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...