand sets its sight on America."
http://www.nylonmag.com/?section=article&parid=1917

"If Glasvegas are the most important British breakthrough band of this year, just as MGMT are the most important from America – and the only doubt about that is whether we're talking merely this year, or years – then traditional values of rock'n'roll cool have little to do with it."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/glasvegas-reading-festivalbrlast-shadow-puppets-reading-festival-913647.html

"Soft Complex re-appropriates gloomy Brit-pop without sounding like post-punk trend jumpers."
~Robbie Mackey, CMJ New Music Monthly 144

"For a preview of what may be awaiting retro-pop fans in 2007, try Barcelona (Silverthree), a three-song EP (plus five generally solid remixes) by D.C. alt-dance band Soft Complex...It sounds like the whole of '80s radio recombined into a fluidly sentimental symphony…(A-)"
~Noel Murray, The Onion A.V. Club

Welcome to Joe Riippi.

2008-09-26T17:49:00.002-04:00

Just a quick note of welcome to my good friend, Joe Riippi, who will now be posting on occasion. Joe lives up in New York, and I'm sure will be posting on everything from politics to music to literature.

He and I both are unsure of how often we'll post, but he'll crop up on here from time to time.

McCain resumes campaign and heads to Mississippi for the debate

2008-09-26T11:41:00.009-04:00

Chalk this up as another inexplicable, unbelievable turn in this presidential race: John McCain has announced he is resuming his campaign and flying to Mississippi for the presidential debate, despite an earlier pledge not to debate if the deal was not done.

UPDATE: Here is the text of the McCain statement:

John McCain's decision to suspend his campaign was made in the hopes that politics could be set aside to address our economic crisis.

In response, Americans saw a familiar spectacle in Washington. At a moment of crisis that threatened the economic security of American families, Washington played the blame game rather than work together to find a solution that would avert a collapse of financial markets without squandering hundreds of billions of taxpayers' money to bailout bankers and brokers who bet their fortunes on unsafe lending practices.

Both parties in both houses of Congress and the administration needed to come together to find a solution that would deserve the trust of the American people. And while there were attempts to do that, much of yesterday was spent fighting over who would get the credit for a deal and who would get the blame for failure. There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress. There was no deal yesterday that included adequate protections for the taxpayers. It is not enough to cut deals behind closed doors and then try to force it on the rest of Congress -- especially when it amounts to thousands of dollars for every American family.

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain was apparent during the White House meeting yesterday where Barack Obama's priority was political posturing in his opening monologue defending the package as it stands. John McCain listened to all sides so he could help focus the debate on finding a bipartisan resolution that is in the interest of taxpayers and homeowners. The Democratic interests stood together in opposition to an agreement that would accommodate additional taxpayer protections.

Senator McCain has spent the morning talking to members of the Administration, members of the Senate, and members of the House. He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement now that there is a framework for all parties to be represented in negotiations, including Representative Blunt as a designated negotiator for House Republicans. The McCain campaign is resuming all activities and the Senator will travel to the debate this afternoon. Following the debate, he will return to Washington to ensure that all voices and interests are represented in the final agreement, especially those of taxpayers and homeowners.

I think this looks terrible for McCain. Most reports coming out of Washington indicate that he did not make any open comments on what he thought of the bill. It directly contradicts most accounts of the proceedings prior to his arrival as being productive and nearing consensus. It is unavoidable to ask whether McCain arriving in Washington amplified partisan concerns - and I think it reasonable to assume it did.

McCain looks unsure of what to do, and it seems as though he is just flying blind, making it up as he goes along. It must have become clear to him when he arrived in Washington how little he could actually contribute to this discussion as a member of the minority party without a clear, fundamental understanding of the market or the current economic crisis. By not being a sitting member of the banking committee, Senator Dodd would have had to play ball with McCain in order to get him involved in the process. Sorry John, that wasn't bloody likely.

I have no idea how he will spin this to his advantage - I'm sure that he will try, but I can't imagine how this comes off as anything but confused and rash behavior. If Obama does well in the debate tonight, I think it might be the beginning of the end of this election. We're already starting to see significant shifts in the polling (note, for example, the fact that Obama is now leading in North Carolina in certain polls), and the poll of polls is widening in favor of Obama.

Sarah Palin interviewed by Katie Couric.

2008-09-25T14:30:00.003-04:00

There are no words. Just...no words. I wouldn't have believed this if I hadn't seen it myself. Would somebody please tell me when we started being concerned about Russia invading Alaska?

Watch CBS Videos Online

McCain critiques are already cropping up all over the place.

2008-09-24T17:52:00.006-04:00

We are already starting to critiques of McCain's move crop up - take Drudge's leak of Letterman:

David Letterman tells audience that McCain called him today to tell him he had to rush back to DC to deal with the economy.

Then in the middle of the taping Dave got word that McCain was, in fact just down the street being interviewed by Katie Couric. Dave even cut over to the live video of the interview, and said, "Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?"

Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, "You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil."

There is more at Drudge.

Big gambles either lead to big payoffs or big disasters. Stuff like this - when combined with critiques from the National Review and the Senate Majority Leader - doesn't bode very well for John McCain. To be fair, he did get rousing acclaim from Gingrich, and some are saying that this is a bold move that recasts McCain as in control.

The problem is, McCain has spent a lot of his political capital with the media, and that's where this current battle will be won or lost. I don't know that McCain will be able to defend this decision under media scrutiny, especially now that he's burned so many bridges with the press.

There were many reasons why my piece yesterday focused on why Obama should make a move like this, and why I largely glossed over the possibility of McCain doing it. We're already seeing some of them. I'm a bit surprised at how swiftly the critiques of his move have popped up - as I do think on the surface, this is something that appears to be a reasonable thing to do. But I think McCain's big mistake was choosing to "suspend the campaign" and call for the delay of the debate. It makes it look as though he can't do two things at once - when instead, he simply could have kept the campaign going and returned to Washington for a few days. Obama reacted masterfully to this move - and immediately put McCain on the defensive for a move that was meant offensively.

The McCain Move

2008-09-24T15:39:00.006-04:00

I'll update this more later, but it does appear that John McCain is going to find himself the subject of pretty intense criticism, based upon the narrative of what happened today leading up to his announcement.

Talking Points Memo details that the Obama campaign reached out to McCain this morning, at approximately 8:30 am, seeking to find common ground and issue a joint statement on the financial crisis. Here is the text of the Obama campaign's statement:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

It seems that after agreeing to issue a joint statement, McCain changed his mind - instead choosing to return to Washington, request a delay in the debate, and issue a challenge to Obama to meet him back in DC to work on the issue. Obama was seeking to make a joint statement privately, without drawing attention from the media, in an effort to build bipartisan consensus. McCain, on the other hand, called a press conference and suspended his campaign. Curious.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out today and tomorrow in the media. No doubt some will champion McCain's move as brave and forward thinking. Others will point to it as a sign of McCain panicking due to today's poll numbers and seeking to avoid a public debate on Friday. These are exactly the types of pitfalls that I talked about yesterday for Obama - and this note from the Obama campaign seems to make it clear that McCain won't avoid them.

My suggestion? Obama should take McCain up on the challenge to return to Washington, but propose that the debate goes on as planned on Friday. Rather than discussing national security, Obama should propose that they focus on the economy exclusively, so the American people can witness their dialogue on the issue. McCain and Obama can have a public, forthright conversation on what they will do in this crisis, and the whole country will get to watch it happen.

McCain suspends his campaign to return to Washington and deal with the economic crisis

2008-09-24T14:56:00.009-04:00

Well, it appears John McCain beat Barack Obama to the punch, announcing today that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington and work on the economy. On top of it, he has asked to postpone this Friday's debate to focus on the financial crisis. I don't know if that'll happen - but McCain just drew a line in the sand, and gets bonus points for taking the initiative here.

Via Drudge, here is the text of McCain's statement:

MCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration' proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

Obama needs to be very, very careful. As I said yesterday, I think he should have taken this step himself - I'm impressed with McCain's move, but I still doubt that he will be able to command these issues effectively. But I don't see how Obama can object to McCain's proposal. This is a time for him to step up and do his job, and a true test of his ability to lead. If he objects to moving the debate, he appears to put the campaign above country. He now has no choice but to join McCain and duke this out on the economic issues confronting the nation.

Your move, Barack. Time to lead.

UPDATE: As I've thought about this, I think McCain has made a brilliant move, given the news of the day. Check out this article by Michael Tomasky of the Guardian - the Rick Davis issue was about to become a massive problem for McCain. This effectively deflects the inquiries about the issue for the time being.

Barack Obama should return to Washington and lead the Democrats on the financial crisis.

2008-09-23T22:14:00.010-04:00

This evening, it appears that the Congress will not simply rubber stamp the Bush administration financial bailout.

Republicans are loathe to accept that by approving the Paulson/Bernanke plan, they'll effectively turn the Bush administration into the largest government since that of Franklin Roosevelt. This type of government expansion goes against fundamental conservative economic and social theory, and against the very platform they adopted this electoral season. The GOP is angry with George W. Bush, and bitter that they have to deal with this kind of problem on the eve of the election - and many see this as a real opportunity to distance themselves from him. Republicans recognize that they likely have to do something, but many will object on principal before eventually going along with some form of the plan.

Democrats, on the other hand, see a real opportunity to stand up to the last days of the Bush administration. Perhaps still bitter at their failings to make inroads on the Iraq war, or with their investigation of the Department of Justice, the financial crisis affords the Democrats a chance to retake control of Congress. By standing up to the Bush White House, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can reclaim some semblance of authority and backbone. And on top of everything, it gives them an opportunity to provide benefits to middle and lower class homeowners (and voters) as additions to a revised bill.

The point being: this is not likely to get resolved as quickly as the Bush administration had hoped. These differences are very much opposed to one another in basic political philosophy - they will take some time and debate to work out appropriately. And accordingly, this provides both presidential candidates the opportunity to lead on the issue.

Despite his attempts to paint his opponent as sluggish, John McCain has responded very poorly to the economic crisis. One need not look further than the opening lines of George Will's most recent column to see that even loyal conservatives are saying the same thing: "Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama."

It doesn't appear as though McCain is comfortable discussing details of the financial situation, regulation of Wall Street, or anything else related to the news of the past week. Take, as one recent example, his defense of Carly Fiorina during today's press conference, just moments after he railed against Wall Street for providing "golden parachutes" to CEOs that ran companies into the ground. Watch it here:

Also note that McCain never actually answers the question, and doesn't give an answer at all in the context of the issues at hand. He relies on her biography and talking points about her to gloss over the fact that Fiorina was fired for mismanagement* and still took home a severance package worth over $40 million. Robert Barnes hits on this over at the Washington Post.

Some Republicans - like Newt Gingrich - think that this crisis provides McCain a chance to make a nuanced, theoretical argument against the Bush administration on traditional Republican values. By opposing the bailout plan, the theory goes, McCain can draw a proverbial line in the sand, distinguishing himself as a change agent in the eyes of the electorate and pushing himself further from the Bush administration. He can stand up against big government and unmitigated presidential authority. But there is one big problem with this idea - McCain isn't comfortable leading on the economy. He can't effectively stand up and speak against the Bush administration because he doesn't have the eloquence or political capital within his own party to do so.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has seized upon this opportunity, providing a glimpse into his plans to deal with the crisis. Obama's first reaction? To craft a two minute campaign commercial speaking to specifics and urging people to look at his entire plan online. Watch it:

Obama seems surprisingly comfortable and confident with these issues, both in his stump speeches and his reactions to questions from reporters on the trail. Contrary to McCain, he seems ready to lead. And for this very reason, I think Barack Obama should return to Washington and lead the Democrats in their negotiations on the economy.

Obama has been given with a very rare opportunity to show the world what he would look like as a leader prior to the election. If Obama were to successfully lead the party through this crisis, firmly taking that responsibility upon his shoulders and proclaiming his ability to lead, he would establish his abilities in the minds of countless voters. That is what so many people wonder about Obama - can he step up and get the job done? Does he have the strength of character to lead in times of crisis? Well, Senator, here is your chance to lay claim to your mantle of a reformer who can bridge party lines and lead us to sensible, pragmatic solutions to real problems.

Is it risky? Of course it is. It steals valuable time from Obama, and opens him to potential criticism for politicizing the issue. He becomes responsible for the success or failure of whatever move Congress eventually approves, at a time when financial uncertainty is dominating all discussions. Nobody knows what is apt to happen tomorrow, next week, or next month - and if Obama or McCain were to step up and lead on the issue, they risk tying themselves to a sinking ship if things don't go as hoped. Finally, the GOP might try and block any effort Obama was a part of in the Senate to score electoral points and keep Obama locked down in the halls of Congress instead of out on the trail. Personally, I don't think that would happen - but it certainly is possible.

The fact remains that both of these men are senators that were elected to serve in Washington, working on legislation exactly like this. In many ways, it is their duty to be there - not out on the campaign trail commenting on it, but without having to take a definitive stance. Right now, we're faced with an issue that can only be solved - and will only be solved - through bipartisan efforts to reach consensus. Clearly, I think Obama's policies, temperament and judgment are better suited to lead us out of this type of crisis than McCain's. But both of these men are the leaders of their respective parties. They owe it to us to demonstrate how they will lead at a time of real crisis.

Both candidates should want to be charge of this situation - it is for circumstances like these that we need the president to act with confidence, authority and responsibility. This is the job that Obama and McCain are campaigning for: the right to lead us. Both of them - but especially Obama, to prove his leadership ability - should step up and attempt to do so, despite the political risks that might accompany such a move.

*UPDATE: I looked a bit further at the details of Fiorina's time at HP. The largest criticism levied against her was the fact that the company lost half of its value in the stock market and incurred heavy job losses. The street responded to her departure from HP by boosting the stock by 7%, and HP went on to become the dominant player in the home computer industry very quickly. Some give Fiorina credit for this turnaround, despite the fact that she had been dismissed. Others credit HP's new leadership. It is impossible to know exactly what the cause of the turnaround was - but the fact remains that Fiorina was dismissed by a Board of Directors that did not agree with the direction or decisions she made as CEO. Some more information on Fiorina can be found here.

Update: Hacker reveals how easy it was to get into Sarah Palin's account

2008-09-18T15:13:00.008-04:00

We really are thinking about trusting Sarah Palin with the vice presidency? Seriously?

Via Wired Magazine's blog:

As detailed in the postings, the Palin hack didn't require any real skill. Instead, the hacker simply reset Palin's password using her birthdate, ZIP code and information about where she met her spouse -- the security question on her Yahoo account, which was answered (Wasilla High) by a simple Google search.

The simplicity of the attack, of course, makes it no less illegal.

The hacker said that he read all of the e-mails in the Palin account and found "nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped. All I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family."

The article goes on to describe exactly what the kid was thinking when he did this. I'm sure he'll be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But it is worth a read.

My point, however, is this: it was really THIS easy to break into Sarah Palin's email account that she was using for official state business? Seriously?? I don't know ANYTHING about hacking, and I probably could have done this if I was so inclined. Sarah Palin is either reckless, naive, or both.

Chester French needs to hurry up and come to DC.

2008-09-18T13:30:00.005-04:00

I have to give complete credit to Kelly for introducing me to Chester French, the duo from Cambridge that Pharrell Williams discovered and has been pushing hard.

Chester French is two Harvard graduates, D.A. and Max, making music that sounds some crazy marriage of the Beatles, Neil Diamond, Motown and hip hop. Yes, that's a bizarre description. Yes, the lead singer looks a bit like Ron Weasley. Yes, the lead singer wears some crazy duds. But they KILL it live (and they cover Daft Punk!):

Chester French performing "She Loves Everybody" in June

Chester French montage of their performance at the Cutting Room

Chester French performing Daft Punk's "Robot Rock" in June

Pharrell Williams on Chester French in the Summer of 2007

Now, their recordings aren't great yet - I wish they had the energy that comes across live. But I'm stoked to see them - and am calling for them to come play a show in Washington DC. They're currently out on tour with Common and NERD. You can view their tour itinerary on their MySpace page, linked here and above.

Memo to John McCain: Spain is located in Europe

2008-09-18T11:08:00.003-04:00

Now, Senator McCain, with all of that foreign policy experience you have, I'd like to think that you know something about Spain. But I guess perhaps not.

Take a listen to this interview that John McCain conducted with Radio Caracol Miami, in which the reporter asks him about Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Zapatero is the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE).

A quick history lesson: Zapatero has been leading the Spanish government since March 14, 2004, and he was reelected on March 9, 2008. Granted, the Spanish government is heavily decentralized, which gives Zapatero less influence than if he headed a strong national government - but nevertheless, he still heads a major European nation.

The interview gets good around 2:58 in, where the reporter shifts the discussion from Latin America to Spain. It becomes very clear that McCain is either confused, not listening to the question, or simply unaware of who Zapatero is:

Perhaps McCain has ignored Zapatero because the focal points of his administration within the Spanish government have been rather starkly opposed to many of the things McCain stands for. The hallmarks of his administration have included withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq, the creation of special courts to deal with violence against women, legalizing gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants (this article from the American Prospect looks into a lot of this). Yowza - no wonder McCain has ignored him.

I would give this one to John McCain on the benefit of the doubt - I'm sure he could answer some detailed questions about Spain if asked, and will be able to do so in the coming days. But this is part of a trend - McCain often confuses different parts and people of the world - add this Spain gaffe to his repeated confusion between Sunni and Shia Muslims and his repeated utterances about the non-existent Czechoslovakia, and you start to see a bit of a pattern.

John McCain should fully release his medical records to the public.

2008-09-18T10:46:00.004-04:00

I don't know why John McCain only allowed reporters three hours to look over hundreds and hundreds of pages of his medical records. And why he wouldn't allow them to use email, internet or make copies while they were doing so. I'm all for protecting personal privacy. But this video makes a compelling case as to why McCain needs to allow the public greater access to this information:

For the record, I think all of the major candidates should fully release their medical records for public examination and discussion - including both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, who have not yet done so.

Memo to Sarah Palin: don't use a personal email address as governor

2008-09-17T14:57:00.014-04:00

Oh Sarah Palin. We know you're new to national politics and all, but one of the biggest reasons not to use a personal email address while you're governor is internet security. While I'm glad you're using email and seem to have an understanding of the computer age, you really ought to be more careful - there are likely a lot of interested parties who'd like to know who you're emailing and what you've got to say. Since you're not doing too many interviews, people might go to great lengths to learn something about what you might do as vice president, if you're elected.

Which is why it isn't really all that surprising that somebody hacked Sarah Palin's personal email account with Yahoo. Wikileaks has screenshots of many of her email screens, including correspondence specifically related to politics in Alaska. Tsk tsk.

Now, of course it isn't right to hack into anybody's email account. But really, Sarah Palin should have known better - "lipstickpitbull" was a pretty easy password to crack.

All joking aside, this illustrates exactly why elected officials making use of personal email accounts to conduct official business is problematic. Who knows what information Sarah Palin has passed about the Alaskan government through this email address - perhaps information about the oil infrastructure? National guard? Perhaps some eyes only attachments?

At least the account was hacked by a benign group who alerted her to the security breach. What might have happened if they hadn't announced their hack to the world? What else might they have learned about, or learned from, Sarah Palin? What COULD have happened here if this had gone undiscovered? Or even further - what COULD have happened here had this gone undiscovered, and Sarah Palin was elected Vice President of the United States of America? What if, for example, this hack had been performed by Chinese or Iranian intelligence officials, and they just let Sarah Palin go ahead completely unaware that somebody was monitoring her email?

In fact, how do we know that this hasn't happened?

And most importantly, what does this oversight say about her judgment?

This is actually a fairly big deal. I'm certainly not in favor of invading anybody's privacy or stealing information - but it happened, and it illustrates a very serious problem with some of the decisions Sarah Palin has made. And I think the people of Alaska have a right to know exactly what Sarah Palin revealed in that email account.

Sarah Palin is not ready.

2008-09-13T14:29:00.002-04:00

Bob Herbert nails it:

For those who haven’t noticed, we’re electing a president and vice president, not selecting a winner on “American Idol.”

Ms. Palin may be a perfectly competent and reasonably intelligent woman (however troubling her views on evolution and global warming may be), but she is not ready to be vice president.

With most candidates for high public office, the question is whether one agrees with them on the major issues of the day. With Ms. Palin, it’s not about agreeing or disagreeing. She doesn’t appear to understand some of the most important issues.

***

Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.

The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.

With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?

FactCheck.org calls out McCain/Palin for distorting a FactCheck.org article in a campaign ad.

2008-09-13T13:52:00.005-04:00

Does John McCain really think he can keep getting away with distorting the truth?

Via FactCheck.org:

Summary

A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama's attacks on Palin "completely false" and "misleading." That's what we said, but it wasn't about Obama.

Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.

The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to "dig into her record and background." The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to "dig dirt."

Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.

Analysis

We don't object to people reprinting our articles. In fact, our copyright policy encourages it. But we've also asked that "the editorial integrity of the article be preserved" and told those who use our items that "you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message."

Less Than Honest

With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

Todd Palin was subpoenaed in Troopergate today.

2008-09-12T16:51:00.001-04:00

It is not clear yet whether a subpoena will be coming for Sarah Palin as well, but her husband was served today.

I wonder - is this story about to get much more attention? Or will it stay a relative undercurrent until something more concrete comes out?

Sarah Palin's next interview to be with Sean Hannity.

2008-09-12T16:16:00.003-04:00

The McCain campaign has announced that for her second formal interview since being nominated as vice president, Sarah Palin will be interviewed by Fox's Sean Hannity.

Seriously? The McCain campaign must feel that the Gibson interview went poorly if Palin is being shuttled off to Sean Hannity land.

How about Meet the Press? Face the Nation? Newshour? Maybe even Diane Rehm? Or with any other media figure that hasn't faced enormous allegations of right-wing bias?

Nah, we'll stick with the guy that once narrated the welcome video for the 2004 Republican National Convention.

John McCain is either ill-informed or a liar.

2008-09-12T15:07:00.005-04:00

If you watched the View today, you know that John McCain is either ill-informed, or a liar.

Via the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year.

McCain made the comments as he appeared on the ABC television show "The View" as part of his effort to woo women to his candidacy.

The Arizona senator said the GOP vice presidential nominee would be good for the country because she would reform government, and specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks.

When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."

Note that this is an Associated Press article saying that John McCain "ignored the record." Sorry folks, but if the AP is calling you out on "ignoring the record," you're in big trouble. This is a blatant falsehood.

How do we know? All you need to do is look at one of the multitudes of stories that have been written about Sarah Palin championing earmarks for Alaska while both a mayor and governor.

Even more egregious - McCain HIMSELF criticized the very earmarks Palin was requesting as mayor of Wasilla, singling out elements of her requests that flew in the face of the reforms he sought. Palin has sought $197 million in earmarks THIS YEAR as the governor of Alaska.

UPDATE: Here is video of McCain's appearance.

UPDATE, PART TWO: Here is another video, showing other distortions and untruths that the McCain campaign is advancing in campaign ads.

Who would have thought the National Review would make my day?

2008-09-12T13:12:00.001-04:00

Not me. But David Frum did it!

Palin Reviewed

She's under-informed and over-confident.

But there was no "macaca" moment, so she survives.

Those who wish to believe in her will continue to believe in her.

As for the rest - well it's a 6 in 7 chance that McCain makes it to the end of his first term. That's pretty good!

More of Norm MacDonald on Conan.

2008-09-12T10:51:00.002-04:00

Norm MacDonald, what happened to you?

2008-09-12T10:40:00.002-04:00

You used to be so funny. Please come back and be funny again.

Via the Onion AV Club.

A presidential analogy: the assistant surgeon.

2008-09-10T13:09:00.014-04:00

Let us say you need to have major, planned surgery. You go looking for a surgeon. You meet and interview with quite a few, look into their medical backgrounds and qualifications. You whittle it down to two or three possible doctors, at two or three different hospitals.

Then, you look at their degrees, their priorities - perhaps you ask if they have families, kids, husbands, wives, just to know that your doctor understands what is at stake for you. Perhaps your doctor's religious beliefs are important to you as well. You ask for references of past patients and eventually make a decision based on who you trust to perform the surgery flawlessly.

You feel good about your surgeon. You trust him and believe him to be qualified - after all, you've spent a lot of time learning about him prior to making your choice. You've done a thorough, responsible job of choosing the right person to handle such a scary event. But you're not too excited to have surgery. After all, it is a bit unknown what could happen when you go under the knife. But you've got to do it, so you're making due. A few weeks later, you get a call from your newly chosen surgeon, who asks you to come in and see him. Your surgery is still a few weeks away.

Once there, he introduces you to his new, good looking assistant. Your surgeon explains that the assistant will be second in command during your surgery, providing advice, and perhaps taking over at some point during the surgery. He can't say for sure whether that will happen, but it certainly is a possibility.

Your surgeon tells you about the assistant's family, schooling, previous jobs, and hobbies. Your surgeon's assistant really loves waterskiing and archery, and has three kids! He seems like a good guy, somebody you'd watch a game with. Your surgeon also explains that the assistant is really a general practitioner. He hasn't performed the surgery that you're about to undergo - but your surgeon assures you that the assistant is qualified.

So you go home, and look up the assistant. You're able to find some stories and information from past patients that raise some concerns. You call your surgeon, and he still won't let you speak to the assistant. But you want to know - why is the assistant qualified? Would the assistant be able to finish the surgery unassisted if something were to happen to your doctor? What about these stories from the assistant's past that are cropping up in your research? Sure, it is fine and good that this seems like a likable guy - but you've spent all this time finding out about your surgeon, and now there is a possibility somebody else will be conducting the operation. You justifiably want to know more!

But your surgeon says no - begs of your trust, saying that his judgment is sound and there is no reason to question whether or not the assistant is really up to the job. After all, the assistant loves waterskiing and has three kids!! He says you might be able to talk with the assistant at some point, and learn more about him - but he isn't sure when that might happen. Just trust him, the surgeon says.

You have unanswered questions. You're a little concerned for your health and safety. But you are left to wonder about your surgeon, his judgment, and your surgeon's assistant - all while you wait for your major surgery, which is just a few short weeks away.

* * *

Nobody would have major surgery if there was a possibility that a relatively unknown, untrained surgical assistant would take over while you were under the knife. You'd think your surgeon was crazy for even suggesting the possibility, and you'd demand the opportunity to learn as much as you could about that assistant and his qualifications before you went under. Perhaps you'd even find a new surgeon for even suggesting it.

The question I pose with this analogy is this: why do we demand any less of our candidates for President?

I don't identify with my surgeons or doctors. I could not be a surgeon. They know a whole lot about things that I really don't know anything about. I expect my surgeon to be damn good at what he or she does. I don't need to get a drink with my surgeon, or watch the same movies as my surgeon, or listen to the same music as my surgeon, or even have the same values as my surgeon. My surgeon needs to be good at one thing: performing surgery. Beyond that, I don't give a damn.

Being President of the United States is not surgery. It is easier to be a surgeon. Your decisions and judgment as President require enormous knowledge, temperance and teamwork. Your decisions impact countless lives around the planet. Your training, preparation, education, judgment and experiences all matter. It is hard, stressful and demanding, and requires skills and abilities that the vast majority of people do not have. These very qualities can sometimes make it difficult to identify with the people who are actually able to be president - for exactly the same reasons it can be hard to identify with doctors, lawyers or other people in highly skilled, highly educated jobs.

Deal with it. We have to stop electing candidates based upon who we like better and who we identify with. This is a job interview for the most difficult job on the planet. Treat it that way.

Ask hard questions. Find out everything that you can. Don't settle for easy answers, and find out exactly what these people are going to do - then make your decision. We owe it to ourselves to at least treat this job with the same concern and investigation that we use when we need to have surgery, deliver a child, or buy a home or a car.

Oh Jon Stewart.

2008-09-09T12:41:00.003-04:00

Sarah Palin must be made available to the public.

2008-09-07T17:02:00.012-04:00

As I've thought more in the past few days about the implications of Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket, I've come to more fully believe that the McCain campaign fully intends to control the narrative about her. In my post from a few days ago, I hit on a potential strategy that involved only exposing Palin when absolutely necessary, and keeping the focus on her personal story above that of her professional experience and expertise.

The McCain campaign has put themselves in a commanding position to only put Sarah Palin on the trail when they want or need to do so. When we look at this a bit more carefully, it becomes alarming exactly how they are able to do this. A couple of points:

It is clear that McCain fully intends to play the gender card as much as possible. We've seen this reflected in the GOP camp's clear play to go to war with the media, calling them sexist for stories about Palin's expertise, family, and qualifications. Now, without any doubt, there have been stories in the media that have been sexist, and likely would not have come up for a male candidate. Questions about Sarah Palin's priorities as a mother are inappropriate, as I just don't see them arising for male candidates - and if they do, they go away very quickly. I'm not excusing or discounting this fact.

BUT - this strategy is one that McCain picked up on from Hillary Clinton. The McCain campaign saw the way the media responded to Clinton and Ferraro's charges of media bias during the Democratic primary, and realized that it made the media self conscious. Accusations of bias are taken seriously by the media, as it goes to the heart of their profession. They clearly intend to do the same thing with Sarah Palin, to delay the media vetting of their candidate. Rest assured, it won't stop it - as the media will battle back eventually. But it buys them time. Simply look at the quote from Rick Davis, as reported by ABC news, stating that Palin would not subject herself to tough questions "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference."

This statement assumes a conclusion that the GOP has created - that the media will not currently treat Palin with respect and deference. It is a brilliant circular argument. The GOP began their VP roll out process by accusing the media of a bias that at best only existed tangentially, but will ride it as far and as long as they are able.
There are only a few ways that the Obama campaign can respond - and unfortunately for them, none of them put them in a good position. Let us examine:

*They can call for more official campaign debates. I think of this as the "option that isn't an option." The Obama campaign screwed themselves here - if they had agreed to more debates and town hall meetings back when the McCain campaign offered them up, they'd be in a much stronger position to call for Sarah Palin to debate Joe Biden more often. But they didn't. And now they're stuck with what they've got. They just won't be able to effectively compel more official appearances than what is scheduled now

*They can choose to ignore Sarah Palin. By focusing entirely on John McCain at the top of the ticket, they can effectively try and negate her buzz by bringing the issues back around to John McCain's platform and positions, and refocus the campaign on the issues after allowing the initial Palin buzz to subside. This seems to be the tactic embraced by most of the pundits, and thus far, appears to be the Obama campaign's plan of attack. This is a fair strategy - but I think the critical flaw in it is that it does not assist the public in learning anything about Sarah Palin.

*They can go on the offensive on Sarah Palin's record in the media. The campaign must raise substantial, persistent questions on the actions that Sarah Palin has taken as governor and mayor, as well as insist that she take public positions on all of the relevant issues in this election: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, energy independence, health care, social security reform, and on and on and on. These critiques should remain topical - but they cannot go away. The Obama campaign must be the catalyst for the media to keep asking questions. As a part of this, the Obama campaign must not be afraid to criticize the media themselves - force them to do their jobs, even if the McCain camp throws charges of sexism.

Personally, I think this final option is the tactic the Obama campaign must embrace. The Obama campaign has to recognize that John McCain has completely shifted the election - it is no longer about Barack Obama or John McCain, but about Sarah Palin. She is lifting the GOP on personality alone - the base is incredibly enthusiastic about her far right political stances, and moderates and independents are enraptured by the buzz that surrounds her. The longer this is allowed to happen without serious questions being asked about what she actually believes, the more her personal story is allowed to take hold. The more her personal story is allowed to take hold while unchecked by issues, the more attached the public will become. And the more attached the public becomes, the easier it is for the McCain campaign to allege sexism in media coverage and perpetuate the cycle.

The Obama campaign must learn from the tactics that were employed against them. Palin must be forced to answer for her record and associations in the same way that Barack Obama was - and they cannot let potential charges of sexism obscure this goal. And rest assured, if Obama goes on the offensive here, he'll be attacked for it. He'll need his female surrogates - Hillary Clinton at the forefront - to be out and defending him against any charges of sexism or bias. But the only way to create a public outcry for greater transparency and access to Sarah Palin is by raising serious questions about her judgment and ability to lead - it is EXACTLY the question that the GOP has been so effective in raising against Barack Obama.

I may be one of the few Obama supporters that felt that all of the focus on Barack Obama's past associations - be it Reverend Wright, William Ayers, or anything else - was valuable and important to the public discourse. Americans have a right to know who they are electing, no matter what your politics are. The more you know, the more informed a decision you're able to make. If you have the same information that I do and choose to back a different candidate, then so be it. But we should have as much information as possible - and that is true of Sarah Palin, no matter whether you support her or not. We owe it to ourselves as Americans to learn as much about our candidates as possible.

The Obama campaign owes it to the American people to raise enough questions about Sarah Palin that we all demand that they be answered. All Americans, regardless of party, should want to know a potential President of the United States actually believes before we put them in that office.

Finally - a personal thought and decision. When I began this blog, I didn't have an intent to use it to a specific aim or purpose. My political affinity is well known to anybody that knows me, but I didn't intend to use this space for outright campaigning or politicking. Well, I've changed my mind, to a certain extent. Andrew Sullivan hit on it this weekend in this post, much of which I agree with.

And while I'm not changing the overall nature of my postings here, I've decided to take an active stance related to Sarah Palin - that I will call for her to be subject to all of the scrutiny that every candidate is subjected to. Personally, I feel that is a decision devoid of politics - of course, some will not view it as such given my own support for the Obama ticket. But I feel as though insisting on transparency and disclosure is nonpartisan. To that end, I will not hesitate to call it as I see it.

ABC News reports on Troopergate

2008-09-05T15:22:00.002-04:00

Interesting piece, and worth watching.

The speeches: Barack Obama and John McCain side by side.

2008-09-05T13:14:00.005-04:00

I think it may be very useful for people to watch the acceptance speeches, side by side. If you have two hours to kill, you can view both speeches here. I was able to find a video that had the complete Obama speech, but have yet to find one that has the whole McCain speech as one video. If anybody has it, please send along a link and I'll replace the segmented one here with an uninterrupted version.

As you watch, I'd encourage viewers to ask the following questions: what exactly is each man proposing to do as President of the United States of America? What specific policy programs is he suggesting? Does he offer a rationale as to how it can be done, and how it will impact the country? What would a country under this man's leadership actually look like?

Barack Obama

John McCain (in parts)

Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

2008-09-05T10:45:00.009-04:00

Jesus was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

This was line from a rather striking email that was read aloud on the Diane Rehm show this morning on NPR. Kudos to whomever wrote it.

UPDATE: perhaps this is a new line the Obama campaign is pushing, as it is also featured over at Jonathan Martin's blog as an email from a reader. Or perhaps it is the same e-mailer.

UPDATE PART TWO: some readers are complaining about this as an equation between Obama and Jesus. Let me say very clearly: I AM NOT EQUATING OBAMA AND JESUS. I think this statement just points out the ignorance and hypocrisy the GOP has embraced by insulting all community organizers. That is all this post is meant to illustrate - it is not an equivalency between Obama and Jesus, or Sarah Palin and Pontius Pilate for that matter.

Thoughts on the GOP strategy before John McCain's big speech.

2008-09-04T20:29:00.036-04:00

MSNBC just did an interesting piece on the new polling suggesting that Barack Obama and John McCain are tied . This would suggest that the bump he's received in the latest Gallup polls has evaporated, presumably due to the choice of Sarah Palin. This is assuming that the CBS poll is accurate - which we won't know for another few days. Forgive me, but most of this will be paraphrasing their arguments.

Matthews made the point that our current political climate prevents us from being charmed by a candidate. Given the skill levels of these two campaigns, any bump in the polls is immediately answered by such a vehement barrage of attacks from the opponent that the lead evaporates.

This led them to one key conclusion - that Sarah Palin is the latest political phenomena who will rise up in popular opinion, and then be dragged back down by the machine initiated against her. They emphasized that it has never seemed as though any candidate has been able to gain a strong foothold - that the campaigns have an ebb and flow dictated by the media and their attacks on one another.

What is most interesting to me is a realization that the new tug of war is a battle of popularity. That is how John McCain is shaking up the race - by attemting to take the issues off the table and make the campaign about the people. You can see it in every vitriolic personal attack on Barack Obama's personal history and life story. You can see it every time John McCain offers up his tragic personal history as a talking point without offering any real insight as to how it will help him to lead.

McCain realized that his greatest weakness in this election was that he was unable to command the attention of the public. People recognized he was there, but were never completely tuned in to what he was doing. He felt he had to co-opt the attention Obama was getting; ironically, the very attention that McCain used against him. And Sarah Palin was the solution.

Let us be clear: John McCain did not do this because he wanted to "shatter a glass ceiling" or because he wanted to advance women's issues. He did it because it gives him a chance to recapture the spotlight and to once again control this race. And it has worked - for now.

But there is an inherent, uneasy hypocrisy within McCain's play for the media and the public's attention. With no disrespect intended to the record of Sarah Palin or her accomplishments in office, she did not earn her political celebrity. She was given it by John McCain, who decided she could relaunch HIM into the political stratosphere. John McCain had the audacity to attack Obama's "celebrity," which in reality was a base and interest earned by two years of campaigning and a historic primary run against incredibly strong opposition. McCain mocked Obama supporters, dismissing the bulk of them as starry eyed latte liberals addicted to US Weekly and Perez Hilton

And amazingly, that is exactly why John McCain chose Sarah Palin. She became the new cover girl propelled entirely by her story - her handicapped child, her moose hunting, gun-toting professional snowboarder husband, and poor Bristol Palin, who is caught up in a narrative devoted to John McCain's ego. Now we're hearing about Jamie Lynn Spears calling Bristol to offer advice on teenage pregnancy. Right. Jamie Lynn Spears.

John McCain CREATED a celebrity overnight. Barack Obama earned his celebrity through a tough political fight lasting 18+ months.

And - for a time - it may well work. The public will be fascinated with Palin's persona, her strong stump speeches, her charm and sharp wit (let's face it, the lipstick line was golden). She's clearly a shrewd, courageous political talent. But the fact remains that she is here because she is being used as a political tool, chosen to draw the attention away from Barack Obama.

The risk is that the McCain campaign has no way to know how long this will last. Just ask Paris Hilton and Britney Spears about the perils of a fickle public. McCain is appealing to an American fascination with personality, and his great risk is that they tire of Sarah Palin before November. If you believe the MSNBC discussion, the Obama campaign is now likely to attempt to poke holes in the Palin narrative, to negate her impact on the race.

So how does the McCain campaign deal with this? Well, if they're confident that Palin can run the table for 60 days, nailing debates, public appearances and the issues, they put her out on the circuit and get her on the stump as much as possible. But running the table also involves holding the spotlight - Palin not only has to be spot on when it comes to the issues, but she has to remain McCain's anointed celebrity to prevent Obama from retaking the offensive.

But I also think it entirely likely that they do the exact opposite - that they limit Sarah Palin's exposure to the public as much as possible, keeping her narrative under their direct control so that her personal story remains THE main story about her. If they can do that - keep her in the pop culture spotlight while avoiding real opportunities for criticism - then she only has one major hurdle to clear in her debate with Joe Biden.

This may be the Republican strategy. Perhaps it is likely, if you listen to McCain's campaign manager. Perhaps the GOP has decided to make this election about personality, and will largely ignore the real issues - economy, war, health care. Perhaps the party will discuss only two issues outside of the debates - energy and terrorism. Be afraid. And drill. But be afraid! But don't forget to drill.

The GOP may already be showing their hand on this front. If you watched the early coverage of the convention, you were able to see one of the most appalling acts of exploitation I've ever witnessed on television - a video that caused Keith Olbermann to flip out on live TV. Prior to Senator Lindsey Graham's speech, the convention aired a "9/11 Video Tribute," which was essentially a propagandist reminder that we are locked in mortal combat with "those that attacked us on 9/11." It used images that we all remember painfully for solely political purposes. This was not a tribute, a remembrance, an homage - it was an exploitation. And it was wrong. You can view it for yourself below.

Following this, we were told that John McCain would accept the nomination at 9:11 PM local time. Seriously. I couldn't make this up.

With this strategy - drill, fear, drill, fear - Sarah Palin doesn't ever have to say much. She just has to be Sarah Palin, the person - tell her story, tout her family, nail some basic speeches on the issues she knows well and throw out the zinging one liners she seemed to have mastered in her acceptance speech. She has to keep the spotlight pointed firmly at the McCain/Palin ticket - and she can do that without ever giving a tough interview or submitting to a real press conference.

It is a truly cynical, depressing political move - and I hope that is not what the Republican Party is doing. I hope they use every political skill that Sarah Palin has and that she is left to succeed or fail on her own merits. I hope the McCain campaign trusts that Palin can learn the foreign policy, compete on the economy, and convince voters of her ability to lead.

But if they use her simply as a political pawn - a tool to draw attention away from Barack Obama and toward the Republican ticket - it is appalling and disappointing. For the sake of the Republican Party, let us hope this isn't the case.

I believe it is a tactic that would fail. And may destroy the Republican Party as it exists today.

UPDATE: Apparently Sarah Palin is leaving the campaign trail to hole up in Alaska for awhile. This is less than a week after Sarah Palin was announced as the VP choice, and she is already disappearing from public view? Is this indicative of the GOP's control over her image? Are we not going to get a chance to really learn what Sarah Palin is all about?

102 people arrested at the Rage Against the Machine show in Minneapolis

2008-09-04T15:59:00.009-04:00

I'm all for rocking out at a Rage Against the Machine show. They're simply electric. When I saw them at Lollapalooza this summer, I expected riot police to greet us as we were leaving. But surprisingly, that wasn't the case - and also surprisingly, there weren't any problems to speak of beyond the crowd crush at the show.

So I'm not terribly surprised there were issues in Minnesota this week. The Star Tribune has the story:

Even though fans who attended Wednesday's Rage Against the Machine concert were asked not to cause trouble when they left Target Center, scores of people didn't comply with the request.

Trouble did break out on downtown Minneapolis streets and police arrested 102 people who had attended the concert, according to the Joint Information Center which is coordinating security in connection with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

Of those arrested, 87 people were tagged with misdemeanor offenses and released, 13 were booked into the Hennepin County Jail on misdemeanor offenses and subsequently released, and two people were arrested on gross misdemeanor probable cause and were still in jail this morning, a Joint Information Center spokeswoman said.

Roland Martin defends community organizers following Palin's speech.

2008-09-04T13:20:00.000-04:00

Good for Roland Martin. Great response, and spot on - Obama/Biden should hammer this point.

My Morning Jacket = The Southern Pink Floyd

2008-09-04T12:52:00.009-04:00

I went to see My Morning Jacket last night at D.A.R. Constitution Hall in Washington DC. Having only seen the band at Lollapalooza a few years ago, I was excited to get a look at them now that they've been on the road as much as they have, and in a smaller (albeit, still large) venue.

Prior to the show, I've thought My Morning Jacket was becoming Pink Floyd with slide guitars. Beginning with Z and continuing more predominantly with Evil Urges, the band melds some pretty bizarre musicial ideas and influences with very traditional instrumentation and fantastic guitar solo work to make something that simultaneously sounds inventive and familiar. Check out tracks like "Touch Me I'm Going to Scream (Part 2)" or the trippy, Air sounding outro in "Off the Record" for great examples of this genre bending. The video above - "Gideon" - is also a great example, from when they were doing shows with full orchestras backing them. What other band can effectively pull that off?

Now, having seen them, I'm only more convinced that the comparison is apt. Everything from the mesmerizing lighting (perhaps the best I've seen at D.A.R.) to the It Still Moves era bears adorning the stage screams psychedelia. The lighting that filled the arch over the stage was just fantastic - more artists should take advantage of this space in the future for production.

And on top of everything, the band is simply spot on. Jim James is a great blend of rock star and mystery man, draping himself in stage towels and preaching typical rock star politics from the stage. He galavants around the stage like a little kid playing tee-ball for the first time: full of energy and excitement, trying to go everywhere at once and having a blast all the while. Vocally, he's perfect. As a guitarist, he's versatile and technically excellent. The entire band is tight and engaging, with impeccable style and presence. Oh - and they play a two and a half hour set that manages to perfectly straddle their older, country influenced catalogue and their newer, trippier material.

Go see this band. Check out their records. They're a rock band in an era without many rock bands, but they're still managing to do something new and fresh. They're simultaneously a throw back to another time and pushing a creative boundary. Simply outstanding.

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy caught with hot microphones on MSNBC slamming the Palin pick.

2008-09-03T17:13:00.003-04:00

Beautiful.

Campbell Brown takes Tucker Bounds to task over Palin's foreign policy experience.

2008-09-03T16:32:00.004-04:00

Kudos to Campbell Brown on this one, taking John McCain's spokesman Tucker Bounds to task on Palin's foreign policy experience and the campaign's shift in rhetoric on experience.

There is about a 15% chance John McCain will die before Inauguration Day 2013

2008-09-03T15:45:00.007-04:00

Morbid, but factual.

Via Politico:

The odds of a 72-year-old man living four more years, or one full White House term, are better. But for a man who has lived 72 years and 67 days (McCain’s age on Election Day this year), there is between a 14.2 and 15.1 percent chance of dying before Inauguration Day 2013, according to the Social Security Administration’s 2004 actuarial tables and the authoritative 2001 mortality statistics assembled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

The Palin problem: why John McCain missed the mark (and it has nothing to do with pregnancy or state troopers)

2008-09-03T11:40:00.010-04:00

A lot has come out about Sarah Palin in the past few days. I don't really want to talk about the vetting process, Bristol Palin, Trooper-gate, her husband's DUI, her ties to the AIP, or anything else that has been burning up the blogosphere. The media is going to run with all of these stories, for better or for worse, and it is clear from the convention speeches last night that the GOP will respond by attacking the media.

I'd like to focus on a bigger, more fundamental reason why this choice seems uniquely flawed. A lot of writing has been done on the excitement that Sarah Palin has brought to the GOP base - how evangelicals will rally around her, donating money to the party, to 527 groups that will air attack ads against Obama, and so on. And I believe that this is true. I also believe it will cost John McCain the election. Let's examine why.

Prior to the Democratic National Convention, John McCain was rapidly closing the gap with Barack Obama by whittling away at his strongest and weakest points simultaneously: his celebrity and experience. National polls in August don't really mean all that much - but the state by state polling suggested that Obama was sliding. Once wide leads in states such Minnesota and Pennsylvania were shrinking, and it looked as though McCain was edging ahead in the new battlegrounds (Virginia, Colorado) and pushing back ahead comfortably in old GOP strongholds (Montana, North Dakota). View, for example, these two electoral maps, one month apart, from the wonderful Electoral-vote.com: August 21 and July 21. As you can see, there are substantial differences in the state by state polling, and overall in the electoral count.

What's the point? McCain's strategy was working, and working well. Whether it would continue to work after the DNC is unknown. Undoubtedly, Obama was going to receive a bounce - but McCain was primed to continue his attacks on celebrity, elitism, experience and identity. The Denver speech would have allowed a unique opportunity to take Obama to task for the staging and audacity to undertake such an event. Now, that all seems very far away.

I don't believe that McCain was closing these gaps with GOP stalwarts or the GOP base. Indeed, if you look at Gallup's polling of support by political party, John McCain was receiving 84% of the Republican vote from July 21-27, and 87% of the Republican vote from August 18-24. But in the same window, his support among independents and Democrats ALSO rose 3% (to 14% from 11% among Democrats and 42% from 39% among independents). The significance here is that McCain was making inroads with voters across the board, and peeling support away from Barack Obama.

These gaps become more clear when you look at Gallup's polling by political party and ideology. Here, the divides are more striking. From July 21-27, McCain held 91% of conservative Republicans, 73% of moderate Republicans, 28% of true independents, 20% of conservative Democrats, 14% of moderate Democrats, and 7% of liberal Democrats. A month later, the polling is telling: his support among conservative Republicans remained constant. But examine the moderates and independents - he saw increases of 4% in moderate Republicans, 3% among independents, and 6% among conservative Democrats. The base numbers didn't change - but McCain made progress among those towards the middle. Indeed, Gallup notes the same trend.

Fast forward to today.

Sarah Palin is not a pick to appeal to independents or Democrats. She is catering directly to the social conservative base - who justifiably, is pretty excited about her. But McCain was polling at 91% of conservative Republicans immediately before the Palin pick...and at 91% of conservative Republicans in July. Moderate Republicans may be attracted by some of Palin's credentials, but they're also most apt among the GOP to question her readiness to lead and her experience. We are going to hear a whole lot about gun control, abortion, and energy from the McCain/Palin ticket in the coming days. But my feeling is that this will cost McCain his progress with independents and moderate Democrats. Virtually all coverage on Palin has emphasized the effect that she can have on women and working class voters - but ultimately, those appeals will have to be issues based. And I simply don't think independents and Democrats will be enraptured by the GOP wedge issues this time around.

My guess is that McCain's support among independents pre and post-Palin will be a wash. He'll lose some that are turned off by her, and gain others that find her appealing. McCain will also lose the Hagel/Lugar Republicans who see foreign policy as a deal breaker of an issue. He'll lose some who view his choice as irresponsible. So the question becomes: can Palin energize the base enough to offset the losses McCain will suffer?

I don't think that they can. In fact, I think it is next to impossible. Virtually every metric that I've seen on this election puts the edge on enthusiasm and party identification firmly in the Democratic Party's favor. Add in the unprecedented voter registration effort that the Obama campaign has embarked upon, and the new voters gained in the long Democratic primary process, and I believe the Democrats simply have an edge in numbers and excitement. And if you believe that, McCain's only path to victory is by capturing moderates and conservative Democrats - and his most effective tactic was convincing them that Obama is not ready to lead due to his inexperience or vanity.

Perhaps most interestingly, Obama has a unique opportunity: he can turn the GOP wedge issues against them. If Obama hammers Palin and McCain on their pro-life stances (which it seems like he is already beginning to do), he can drive moderate Democrats and women back into his fold who simply aren't comfortable voting for a GOP candidate hell bent on overturning Rowe vs Wade - and indeed, seems to have made his vice presidential choice on that premise. It is strangely satisfying to see the Democrats with an opportunity to turn the long effective Rovian political games against the GOP.

Ultimately, there are many reasons why I feel like Sarah Palin is a poor choice for McCain. But even if you grant her the best possible scenario and a brilliant performance - a generous gift, no doubt - the fact remains that she is on the wrong side of the issues. She'll entrance a conservative base that is outnumbered by Democrats, and perhaps alienate the very voters that John McCain must win in order to contend for the presidency.