Bush's Final F.U.

Jan. 20 can't come soon enough.

Wrong Definition of "Change" There, Blagojeshits

So, I guess recently-arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich makes the list of Dipshits Who Didn't Get the Memo...or, at least, the right version of it. Maybe he thought Obama meant cash money when he was talking about "change".

It's a win-win here, though, kids. We get a corrupt politician out and, per his stated desire, Blagojevich gets a new job...maybe as a license plate maker or the gardener for Cell Block C.

What I wouldn't expect is Ol' Rod getting a pardon, especially after the kind words he offered on the President-Elect. I'll let you find those as sort of a Christmas surprise.

And So It Begins...

With all of the talk about Cabinet selections, it might be easy to overlook stories like this one, but I think this is more indicative of the promise that Obama's presidency represents.

There May Just Be Hope, After All

Half reputable and always slimy Page Six from the New York Post reports that Ann Coulter has a broken jaw, meaning that her mouth has finally been wired shut for a while. (I had to link to Huffington Post because Page Six is...well...trashy.)

Wow, that Obama really is getting things done before he takes office.

A matter of trust

Hey Charles,

Now it's my turn to apologize. I'll attribute my lack of contributions to the blog to simply being busy, but more so to the burnout factor. Watching Keith Olbermann was already getting tedious, before Election Day. Now even the delightful Rachel Maddow--and even my favorite Jon Stewart--is getting difficult.

I suppose the "I'm too exhausted to write" excuse wouldn't fly if I was actually doing this for a place like Time or Newsweek, but I have had such a hard time mustering the energy to get excited about all this Cabinet stuff, as important as it may be.

Nevertheless, like John F. Kerry, I must report for duty. So without further adieu ...

1. Hillary as Secretary of State. You said it best. We elected Obama to govern and to bring some drastically needed change to the culture of Washington. And I'd say it's quite a dramatic change for a president to do what he thinks is best for the country and to surround himself by, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in a recent column, "other smart, strong people." We could argue the merits of Hillary over Kerry or Bill Richardson, but, like you, I'm willing to give Barack the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, one of my Republican friends was gloating yesterday about this story, which describes the unease among antiwar groups and liberal activists about Obama's potentially "hawkish" Cabinet. The article quotes Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy lamenting the fact that none of the 23 senators who voted against the 2002 Iraq War resolution are apparently being considered for secretary of state. We probably won't ever know how seriously any of these folks were considered, but I don't see a strong contender here, maybe outside of Jack Reed, whom I still see more as a strategic defense guru than the ambassador/negotiatior type.

I also am not sure I'd call a Cabinet that features Hillary or Kerry or Richardson "hawkish." Perhaps that reputation sticks with Hillary because she refused to say she regretted her vote. But this is a far, far cry from Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice.

Or Joe Lieberman, for that matter.

2. Joe-the-Still-Chairman: Speaking of Joe, I know a lot of people back in my home state of Connecticut are furious that Joe got what amounts to a light slap on the wrist this week. They aren't willing to forgive him for accepting Ned Lamont's victory in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, for kissing George Bush before Bush's State of the Union address, for throwing his support behind his good buddy John McCain, and, most of all, for his remarks at this year's GOP convention when he famously remarked that "eloquence is no substitute for a record," "[Obama] has not reached across party lines to accomplish anything significant," and Obama voted "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield."

For them, 2012 can't come soon enough.

For me, once again, I'm willing to give Barack the benefit of the doubt, if, indeed, it was our president-elect who urged Senate Democrats not to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Again, we elected Obama because he promised a new brand of politics and believed that Americans were not concerned about the whole (I can't believe I'm going to quote Sarah Palin here) "inside baseball" of Washington. We elected him because he believed Americans were demanding that our leaders work together to fix some of these enormous problems we're up against. If he believes the country benefits from having Joe (and Hillary) on board, I'm willing to back him.

That said, I do worry about Obama trusting people whose records of telling the truth might make them better fits with the outgoing administration. Let's not forget that Lieberman begged Obama to campaign with him during his '06 primary, which went a long way to Lieberman surviving that election, and actually told Obama to "go for it" when Obama was deciding whether to run for president. Let's not forget his criticism of Barack being less experienced that John McCain, as he stood beside Sarah Palin at rally after rally this fall.

And it goes without saying that we could devote an entire blog to false statements Hillary and her team, including Bill Clinton, made about Obama.

Maybe in the end, as this posting points out, our opinions about Hillary and Joe should hinge on how we feel about Obama and whether we believe he is truly committed to using the mandate he received a few weeks ago to addressing the nation's most pressing issues. The alternative, of course, is to view him as just another politician.

My own cynicism about Washington and personal feelings about Hillary and Joe aside, I'm not ready to give up on Obama before he even starts. Getting past our own cynicism, trusting that change could actually come to Washington, and not looking backward, wasn't that was this election was mostly about?

Ryan

I Don't Want To Say I Told You So...

But you know what comes next...

It seems that the Clinton camp can't keep their mouths shut about negotiations with the President-Elect regarding the Secretary of State job. Why does that not surprise me?

Oh, I know why, because the Clintons always try to use such tactics to enhance their position in a negotiation. Boxing Obama in is just what they want to do so they can make him look like the bad guy if she doesn't get it.

This kind of power playing makes Kerry or Richardson look that much more attractive to a voter like me. What about you?

Time Enough At Last

Hey Ryan,

I'm sorry I haven't written for a while. I've been trying to get some creative and paying projects together and haven't had the chance to sit down and write.

Now that the election is over, my sense of urgency at updating the blog every single day has diminished (much like my finances). From here on out, I think I'll probably post one or two times per week, unless the headlines demand otherwise.

At this moment, though, I'm not sure how many times I could conjure up anything remotely interesting about who might be going into Obama's team and why.

What I will say about the whole Hillary-Clinton-as-Secretary-of-State story is that I'm not sure about it.

The fact that she voted for the Iraq War doesn't bother me. And I would tell people who are huffing about it to find a qualified person in Washington who didn't vote for the war and put that name in the ring. That qualified dove is probably pretty hard to find...just like coming up with qualified Dems who weren't involved in the two Clinton terms.

Hillary's as intelligent as they come, but I don't know if she's the right person for the job...not when you consider that John Kerry and Bill Richardson are supposedly up for it, as well. Their foreign policy Rolodexes trump a spectral sniper shootout in Bosnia any day in my book.

I understand that if you take Hillary, you also get Bill's connections, but how savory are those contacts? How would Bill's previous and future business deals impact Hillary's negotiating angles and tactics? While I know that she is her own person, for sure, I also know that the Clintons are shrewd when it comes to their own interests, and I wonder how that will play against Obama's foreign policy vision.

The other issue that bothers me is the dynastic angle. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hillary takes the job. If Obama is reelected, let's say she stays on for the second term. That means that our country will have had a Bush or a Clinton in a position of influence in the Executive Branch of government for 36 years! In a democracy, that just doesn't seem right to me.

Now, some might say this is a wrong-headed (or even stupid) way of looking at the situation. I was called a number of things on other sites for conveying this idea during the primaries. But it still nags at me. To me, involving Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State signals that in our democratic system, that there are families who serve as gatekeepers to legitimacy.

Sure, the Kennedys could be viewed that way, but when was the last time a Kennedy was picked as a pivotal team member of the Executive Branch or a Cabinet position? (Of course, here's hoping RFK, Jr. is tapped for the EPA. Does that shoot down my credibility?)

All I'm saying is that I don't feel like Clinton needs to be included--especially when she may not be the most qualified person for the job-- just to heal some wounds. Obama making the break from the Clinton name and doing just fine on his own would reconnect any divisions among Dems soon enough, without his having to pander.

But, with all that said, I'm not going to bash him if chooses to go with Clinton. As far as I'm concerned, we hired this guy to govern and now we've got to let him do it. And I'm not going to kick his ass up and down Pennsylvania Avenue before he even gets into the big house at 1600.

So, now, I think we should just take some time and enjoy the fact that our country has better shot at survival than ever before by doing this:



Charles

Failure As Fertilizer

Hey Ryan,

By the coverage this week, it seems as if the media believes there might be some teachable moment or redemption narrative for the GOP.

With the 24-hour news cycle (and guys like us) constantly stewing over what's next for the GOP, it seems as though the conversation has been accelerated in the Repub Halls of Shame, with clamoring pseudo-luminaries professing to shy away from the spotlight while stepping in front of it.

Pawlenty's comments were, as per usual with Repub "visionaries", interesting on the surface, but most likely just show. Sure, he tried to steer his party into a direct confrontation with health care and away from big business. But he still used words like "formula" and "viewed", which suggest the GOP is still wrangling over message rather than substance.

While he talks, for example, about health care and big business, Pawlenty seems to think they're entirely separate issues facing the GOP, when, in reality, they're inseparable.

Think about how many health problems are caused in this country by the deregulation of industries. If the a Republican government feels such a responsibility to big business (or, in their words, "job creation") that it has to deregulate, shouldn't that same government also feel a similar (if not more) responsibility to take care of the citizenry it puts in harm's way through those leash-loosening moves?

They should but they don't, because we're not ATM's of campaign cash...at least not for GOP candidates. And why is that? Could it be because, I don't know, they're message doesn't really resonate in a crisis? Could it be because they've cried wolf on so many issues only to do nothing about them?

Or, maybe it's because the Republican Party has a long history of corruption going back to Watergate. Maybe now, finally, voters are seeing what GOP policies really do to the country when they're put into practice. Maybe people are starting to realize that going all the way back to Nixon's Administration, that the GOP has never really given a damn about health care, except when it can be used as a moneymaking tool.

But, now that they're on the losing end for the second time in two years, guys like Pawlenty have decided that they have to tackle this issue head on because "[i]t's one of the most pressing needs for our country." Well, welcome to the party, Mr. Pawlenty. Did you bring any ice?

Saying health care is a "pressing need" is not much in the way of insight and it's a far cry from having the tools to fix it, especially when your answer to the problem is a sham tax credit that barely covers half of the average insurance policy combined with (you guessed it) deregulation that erases state borders and stricter laws for the insurance industry.

You see, the problem for the GOP is not to stop being "viewed as a party of the rich". It's to...stop being the party of the rich. The same goes for Dems in Congress, too.

There are plenty of articles out there about how Obama bought the election with his massive fundraising efforts and his refutation of the public campaign finance. But, when your average donation is $86, you might be looking at a new model for campaign finance, one that establishes a more direct connection between candidate and constituent. And what could be more "public" than that?

Pawlenty and Jindal may be on the level, but until they show up with policies that protect the people who vote them into office, I won't be convinced...not when Pawlenty is still using tired Rovian jargon like "formula for a majority." That's sort of talk is obsolete, just like John McCain and Sarah Palin and the lying, backstabbing, insidious campaign they just finished...well, I guess she's still running it.

Retooling the package without changing the product is over. Wrapping unmitigated stupidity up in feminism and a $150,000 costume won't solve a single problem facing our nation in the 21st Century.

According to a lot of conservatives, there must have been a glitch in the last eight years...a stretch of time in which criticism from guys like Pawlenty and Jindal was pretty hard to come by. They say the Bush Regime's tactics were against true conservative ideology. But, frankly, it's all we voters have to go on right now. To us, the Bush Debacle is the new face of the Republican Party. But people like Pawlenty can't change that image with a message shift. They have to reassess their core values and their penchant for chasing symptoms when it would be much more effective to treat the sickness.

In essence, they've got to stop pissing on people's heads and telling them it's raining.

Charles

Boogie Man

Hey Charles,

I just finished watching the new fascinating documentary on the late Lee Atwater, the master of dirty politics and forerunner of Karl Rove, who destroyed Mike Dukakis' run for the White House and whose impact continued to be felt even during this year's campaign. Atwater's story was a complicated one, and whether you believe it authentic or not, it's hard not to be moved in some way by the transformation he went through near the end of his life. It's also not to be hopeful that Barack Obama's victory last week signaled an end to the type of nasty campaigning/swift boat-style politics that we've witnessed for far too long.

Anyway, here's an excerpt of the documentary, which begins with Atwater's starring role in the infamous "Willie Horton" campaign of 1988. I suspect you'll find this documentary as interesting/troubling/enlightening as I did.

Ryan

A more diverse GOP

Hey Charles,

Did you happen to hear or read about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's remarks in Miami at the Republican Governors Association conference? If not, here's a synopsis. And here's one from the Times. I'd be curious to hear your take on what the governor had to say. Personally, I thought Pawlenty's sales pitch sounded pretty good--at least on the surface--and I give him credit for the shot at Sarah Palin ("'Drill baby, drill' by itself is not an energy policy"). Of course, you know the same people applauding that line we're applauding each and every time Palin uttered those words on the campaign trail. I'd also like to see the room's reaction to Pawlenty saying the party needed to move beyond Ronald Reagan. I guess we'll have to wait for the YouTube showing (just checked, not there yet). Seriously, though, can't you just see Rush and Hannity and Ingraham just cringing. But I suspect those folks aren't listening. If you can stomach it, just read what Rush had to say today. Nope, they're spouting the same old lines about liberals and the media. I would've liked to have heard Pawlenty go a step further and tell the Rushes of the world to stuff it, but you know that could never happen. Still, I think a Republican Party that moves in the direction that Pawlenty is prescribing would be good for the country, even if I remain unconvinced that its members care less about helping the underprivileged as they do about winning again.

Ryan

McCain's Brain #6: The Final Insult

Here's the final installment of McCain's Brain.

Goodbye, Johnny Boy, we knew ye too well...



Oh, and thanks for giving us Palin, you rube!

Another Encouraging Development

Looks like Obama is going to create an Office of Urban Policy to "coordinate federal efforts to help America's cities".

What has come out of this transition effort so far looks pretty promising. What a difference a hundred or so IQ points (along with some honest reflection and insight) make in a president.

Encouraging Developments

Here are a couple of good signs coming from the Obama transition so far today:

--A promise of a "wired" presidency.

--A move to plan the closing of Guantanamo Bay, and some healthy discussion to go along with it.

Roasting Rham

Here's a video from C-SPAN from 2005 in which then-Senator Barack Obama roasts Rham Emanuel for charity.

The Return of the Blue Dress(es)

Hey Ryan,

So, I suppose it might fly in the face of the once-again-cool notion of bipartisanship, but I've got to laugh at the recent "Dressgate" going on around Sarah Palin. I hope this is the last time I have to write about this particular governor, whose embarrassing intellect is an egregious insult to democracy, but never say never, right?



As I listened to Eva Emptyhead drone on about the Case of the Overwhelming Clothing Tab, it struck me as somewhat ironic that these clothes (including dresses) that have become a symbol of GOP hypocrisy and greed echo the scandal of the infamous Lewinsky dress that outraged pious voters nearly a decade ago.

But, in my mind, Palin's situation brings up some more complex questions.

Sure, Monica's blue dress had a morally questionable stain on it, but aren't all these clothes that Palin bought with RNC donor funds just as morally (if more metaphorically) stained? Where's the integrity in claiming to be "Joe Six-Pack", but racking up a costume bill that would buy the majority of Americans an entire house?

And, if Palin is so "mavericky" and so fiscally responsible, wouldn't she just have refused these clothes on principle? Isn't that how a maverick rolls?

And, on top of all this, how can we believe what Sarah Palin says about these clothes or the reports of her (at best) diva-ish behavior and lack of intelligence when she has made outrageous claims like this:



If she's willing to lie about a report that was out in plain view for all to see, what would keep her from lying in her refutation of these blind quotes from McCain staffers?

Sure, the motivation for these staffers sounding off on Palin may be a blame game, but does that mean that they're not true? And, if even half of them are true, what would have happened had she been foisted upon us as a VP?

But if they're not true...I guess Sarah Palin deserves that, too. Now she knows how Obama might have felt when she stirred up hate by untruthfully branding him a terrorist sympathizer and a socialist.

Of course, she has changed her tone on those charges, too, so who knows if she was even telling the truth to voters on that score.

Looks like we're the only ones who've won (for now), because we dodged a bullet with this one.

Charles

Rham Emanuel: The Rolling Stone Article

Here's an article from a 2005 edition of Rolling Stone profiling Rham Emanuel.

A pretty interesting read.

Bonus: The modern take from Politico.

Sounds good to me.

Keeping Tabs On the President-Elect

Want to see what's going on with the Obama-Biden transition project? Check it out here.

Emanuel's In

Rahm Emanuel has officially accepted the position as President Obama's White House Chief of Staff.

This has ruffled some feathers among Internet trolls because they feel Emanuel is an example of partisanship and steel-elbowed politics. While I feel I must declare that I, too, am an Internet troll, I will also say that I believe that sharp elbows are going to be needed to turn our country around.

The Rules of the Road

Could this be a harbinger of a reasonable and thoughtful government?

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff?

Rahm Emanuel has been offered the position of White House Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration.

Developing...

Behind the History

Man, this Newsweek Special Project feature about the behind-the-scenes of the campaigns is fascinating!

They're going to post the chapters from Nov. 5th-7th.

Really insightful piece so far.

The Gravity of the Situation

Hey Ryan and Shane,

First of all, I want to thank you guys for your thoughtful and entertaining posts over the past few months. There were days when I looked at the computer screen at a total loss for anything to write, only to find a piece by one of you that was so much better than anything I could've come up with. Even though the election is over, I look forward to continuing this conversation. Interesting days are ahead, for sure, and it's great to know I'll be able to talk to you guys about them.

You know, as I watched Obama's victory address last night, I was struck by how measured and even somber he seemed standing on that stage. Of course, I was also in shock. I guess for all the talk about hope and belief, there was still a part of me that wondered, "Could this all still be taken away?"

But it wasn't. There he stood, a man not gloating over an overwhelming victory, but sizing up the enormity of the task ahead. And that was what we needed, it was what I needed.

You see, I'm not some moon-eyed Obama supporter. I'm one of those people who believes a country should be governed from the center, but with an eye to social justice and compassion. And if those two concerns make me "left-leaning" or "liberal", well I guess I'll just add those titles on my next batch of business cards.

All of us who supported President-Elect Obama during his campaign (and even those who didn't) must realize that change is not sudden. It has to start somewhere. I'm not under any illusions about how much Obama is going to be able to do in the first 100 days or even the first term. This is going to be hard.

But I don't judge a candidate on how quickly he can fulfill all of his campaign promises, but what promises he chooses to make in the first place and how he approaches those issues. Obama is an inclusive pragmatist and all of us who support him should strive for that same temperament. We should look at the people we have railed for these past two years and see what kind of common ground we can find. That's the only way problems like the ones we're facing are solved. Together.

Over the past week or so, I've talked to people who were either supporting McCain or just not jazzed about the whole process at all. The negativity of McCain's campaign had contaminated the whole election. For his supporters, the worst aspects of their natures were laid bare in front of them. For those fed up with the whole affair, his negativity became the face of both campaigns.

To be fair, Obama had his share of negative campaign ads. But the widely parroted "fact" that statistically Obama's campaign ran more negative ads than McCain was just not true. In the study that most McCainiacs cited, the major criterion for an ad to be deemed "negative" was whether it mentioned the candidate's opponent. That's all.

Sure, Obama name-checked McCain in the majority of his ads, but those mentions were overwhelmingly related to policy issues. I can deal with that kind of "negative" campaigning, because it speaks to the issues that pertain to us.

William Ayers wasn't a factor for most voters because he really didn't matter. He wasn't going to be involved in any incarnation of an Obama administration. He wasn't going to be in the candidate's ear before or after the election. In short, he did not affect Obama's policies.

Conversely, McCain's involvement in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal spoke directly to the candidate's character when it came to an extremely important issue in our times: the economy. The fact that McCain acted unethically on behalf of a corrupt financial baron friend sounded a little too much like the last eight years to me...and probably to a lot of voters. I believe the election numbers bore that out.

But, our immediate concern is to not let the negative aftertaste of this election cycle poison our first shot at real progress in a nearly a decade. Last night's victory, as decisive as it was, should be viewed as a nod, not a mandate. Only Republican strategists and pundits talk about Obama's "political capital" and his "mandate".

And you know why they do it? Because they know that it sows dissension. They know that if they can taint the well with talk like that, they can crow louder when Obama seems to underperform by their mythical standards.

Of course, when the majority of Americans agree with them, these GOP pundits always praise the judgement of "real" America. But, when Americans rebuke their ideology, these same talking heads deem the voters to be starry-eyed rubes. And that's because, to these blowhards, politics isn't about helping people, it's just a blood sport.

And that's why so many of these GOP mouthpieces turned on Bush the Junior in the latter stages of his lame duck term...they saw it as good theatre. Never mind that most of them were touting John McCain and his policies, which really were a virtual extension of the Bush Debacle.

We're going to hear a lot of sour grapes in the days and months and years ahead, but it's only because we, as voters, demanded the truth this time, and Obama gave it to us. He talked to us like adults about race and the economy and the war. We were included in the discussion. GOP pundits and politicians have resorted to fear-mongering and simplistic rhetoric because they've got nothing good to sell in their chosen platform...not with this new brand of "conservatism". They've leaned too much toward big business and forgot about true conservative ideals in the process.

With the inauguration (or maybe sooner), the second phase of our journey with Obama begins and the real work will start. Let's hope we've got the stamina to live up to the attitude of sacrifice and bipartisanship we voted for. I think we're up to it and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Charles

Waking Up With Sarah Palin

We made it!

Hey Charles,

Well here we are, my friend. I have to admit there were many times I thought this campaign would never end. Do you realize Obama officially kicked off his campaign in February … of 2007? Man, I am simply worn out, if you hadn’t already figured that out by my lack of postings these last few weeks.

But I was re-energized this morning when, before I got in the car and drove off to vote, I revisited the speech Obama made when he formally announced his candidacy for president on Feb. 10, 2007, in Springfield, Ill. Obama’s words, spoken so many moons ago, gave this exhausted voter a much-needed thrill (not the Chris Matthews variety, mind you), and reminded me of just how powerful, focused, and inspirational a campaign Obama has run.

Almost immediately, I was struck by the consistency of Obama’s tone, manner, and key messages. Amazingly, through an rough-and-tumble race with Hillary Clinton, through the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres and “bittergate,” while ducking the kitchen sink, and right on through the current campaign against McPalin, the guy never wavered on the core themes of his candidacy (bringing change to Washington, the failure of our current leadership, reshaping our economy, tackling the health care crisis, freeing the U.S. from the tyranny of oil, rebuilding our alliances to keep America safe).

On the other hand, you had McCain’s announcement remarks, delivered in April 2007 in New Hampshire. For me, revisiting these remarks reminded me that, once upon a time, I thought Obama v. McCain might transcend our most recent presidential campaigns (Gore-Bush, Kerry-Bush) in terms of serious political discourse. Notice McCain's not-so-subtle swipe at Giuliani for not ensuring our firefighters had the equipment to properly communicate in a crisis. Notice, too, the shot at Dubya and Cheney for mismanaging the war. If this McCain had showed up instead of the guy who was busy pandering to the right all summer long, maybe we could’ve had a real, honest, good-for-the-country debate about these and other issues.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that Obama would’ve risen to the occasion. McCain might have had it in him -- and I’m sure he’d argue that had Obama accepted his proposal to have all those town-hall debates, the campaign would’ve been different. I’m sure he’d argue that Obama opting out of public campaign financing changed the game. Maybe so. But I’d counter that tough politics is different than dirty politics. Obama made strategic decisions that were based on recent electoral history and, in his mind, were necessary to keep what happened to Al Gore (the sighing) and John Kerry (the swiftboating) from happening to him. And really who, on either side, could blame him?

Ironically, McCain had already (in his 2000 run against Dubya) been the victim of these types of dirty attacks and so, by the time 2008 rolled around, knowingly or unknowingly, he had pretty much given up on such an honest campaign. He was too committed to following the Rovian path to victory for the campaign not to, as Peggy Noonan said in an interview, “devolve into the low.” The Straight Talk Express was already way off track. And it’s a shame. Had he seized the moment, maybe we the voters could’ve avoided “Joe the Plumber” and “Tito the Builder” and “Pallin’ around with terrorists” and, my favorite of all, “I am a real American,” and, instead, participated in a serious discussion of issues that matter.

Nevertheless, I’m just grateful one of the candidates stepped up, talked to (not down to) the American public, mixed it up but didn't get down in the mud, and, most importantly, wasn’t afraid to inspire. Whatever happens tonight, I think every American – yes, all of us Joe the Plumbers – can take pride in Obama’s performance on the campaign trail.

And hey, may the best man win, right? Happy Election Day!

Ryan

Only a Few Hours Now

The final rally in Manassas:

Just Quit Your Whining and...

Whether you're voting for Obama or McCain, for the right reasons or the wrong ones, or just voting so you can gripe about the government later, get out and do it.

Take books and lawn chairs for long lines. Take your digital or video camera to record your participation in what looks to be a record voter turnout.

Good luck.

Condolences

Barack Obama's grandmother Madelyn Payne Dunham died today at the age of 86.

Also, Obama's Nevada State Director Terrence Tolbert died of a heart attack yesterday at the age of 44.

Our condolences to the Obamas, the Tolberts, and the Senator's campaign in this sad time.

Tomorrow will be a better day.

Vote for Lando!

For those who are a little on edge today, here are some fun ads in the race for leader of the Star Wars galaxy!

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

She'll be back!

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson predicts we'll have Palin to "kick around for a long, long time." Yikes ... I thought Halloween was over!

Just So We Don't Forget...

What it was like living under Bush the Junior these past eight years. As voters, we reserve the right to speak out against the leaders we choose (or hire, if you will), and shouldn't fear for our lives in doing so.

Who cares if you don't like the Dixie Chicks' music. I'm not a fan, but I can appreciate that they have a right to their opinion, just like people I don't agree with.

Enjoy...

More "Redneck" Support For Obama

From the BBC comes this extremely cool video.

Has the "Bradley Effect" Already Taken Effect?

Here's an interesting interview with political scientist William Jacoby about how he views polls, "undecided" voters, and the Bradley Effect.

The Take

A documentary from Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein about Argentine workers breaking into their abandoned factories and taking back their jobs.

How far away from this are some of our factory workers here in the United States?

(Note: For some reason, there are English subtitles for the entire video...even the parts that are in English.)

A Glowing Endorsement

Today, the big news is the glowing endorsement for John McCain from...wait for it...



That's right! Just three short days before most of us traipse to the polls to push the button, Darth Vader himself swoops down in his tie fighter and throws out an endorsement for his preferred Sith Lord successor.

Gosh, I bet Luke Skywalker...uh...I mean, Barack Obama's camp is pretty mad. After all, as a cousin to Bah-Rock, you'd think Cheney would show some loyalty!

But, you've got to give it up for McCain. He earned this nod from Vader. He threw out everything he claimed to stand for to get it. And that's all the Dark Side asks, you know. Just like Cheney said, "[McCain's] looked into the face of evil and not flinched." Or has he?

And the Award For Best Costume Goes To...

Living (Pro)Life Between the Mirages

Caught in Between the Lines
Being pro-life, I feel like I am perpetually living in exile. I feel like I am wandering through the desert in between the two political poles demarcating the ideological terrain of the "life" issue. On one side, I am told that the life of a child is not valued more than the freedom of choice from a woman in a difficult situation--while at the same time proclaiming war is a despicable act because it denigrates the value of human life. Turning to the other side for relief, I find voices in protest against the atrocities done to the unborn because life is treasured--while at the same time clamoring for the blood of the savages over the pond through perpetual and endless wars. As a result, I want to definitively state to both political parties: you are not pro-life.

What does it mean to be "Pro-Life"?
When I claim the title of "pro-life," I am not merely describing the opposite of "pro-choice." While the issue of abortion is near to my heart, I do not feel like it is the only life issue that I, as a Christian, should be concerned about. The fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq is a "pro-life" issue. Capital punishment is a "pro-life" issue. Feeding the hungry and helping the oppressed is a "pro-life" issue. As a Christian, I am passionate about all human life because I truly believe that all human life carries intrinsic value in that it is a part of humanity that is made in the image of God.

Odd Exceptions to the Pro-Life Agenda
In my experience, I have found at least two instances when people championing the "pro-life" agenda ignorantly or conveniently set the issue aside.

Three summers ago, my wife and I experienced a miscarriage that really rocked our world. We were devastated, because we truly believed that we had lost a child. Even more shocking, however, was the way in which our "pro-life" friends reacted to our miscarriage as if it were not a big deal. "Well, it's not like you actually lost a child." or "Oh...are you still upset about that?" I remember thinking, "Aren't you against abortion because 'life begins at conception'? If that is taking a life, then why are you not considering this miscarriage as if we have lost a life?" This inconsistency bothered me, because it felt as if the "pro-life" agenda is cheapened in other avenues with no political advantage.

Second, the events of 9/11 opened a blood-lust in some of my "pro-life" friends that is nothing short of astonishing. I am baffled when Christians who read the words of Jesus--who said, "Love your enemies and pray for them," "When someone strikes you on one cheek, turn your other one towards them so that they may strike it too," or "Put away your sword, Peter. For don't you know that my kingdom is not of this world"--will say things like, "We need to bomb those barbarians back to the stone age!"

My heart breaks for the people enduring the war in Iraq, because first of all they are not barbarians, they are people. They are humans made in the image of God like you and me, and therefore, their lives, in my opinion and in God's opinion, have intrinsic worth that deserves to be valued. Second, this type of attitude by Christians (reminiscent of the crusades) is an illogical outworking of the message of love found in the Bible, expressed by Christ's ministry. Christ was so "pro-life" that he was willing and preferred to have his own life taken (brutally might I add) so that others may have life. Christ was so "pro-life" that he even cried out while hanging on a cross for God to forgive the people that were killing him. Christ was so "pro-life" that while he had the power to call down legions of angels in his protection to wipe out his enemies he chose, instead, to die. So how can I patronize his teachings and actions, then, by calling down fire on people that have hurt me? In other words, how can I love my enemies when I am staring them down through a gun scope?

I still cannot help but wonder what would have happened if America, a self-proclaimed (not God ordained) Christian nation, would have mimicked Christ on 9/11 and turned the other cheek? How would the world have responded? How would our oppressors have reacted? You see, Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi both understood the message of Christ with great acumen. Instead of the archaic, barbaric, knee-jerk reaction of meeting violence with more violence thereby perpetuating an endless spiral of violence that can only end when one side decides to lay dormant or completely dies, the way of Christ stops the cycle of violence by allowing an injustice to stand, by allowing honor to be lost, or by allowing some people's death to go unpunished. While non-violence is counterintuitive and even seems idiotic, Christ understood that loving people is the way to spread a message of love and peace and even transform an entire world--for his method of idiocy is still making waves 2,000 years later. If you don't believe this works, just ask Vaclav Havel.

Pro-Life in the 21st Century
So, what am I trying to say? I am trying to say that it is time for people committed to being "pro-life" to actually implement this message in all facets of their lives. I am convinced that abortion, war, capital punishment, and other scenarios in between are "pro-life" issues.

In addition, I am convinced that the most effective way to attack each of these issues simultaneously is by focusing our efforts on the issues surrounding the poor and the oppressed. How do we help abortions to go down in our country? Make full-term pregnancies cheaper than abortions--or make adopting a child easy and affordable for anyone--or give people opportunities through affordable education to provide a better life for them and their family (esp. single moms--its funny, because the Bible says that "a pure and faultless religion is one that looks after orphans and widows"...I am not saying anything new here, just forgotten).

How do we decrease the amount of "terrorists" around the world? Passionately target their key areas of recruitment with food, clothing, shelter, and a better life. When I was in Cairo, Egypt the summer after 9/11, the cab driver taking me to my flat pointed to a small wall on the opposite side of the road. He said, "Over that wall is called the city of the dead. That is where people actually build their homes on top of and inside of mausoleums because they are so poor, and in there not even the government will pursue them." While I was dumfounded by the reality of such a situation, the man nonchalantly added, "The city of the dead is also the key recruiting grounds for muslim extremists." It makes sense. People are so miserable with their plight in life (i.e., living in someone else's grave) that when someone comes along and tells them that they can escape this life of pain and torment and go to a life of luxury with 40 virgins if they would blow themselves up in a crowded intersection or in a plane crash into a building, what do you think they will choose?

Poverty, which is created in the aftermath of wars with great rapidity, is the greatest epidemic and threat to "pro-life" agendas than any election will ever pretend to be. I pray that Christians will hear the call of Christ to fight not only for the unborn but also for the living, because all life is precious and blessed with intrinsic value--even the life of a Muslim.

John McCain's Closing Argument

Here's a video of John McCain's "closing argument" speech, along with some backstage campaign video of a conversation between McCain and Palin and a strategy meeting.




Sorry, Linus.

Happy Halloween!

The Choice

Hey Charles,

I haven't been keeping up my end of the blogging bargain, I know. I suppose I've been a bit busy trying to keep up with Joe the Plumber sightings. Anyway, I hope to catch up a bit on writing in these final days before the big vote. Since it's getting late this evening, though, I'll leave you with a New Yorker commentary that's a couple weeks old, but, for my money, offered one of the best summations of the choice we face in this year's election.

Really, my friend, is there any choice?

Ryan

Voter Fraud Vs. Voter Suppression

From the Real News Network comes an interview with George Washington University Law School professor Spencer Overton in two parts.


Part 1




Part 2




Part 3

Sorry, John

McCain calls out for Joe the Plumber to stand up at a campaign rally and...confused silence.



Wow...a stunned silence from the 6,000 strong crowd (more than 4,000 of which were kids bussed in by the campaign for the event). According to MSNBC:

A local school district official confirmed after the event that of the 6,000 people estimated by the fire marshal to be in attendance this morning, more than 4,000 were bused in from schools in the area. The entire 2,500-student Defiance School District was in attendance, the official said, in addition to at least three other schools from neighboring districts, one of which sent 14 buses.

Say it ain't so, Joe! You're a no-show!

I guess Joe's new publicist had something else planned for him today.

Maybe he's getting his congressional staff in place.

Or, maybe he's recording songs for his first country album (which I, personally, can't wait to buy from the cut-out bin).

Oh, I know, Good Old Joe must be off with a box of crayons writing his first book (which I hope comes out soon because we're running low on toilet paper).

Gosh, this really is the Land of Opportunity.

The Closing Argument With a Side of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama at a midnight rally in Florida.



McCain campaign sources say their candidate was already sleeping when this event started.

I'm Sure There's Not Much We Agree On

So, I find myself reading George Will more and more. Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't a case of being persuaded to buy into whatever philosophical branch of conservatism Georgie Porgie's selling. But I do have to say he makes some good points about McCain's sudden lack of judgment these days.

That...and, well, how do you say it, Gov. Palin? Not to "toot my own horn", but I did write about the basic idea of Will's column a while back.

Don't you love it when someone says that they're not going to do something...and then go ahead and do it? I might be turning into a Republican, after all. Won't Mom be proud?

A Five-Part Interview With Howard Zinn

If you haven't read historian Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, try to as soon as you can.

Meanwhile, here's a five-part interview with Zinn about a range of topics pertaining to our times and this election.


Obama and Direct Action




The Bailout Is the Trickle-Down Theory Magnified




Taxes and Class War




Guns or Butter: The Choice Between Militarism and Domestic Well-Being for the Next President




Democracy and Militarism

A Real Bailout

Here's a story that should be the norm in this country, but too often gets lost in the drone of spin.

The Tale of Two Stevens

Hey Ryan,

So, I'm watching the Rachel Maddow Show and she brings up a point that I forgot about regarding newly-convicted felon Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska.

You know, the guy who is a friend of Sarah Palin's?

Anyway, the point Maddow brought up was that Stevens can still run for re-election to his Senate seat. There's no law against that. Let me say that again...there's no law against Stevens being a convicted felon (on charges that are directly related to his "service" in the Senate) and running for re-election.

So, here's the tale of two Stevens...the one who can run for a Senate seat...and the one who can't vote. That's right, Stevens wouldn't be able to even cast a vote for himself! Can that be right? And, if it is, should it be right?

Is it any wonder, with these kinds of rules, that corruption runs rampant in our government? Also, should crimes like Stevens' make us reconsider term limits in the Senate? I mean, the brand of corruption that guys like Stevens tend to get involved with stems from being entrenched in the halls of power, being the go-to guy for corporate friends that will always be there as long as he can trick his constituents into voting for him.

Charles

The Lacking Legacy

Hey Ryan,

Well, I guess it's time batten down the hatches, because Cowboy Georgie's hitting all the shit switches before he leaves office.

It's like watching Willy Wonka sabotage the chocolate factory before he hands it over to Charlie just to prove he's still in charge.

Of course, what we're seeing from Bush the Junior is only the obvious tantrum-ish fare. We don't see the screws he's loosened in the system, yet. The next president (whoever it might be) will be plugging holes in the country for years to come.

But, I've got to say, it's not all covert peaches and cream. I mean, how damning is it when your sworn enemy (at least, in public) from the last eight years actually endorses your party's chosen successor because they believe that successor will carry on your policies?!? Man, that's gotta sting!

In 2003, Bob Woodward asked Bush the Junior how history would judge his war in Iraq. Bush answered (as told by Woodward):

“[H]e said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pockets and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a ways off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”

Maybe he's brushing off that last line for his legacy, too. He's out of the news, now, and whatever he does is for the next guy to clean up.

Charles

The Entire Closing Argument

The video I posted yesterday is just the last eight minutes of Obama's speech. Here is the speech in its entirety from Truthout. It's between twenty and thirty minutes in length, and it makes the case.

Palin's Prisoner Pen Pal

Looks like Sarah Palin pals around with convicted felons. Nice.

We all have our crosses to bear, right, sweetie?

Is This What McCain Was Hoping For?

Thanks to McCain's and Palin's race -baiting and hatred-spewing, we can probably dread more plots like this.

Nice legacy you got there, McCain.

The Closing Argument

Take 13 Minutes and Watch This!

Here's an interview with Mark Crispin Miller on Democracy Now about the possibility of Repubs stealing elections and how the Bradley Effect that the media has been all over might be just a narrative framing device to explain an unexpected John McCain victory.



Watch your vote carefully!

Biden Is Now Weaver's Homeboy

A cool kid's-eye-view of a Biden rally in which fifth grader Damon Weaver does his own newscast, complete with a short interview with Biden at the end.

Just So We Don't Forget...

Here's a documentary called No End In Sight about the Iraq War. As we come ever closer to election day, it's important that we never forget what Bush the Junior did to both our country and to Iraq...and to stop McCain from continuing on in the same fashion.

Enjoy...

14:59 Department

From the 14:59 Department comes the news from Truthdig and The Hill that Joe Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) might be considering a run for Congress in 2010.

Two questions come to mind:

1. I wonder who he'll give the contract to for installing new low-flow toilets in the Capitol; and

2. Will he use the Fight Club-ish ads McCain's campaign made where everybody claims to be Joe the Plumber?

The Great Flattening

Hey Ryan,

I'm not going to lie to you, friend, this has been a tough week. I haven't been writing much here because, well, there hasn't been a whole lot to write about. I've found myself upset at times about certain elements of the campaign news, but unable to put it into words.

It feels like The Great Flattening has taken effect--that time when all the news that's going to be truly effective in the final days of the election cycle has come out. And now, most of the airwaves are abuzz with the perceived dissolution of the McCain campaign. But I, for one, don't trust it.

I'm under the impression that this flattening could be more expectation management from the McCain team. Let's face it, the charges of their lacking in ideas is true. They have not thrown anything on the table that hasn't slid off almost immediately in months.

Some people might point to Sarah Palin as their last success, but she is sliding, too. In fact, some say she's even already gone cannibal on the Old Man. I don't doubt that. The $150,000 clothing bill is a clue that this campaign's just a few songs shy of My Fair Lady and one "sacrifice away from Frankenstein. The Old Man's campaign has become pure farce and betrayal.

But who can he blame, except himself? The candidate sets the tone of his or her campaign, right or wrong, just like the President sets the tone for the country once he or she takes office. If John McCain is elected to the presidency, the jerking, confused, and (yes) erratic movement of his campaign will only intensify in his governance. And his policy proposals will, at best, fall victim to that movement, if not be cynically scrapped altogether. (Remember "compassionate conservatism"?)

Why look at the complex issue of McCain's responsibility to set the right tone for his campaign, though? Let's just think about politics in very American terms. McCain is a product that even his creators don't know how to sell, as evinced from this passage from the NYT magazine article out this weekend that you previously cited:

John McCain’s biography has been the stuff of legend for nearly a decade. And yet Schmidt and his fellow strategists have had difficulty explaining how America will be better off for electing (as opposed to simply admiring) a stubborn patriot. In seeking to do so, the McCain campaign has changed its narrative over and over. Sometimes with McCain’s initial resistance but always with his eventual approval, Schmidt has proffered a candidate who is variously a fighter, a conciliator, an experienced leader and a shake-’em-up rebel. “The trick is that all of these are McCain,” Matt McDonald, a senior adviser, told me. But in constantly alternating among story lines in order to respond to changing events and to gain traction with voters, the “true character” of a once-crisply-defined political figure has become increasingly murky.

This quote goes on for a mile, I know, but it helps to have the whole paragraph for context. With all they supposedly had to work with, McCain's team still couldn't think of a reason for the citizens of the United States to elect the Old Man to office? That's the sound of a campaign that's drowning in narratives and bone dry on policy.

And good policy is what we need to get us out the current messes. That, and a smart and solid direction. But we get none of that from McCain's campaign.

Instead, we've had to sit through Joe the Plumber; Neo-McCarthyism; racial, religious, and even geographical discrimination; and, most insidious of all, fictional, hyperbolized victimization.

In effect, in the McCain campaign's tactics (because there's absolutely no strategy), we're seeing a microcosm of the last eight years, complete with the requisite ethics investigations. We're seeing the life of Rovian politics pass right before our eyes, but there are a whole lot of blockheads out there still falling for it.

Maybe that's why I'm so tired. I feel like Scrooge living through his whole life in a single night, seeing all of his misdeeds passing before him. Of course, unlike Ol' Ebenezer, I didn't have an active hand in the direction our "leaders" have taken us. And neither did you. But failure like that rubs off on everyone, even those who sat by and let it happen.

Let's just hope all this useless media chatter now is The Great Flattening...the third act of A Christmas Carol, rather than the first.

Charles

The "Times" aren't changing

Hey Charles,

I thought you'd get a kick out of this -- a collection of New York Times' endorsements for president. It's a trip through memory lane--or Deadman's Curve if you've leaned Democrat these past, oh, three decades! Despite the bad memories summoned by these endorsements, I actually enjoyed scanning the endorsements of Carter, Mondale, the Duke, Gore, and Kerry. I suppose the need to beat myself even more than necessary makes me a true Democrat.

Ryan

The "Bradley Effect" Analyzed

A great piece from the Washington Independent about the dreaded "Bradley Effect", the term that is being thrown around a lot in the media right now.

If you haven't heard of the Bradley Effect, don't worry. The article lays it all out, complete with an analysis of how the "effect" has been misread in this year's election cycle.

A Plain English Explanation of the Electoral Process

This is a good, down-to-earth explanation of the election process from Common Craft.

Man, This Really Takes Me Back...

Hey Ryan,

So, I guess you've heard by now that McCain has quite a following among Al-Qaeda. That's right! According to some chatter on extremist websites, Al-Qaeda would view a John McCain win as a great situation to further bankrupt and weaken our country.

This "endorsement" really takes me back, man. On the primary election day, I watched the local Fox affiliate interview a guy outside of a restaurant on the south side of town right after Obama had left the establishment. The reporter asked the guy if he had been able to talk to the candidate.

"No," the man said.

"If you had the chance, what would you ask him?"

Without missing a beat, the man shot back, "I'd ask him about his support among the Taliban."

The Fox Guy, of course, didn't bat an eye, but calmly questioned, "So, what are you going to do, now?"

"I'm gonna to go listen to my talk radio and see how I'm gonna vote," the man said.

I'm still looking for proof of pro-Obama members of the Taliban. Now that Al-Qaeda has come out with an endorsement, it could only be days away!

Of course, who cares about an Al-Qaeda endorsement, right? I mean, even if those guys were citizens of the U.S., McCain's buddies in the GOP would probably have already purged their names from the voter rolls anyway.

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, baby!

Charles

McCain Agrees With...Who?

Here's an odd little video of McCain yesterday in Pennsylvania, responding to John Murtha's previous comments about how the western part of the state is its racist section. (Way to unite people, Murtha.)

And, McCain...agrees with him? Or, no, he disagrees?

And how did Obama get thrown into this? He didn't even say anything about Western PA!

Take a look!



I love the stunned silence from the McCainiacs. Now they know how the rest of us feel about McCain's campaign.

I can't tell if this sounds more like Sarah Palin answering a question about the bailout...



Or, maybe McCain sounds more like his running mate answering a third grader's question.



(Note: According to Article 1 of the Constitution, the VP is not "in charge of" the Senate, but serves as a ceremonial leader who can only vote to break ties. Maybe Palin should break out her copy and read it again...assuming she has one.)

As far as Captain Caveman goes, I'm not sure. I mean, I know his slip-up in Pennsylvania was just that...a slip up. But maybe he should just lay off agreeing and disagreeing with anyone. I mean, he seems pretty at home in his new role as The Great Divider and expert on convenient socialism.

Maybe he should just stick with talking about growing pies...however you do that.

Block the Vote

Hey Ryan,

Thanks for linking to the article about McCain's campaign. I went looking for that yesterday and couldn't seem to find it.

What I did find, though, was the Rolling Stone article from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast about the Repubs' efforts to suppress votes. I posted some video here before from Democracy Now and the BBC about this issue.

Here's some new video from Rachel Maddow:



You know, a few McCain/Palin signs have sprung up in yards here in my neighborhood. And, while I think those people are, at best, misguided, I would never even consider suppressing their votes. It's funny how McCain, Palin, and Bachmann run around talking about "real America" and "pro-Americans" when their party is the one behaving in the most un-American fashion. (More on that later.)

Speaking of fashion, I suppose you've already heard about Sarah Palin's $150,000 shopping spree on the RNC's dime. Wow, that's money wasted, huh.

Charles

The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of McCain

Charles,

This is long, my friend, but it's a pretty fascinating look at a campaign that, with just a few days left before Election Day, is still struggling to find a narrative. As someone who considers himself a part-time writer, I can sympathize. But for a political candidate, it seems, this type of editing and re-editing can sink a campaign.

Here is the article that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

Ryan

The Ballad of the "Good Soldier"

Hey Ryan,

Did you love McCain's response to Biden's comments yesterday about how Obama will be tested in the first six months of his presidency? Biden basically said that Obama would, most likely, come up against some sort of test like the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early part of his first term.

Here's what McCain told a crowd of McCainiacs in response:

"I was on board the USS Enterprise," McCain, a former naval aviator, said in the capital city of Harrisburg. "I sat in the cockpit, on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, you know how close we came to a nuclear war."

As the crowd of several thousand began to swell with cheers and applause, he added with dramatic effect: "America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I've been tested, my friends."

Don't you just love the semantical arguments made in election cycles? You know, I used to work with a guy (a Republican, oddly) who, when he knew he was losing a political argument, would resort to breaking down each and every little word, trying to roll it into something he could build a new argument on. He never could mount a new argument, but it did serve as a nice (for him) distraction that usually made his opponent give up and walk away.

Of course, in Captain Caveman's case, you really have to be drinking the Kool-Aid to fully buy what he's saying. The fact that he was on the USS Enterprise during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with orders, waiting to go on a bomb run really doesn't mean he's been tested as the...well...LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD! There's a marked difference in getting orders and giving orders.

Besides, if he had gone on his ordered bomb runs, Ol' Johnny probably would've crashed the plane anyway. I know, it sounds cruel, but I'm just saying...his batting average for missions isn't all that impressive.

Also, there's the issue of how the word "tested" is employed by each candidate. After eight years of The Idiot Era, the next president is going to be "tested" no matter who wins the election! It's pretty obvious that's what Biden's getting at.

But, John McCain never lets context get in the way of stroking his own ego. To him, the "tested" means that the rest of the world sees Obama as a huge question mark, the kind of newbie leader they can mop the floor with. And, that thought process shows McCain's projection issues.

Ol' Johnny knows now that the only recourse he has left is to point out his own failures as he sees them in his enemy. (Make no mistake, no matter what McCain says about Obama, he only sees his younger opponent as an enemy.) McCain's carrying his own (and much more damaging) domestic terrorist baggage. He's got his own (and much more pronounced and dangerous) experience gap. And, most importantly, in the context of the recent economic crisis, McCain has already been tested and failed miserably.

The only thing that McCain's presence on the USS Enterprise that day in 1962 tells me is that his mindset and his methodologies are old and obsolete. He doesn't realize that passing the commander-in-chief test isn't simply a matter of donning a flight suit and waiting for orders. There are plenty of good soldiers out there who were never cut out to be leaders. They are only adept at following orders and doing what they're told, no matter how idiotic those orders might seem at the time.

In his campaign and his response to the recent economic turmoil, McCain has shown himself to be a good soldier, going wherever his managers and aides (and other assorted lobbyists) tell him to go, and saying what they tell him to say once he gets there, no matter how erratic or out-of-touch their orders seem to be.

He's even covered for every dirty trick they've pulled, though such "old politics" supposedly goes against his maverick nature.

Yes, throughout all of this, John McCain has shown that he's a good soldier...he's just not cut out to lead.

And, quite a few of "reliably red" voters are starting to figure that out.

Charles

McCain Has Something In Common With "Undecided" Voters

Hey Ryan,

If you recall, a few posts ago, I wrote about the willful ignorance of "undecided" voters. Looks like maybe McCain, at least, has that quality in common with them, if nothing else.

Charles

Why didn't he quit him?

Another great piece from Frank Rich, who, in anticipation of the G.O.P.'s "long night of the long knives," delivers his own analysis of what went wrong with the McCain campaign.

Frontline: The Choice 2008

For those who missed it this last week, here's the PBS Frontline doc The Choice 2008, about Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. A great, eye-opening film that clocks in at just under two hours.

The "I Know" Strategy

Hey Ryan,

You've hit the nail on the head with your take on the candidates' respective rhetorical approaches. I've been drawn to Obama's approach all along for the very reasons you cited. But McCain's was tougher for me to pin down.

I knew I didn't like the close-the-deal portions of McCain's debate performances and speeches, but I just couldn't put my finger on what bothered me, not in the way you did.

To me, every time McCain says the words "I know how to", it feels like a flashback to the playground or summer camp. You remember the kid who always said he could do stuff, only to be humiliated when it actually came time to step up.

None of us are qualified to be the President. I know I'm not. Nevertheless, most of us have mental conversations with these candidates when we hear them speak. When they debate each other, in our minds, we're in there, too, our inner voices calling back to them.

And, every time McCain says, "I know how to get bin Laden," my inner voice says, "Then why haven't you caught him?" Sure, McCain's not the President, but his party still resides in the executive branch. It's not like Repub McCain would have to go a Dem president and offer unwanted advice about catching bin Laden.

So, why hasn't he worked with his love-hate partner Bush the Junior on this task? And, if McCain truly knows the way to catch bin Laden, doesn't the fact that he hasn't shared that plan with the Bush Regime make him a traitor? Or, a terrorist sympathizer? Or, by extension a terrorist himself? So, then, is Sarah Palin the one who's actually "pallin' around with terrorists"?

I'm not making accusations here. I'm just asking. We can still do that here in the good ol' U.S. of A., right?

For the thinking voter, simply proclaiming that he knows how to do something isn't good enough. McCain needs to show that he has the complex thought process to accomplish it. He hasn't done that. This is all he has done (and it's not for minors or weak hearts):



When you think of this man and all of the bloodthirsty savages he has been rallying as of late, do you see any reason to believe him when he says he knows how to do something?

I don't.

Charles

Looking through a glass Onion

Charles,

This is downright amazing. Check out this Onion story from January 2001 and the start of the Bush Administration. Besides boasting some of the funniest satirists around, our favorite fake newspaper evidently has a crystal ball somewhere in the newsroom. Wow.

Ryan