"Liberalism always wins out in the long run"

That is a direct quote from Chris Matthews last evening.

This election was clearly about a lot of things. It was a referendum on Bush’s failed policies. It was about choosing somebody different because people don’t like the direction the country is headed. And it was about a brilliant black candidate who somehow inspired the silent and apathetic progressive majority to show up and vote.

To me, it was definitely about all that stuff. More than anything else, though, this election to me was about economics. It was about people finally deciding that Reaganomics hasn’t worked for them in the least. Looking back at the 20th century, progressivism undeniably brought us most of what is great about this country. It brought us civil rights, worker rights, women’s rights, a vibrant middle class, secure retirement, a strong moral standing in the world, and a relatively fair balance between the interests of people and the interests of corporations. On the other hand, the Reagan revolution has brought us erosion of all of those things plus all-powerful corporations and powerless workers. It has brought us insecure retirement, rampant corporate scandals, and an economic system that systematically funnels wealth upward. The genius of Reagan is that he was able to inspire generations of conservatives to rally for policies that are clearly against their own- and the vast majority of human being’s- best economic interests.

I know I’m just a wacky leftist, but I’m thinking this election was about people finally realizing that true democracy and unregulated capitalism are incompatible. They always have been. Unregulated capitalism by definition leads to wealth concentration and a dwindling middle class. At the end of the day, when votes are more evenly disbursed than wealth you will eventually and inevitably see a backlash; Electing Obama is the personification of that backlash. You can take away the middle class’ wealth but they haven’t figured out how to take away their vote yet. And that is exactly what Chris Matthews was talking about.

Olbermann Must Be Catching On

I love Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin but I think she overemphasizes the ditziness and fails to capture Palin's arrogance. I also enjoy Armisen and Hammond as Obama and McCain but I think they both fall short of the true essence of the candidates. Hammond's McCain is completely lacking the simmering anger and tense, nervousness of the real McCain. Armisen's Obama is also quite entertaining but he oftens comes off confused or cold when his target is actually the definition of poised and cool.

Allfeck's portrayal of Olbermann, on the other hand, is not only great satire but also nails what is great, and at the same time mockable, about Keith Olbermann. I loved it. Behold:

IBD/TIPP Daily Poll is Useless

We're obviously being buried at the moment with national tracking polls. On Thursday, for example, according to RCP's tracking there were no fewer than eight national polls released purporting to track the current state of the presidential race. All eight of these polls showed Obama to have a lead over McCain, but with the margin of victory for Obama ranged wildly from a high of 13% to a low of 1%. Fort the record, I do not in my wildest dreams think that Obama will win this thing by double digits as shown in the CBS/NY Times and ABC/Washington Post polls. I personally expect the real lead for Obama at the moment is somewhere in the 4 to 7 point range, consistent with five of the eight polls released on Thursday (see this one, that one, here, here and here). I do want to pick on the outlier for a second, the IBD/TIPP daily poll which shows Obama with just a one point lead.

After showing leads for Obama of 6% on Tuesday and 3.7% on Wednesday, the IBD/TIPP poll found a lead of just 1% on Thursday. Why did IBD/TIPP show a big shift in momentum over the past few days when no other pollster did? Well, it may have something to do with their samples being unrepresentative. I'm just guessing here since they don't give you any clue as to the demographic makeup of their sample.

Let's analyze the silliness a little more closely. IBD/TIPP doesn't share what percentage of their sample was between 18 and 24. They do, however, tell you what percentage of that age group voted for McCain vs Obama. The shift in the trend they showed over three days is striking:

Tuesday- Obama +6 points; 18-24 year olds- Obama 46% to 44%

Wednesday- Obama +3.7 points; 18-24 year olds- McCain 53% to 43%

Thursday- Obama +1 point; 18 -24 year olds- McCain 74% to 24%

TIPP touts itself as having been the most accurate pollster of the 2004 election. And, this daily tracking poll gets national attention on a daily basis via the popular RCP site. Yet, they present with a straight face data that shows a 52 point swing over three days in the 18-24 age group. Not to mention they also show a 20 point swing over three days among Catholics in favor of McCain and a 15 point swing among single women in McCain's favor.

So, is the race really tightening like IBD/TIP is claiming or is Obama's mid single digit lead holding pretty steady like just about every other pollster says? Given IBD/TIPP's apparently odd samples, I will guess that the latter is the case.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

This is obviously an important endorsement for Obama. I still hold a bit of a grudge against Powell for his role in pushing us into the Iraq War. That said, he remains one of the most respected and accomplished military minds in the world. If he believes Obama is ready to be commander in chief, that should hold a whole lot of weight with voters.

LA Times Endorses Obama

The LA Times today joined the growing list of major publications to endorse Barack Obama for president.

Here are a few of my favorite snippets from their endorsement:

He is no lone rider. He is a consensus builder, a leader.

He has won the backing of some on Wall Street not because he's one of them, but because they recognize his talent for extracting from a broad range of proposals a coherent and workable program.

But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.

In closing, the op-ed neatly and succinctly summarizes the broad appeal of Senator Obama:

Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

Washington Post Endorses Obama

In the op-ed page of today's issue of the Washington Post, the prominent newspaper formally endorsed Barack Obama for President.

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

In my humble opinion, this is well deserved praise for a great Democratic candidate.

The essence of last night's debate...

...captured in a single photo.

Third and Final Debate Cacaphony

Senator McCain certainly came out swinging last night. Even knowing that his recent wallowing in negativity did nothing to halt, and perhaps even aided, a dramatic rise in the polls for Senator Obama, McCain still attempted to bombard Obama with every smear he could think of. McCain breathlessly invoked Obama's so-called shadowy associations with William Ayers and ACORN just to have Sentor Obama bat away each charge like so many pesky mosquitoes. I was shocked, frankly, that McCain didn't trot out Reverend Jeremiah Wright's name just one last time.

The tattered Republican playbook tactic of turning a phrase or a name into something nefarious sounding- see "liberal", "George Soros", "ACLU" et al.- by simply repeating it over and over on Sean Hannity's show and in 527 ads, finally seems to have fallen on deaf ears during this election cycle. Could it be that Americans have wised up to the tactic? I doubt it. The ineffectiveness of the tactic this time around is more likely the result of the Democrats actually putting up an extremely strong and well-financed candidate for a change. And, more importantly, the Republicans put up a candidate who can't hide from his long, long history of being a free market ideologue and for having constantly pushing for deregulation. McCain would have been a flawed candidate- too angry, too inconsistent, too old- regardless of when he was running for president but it's particularly hard for him to resonate with voters with a crashing economy and an extremely unpopular Republican president casting a long, dark shadow over his campaign.

In short, I thought Obama dominated the debate. He remained calm and carefully and thoughtfully addressed every bit of random, scatter shot nonsense hurled at him by McCain. Senator McCain seemed to have decided that going negative was his only option left at this point. The result of doing so was simply to make McCain seem unpleasant and small and extremely unpresidential. Given Obama's current lead in the polls, McCain needed to crush him in this final debate; He failed miserably in his attempt to do so. In fact, I thought it was by far McCain's worst debate performance of the three.

Surely, everyone saw the same thing I saw last night. Right? Of course not! Just as with the first two debates, the reaction was all over the spectrum. Behold:

Sam Youngman: Aggressive McCain, Cool Obama

Roger Simon: McCain Fails to rattle Obama

Harold Meyerson: McCain as Angry White Man

Anne Barrowclough: The Winner? Joe the Plumber.

Peter Canellos: Intensity May Help McCain

John Dickerson: McCain did well, but not well enough

Dick Morris: Debate May be turning point for McCain

Quin Hillyer: Solid Win for McCain

Marc Ambinder: McCain surrenders debate to his frustrations

Taegan Goddard: McCain's best debate

Although opinions did vary, this time around the overwhelming majority of coverage seemed to believe that either Obama won or McCain won, but that it wasn't a big enough victory for him to stem the losing tide of his campaign.

Say What You Feel, Eugene

In a cathartic and dead nuts on article today over at Real Clear Politics, Eugene Robinson tells it like it is:

The GOP is a mess and a Fraud

The whole article is quote-worthy but I found a few passages particularly juicy. His take on the GOP's Milton Friedman disciples suddenly embracing willy nilly government intervention is one such passage:

It's pathetic to hear right-wing talk radio blowhards try to associate Barack Obama with "radical" or "socialist" views when a Republican administration is tossing aside "Atlas Shrugged" and speed-reading "Das Kapital."

After documenting some of the Right's many governing misdeeds, Robinson closes with a call to exile Republicans to minority status:

When a political party reaches the point of lurching incoherence, the most effective cure is a good, long spell in the wilderness. Americans should help Republicans out by sending them home to get their act together.

Even after receiving what I hope will be a broad rejection of Republicans on November 4, conservatives will undoubtedly miss the point. Whereas I will see it as a wholesale rejection of their corporatist ideology, the Right will no doubt argue that their candidates just weren't conservative enough.

McCain vs. Obama on Energy Policy

The Salt Lake Tribune is running a series of articles comparing McCain and Obama's stances on the issues. Today's article compares McCain and Obama's stances on energy policy.

The key energy policy differences between the two are that while McCain is more heavily devoted to old technology such as oil, coal, and nuclear, Obama focuses his attention more on alternative, renewable sources of energy. As the more devout free market capitalist, McCain wants to drill for more oil, including offshore but not in ANWR, and expects that alternative energies will have to compete with fossil fuels in the free market. Obama clearly believes that the government is going to have to be an active participant in the market to ensure that alternative sources of energy get developed as needed.

Comparing the candidates stances underscores something I've long said about John McCain; Maverick is just another way of saying "inconsistent". Yes, he has a history of bucking his party from time to time. But it's been in sort of a self-serving, scatter shot way. Energy policy is a good example of his inconsistency. After voting against Bush's energy bill back in 2003, he's now claiming to be in favor of the alternative energy measures contained in that bill. After voting against offshore drilling in 2005, McCain is now Mr. "Drill, Baby Drill" on the campaign trail. After voting against 20 solar or renewable energy incentive bills over the years, he now tries to position himself as being a big proponent of alternative energy. The reason a lot of Republicans didn't want McCain as the nominee in the first place was his lack of reliability on conservative issues. Looking at his history when it comes to energy, I can see where these conservatives are coming from.

The Bright Side of the Cratering Economy?

Gas prices are steadily dropping. After peaking at $4.11 in July, the national average price of a gallon of gasoline has fallen over 18% to $3.35 as of October 10, 2008. Industry analysts are projecting that prices at the pump could drop to as low at $2.50 to $2.75 per gallon in the near future.

So, in short, when the economy is relatively strong it looks like we're going to have obnoxiously expensive gasoline for the foreseeable future. If the economy is weak, a time when people have lots more to worry about than just gas prices, gas may well be substantially cheaper. Pick your poison, I suppose.

Weekend Blog Links

• Matt Yglesias blogs about the Pentagon's plans to bully the next president into massive defense spending increases.


• Juan Cole addresses McCain's defense of Obama as a decent man, not an Arab. As if the two things are mutually exclusive...


• Borowitz Report writes about John McCain's casting call for irate white people.


• The Left Coaster writes about one of my favorite topics, Free Market Fundamentalism.


• Tapped has an interesting post on ACORN and the important distinction between voter fraud and registration fraud.


• Same Facts chimes in on the idiocy of Sarah Palin being sent to drop the first puck at a Philadelphia Flyers game.


• The inimitable Jesus' General posts an ad by the group Passionately Credulous Bigots for McCain.


• Over at Alas! blog, a suspected serial killer clears himself. I, too, have been regularly clearing myself of various crimes big and small ever since I learned from the McCain campaign that one can do so.

270toWin's Election Simulator

As I've mentioned a couple of times recently, I have become a complete addict of 270towin.com. I particularly enjoy running their election simulator to see what current state polls are indicating the result will be in the battle for electoral votes. One of the cool things about their simulator is you can look at the results of the last 1,000 simulations run. I'm a stats geek, what can I say?

As recently as a month ago, the simulations stats showed McCain winning 40% or more of the simulations. As of two weeks ago, if my memory serves me correctly McCain was winning 15% or 20% of the simulations. Posted to the right you will find the stats for the last 1,000 simulation as of this morning at around 8AM ET. Remarkably, the election simulator now has Obama winning an incredible 99.6% of simulations run. That means, as of today, if you were to run 1,000 election simulations, McCain would win approximately four of them. And, of those four wins, the biggest victory for McCain would be a narrow victory of just 282 electoral votes.

Yes, I'm optimistic. I am also realistic and I know polls can change very rapidly. If the election were held today, though, Obama would likely win in a blowout. Hopefully the recent trend will continue for Barack.

Friday Blog Links

• Joe Conason astutely asks 'what if"?

• Anonymous Liberal revisits the "race card" dispute.



• Daily Kos covers the Connecticut Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling



• Obsidian Wings: McCain Blames Self for Economic Meltdown

• Ezra chimes in on the correlation between October polls and November results



• Firedoglake: Will McCain Suspend Campaign to Investigate Obama's past?

• Glenn Greenwald skewers Dan Balz's weird idea of journalistic balance.

• Gun Toting Liberal blogs about the McCain campaign's idiotic Troopergate clearing

Financial Crisis Cacaphony

As the bloodshed on Wall Street continues today unabated, there is no shortage of opinion as to what it all means, who caused it, what we need to do about it, and when it will end. Behold the cacaphony:

Jimmy Carter: Bush Policies to Blame for Crisis

Marketwatch: This Isn't Crash of '29; Just Feels Like It

Bush Appeals for Confidence

Elizabeth MacDonald: Living in United States of Bailouts

Editorial: Greed of Wall Street CEOs Brought On Meltdown

Steve Forbes: The Fear Will Subside

Joe Mysak: Bankers are Discredited and Vilified

Ben Bernanke: Laying Groundwork for Recovery

Paul Krugman: Time for Coordinated International Action

Andy Kessler: U.S. Actually a Port In Storm

President George W. Hoover is More Like It

Conservative Hugh Hewitt has a column over at Townhall entitled President Barack Hoover. Hewitt labels Senator Obama as being Hoover-like based on his claim that Obama has suggested a tax increase during a severe downturn in the economy. Comparing Obama's proposed net decrease in taxes to Hoover's oppressive tax increases is, of course, a silly exaggeration.

The Revenue Act of 1932, signed into law by Republican President Herbert Hoover, is generally credited with worsening the impact of the great depression. This Act increased income tax rates punitively across the board on corporations, estates, and individuals in most tax brackets. The chart below shows the tax increases on individuals included in the Revenue Act of 1932. I've added a column converting 1932 dollars to 2007 dollars for illustrative purposes:

As shown in the chart above, the tax increase enacted in 1932 was extremely progressive in nature. That is to say, the more money you earned the greater the tax rate paid. For instance, someone earning $10,000 in 1932 (the equivalent of $151,345 in 2007 dollars) saw their tax bill increase by 25%. Someone earning $16,000 in 1932 ($242,151 in 2007 dollars) saw their tax burden increase by a whopping 62.5%.

Let's compare for a moment Hoover's 1932 tax increase to the overall net tax cut proposed by Barack Obama. Whereas Hoover increased taxes dramatically on everybody making more than the equivalent of around $90,000 in 2007 dollars, Obama is actually proposing rates that would see 95% of Americans paying the same amount or less in income taxes. Whereas Hoover increased taxes on those making $242,151 in 2007 dollars by 62.5%, Obama is merely suggesting that tax rates on people making more than $250,000 per year return to pre-Bush tax cut levels. Obama's tax proposal will result in a tax cut for most Americans with those making the most money seeing a small increase. Let me repeat my point in my best Joe Biden voice: Obama's plan on the whole is actually a tax cut.

Hewitt's ideology appears to be that of your typical trickle-down economist. These folks like to believe that putting more money in the hands of the wealthy is more productive for the economy than putting that same amount of money in the hands of the middle and working classes. This is, of course, malarkey. I've long argued that if you want to stimulate our consumption-based economy the way to do it is by putting more money in the hands of people who have the least. This is because people who are struggling will spend every cent you return to them in tax cuts on paying bills and/or purchasing items they have deferred buying. The wealthy, on the other hand, are less likely to spend every cent and much more likely to simply put the money in the bank.

History, to the chagrin of conservatives like Hugh Hewitt, will much more likely see George W. Bush as being the apt parallel to Herbert Hoover. Hoover, a Republican like Bush, was at the switch during the market crash of 1929. Hoover, as Bush is now in trying to fix our broken economy, flailed about quite impotently in an attempt to stem the ill effects of the Great Depression. Interestingly, Hoover's first instinct a month after the crash was actually to enact a Bush-like cutting of taxes. A brief glance at history points to George W. Bush as being our generation's Herbert Hoover. Barack Obama, in a thought which is undoubtedly horrifying to conservatives, is actually much more likely to be our generation's Franklin Roosevelt. Ironically, it is Republican George W. Bush who has already kicked off a sort of neo-FDR-ism with his unprecedented government interventions in the economy in recent months. Couple that with voters embracing Obama's "health care is a right" mantra and you have the makings of a New New Deal.

Yes We Carve!

You've gotta check this out:

http://yeswecarve.com/

Here's hoping every trick or treater is greeted by a Barack O'Lantern on every porch. At least in the swing states...

David Brooks: Palin a "fatal cancer" to GOP

Huffington Post has some great quotes from conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks about Sarah Palin. Most interesting to me, Brooks compares Palin's anti-intellectual tendencies to those of George Bush, noting that Palin not only to scorns liberal ideas but scorns ideas entirely. This is a powerful observation, especially coming from a respected conservative, about someone who is a McCain victory away from being Vice President.

In the same interview, Brooks refers to Obama as a mediocre senator but heaps praise upon him for his great intellect and for his keen social perception skills. Fascinating...

...and a Mavericky thumbs up to you

Debate Cacaphony Part Deux

After the first presidential debate I provided links to an absurdly wide range of opinions on who won the debate. This time around I've found it harder to find spinners touting a huge McCain victory. Opinions remain somewhat varied, however:

Susan Page: Sharp Tone, No Gaffes

Lynn Sweet: No Game Changer

Will Bunch: Solid and Informative

Mark Halperin: McCain "B"; Obama "B+"

Rick Klein: John McCain wanted to have 10 of these?

Doyle McManus: Candidates were 'models of courteous restraint'

Robin Abcarian: Obama the winner in body language

NY Post Editorial: An Economic Pander-Fest!

McCormick and Zuckman: Lack of fireworks is a loss for McCain

Dick Morris (numbnut extraordinaire): McCain needed KO and Didn't Get it

Harris and Vandehei: Worst Debate Ever

Financial Times: Short on Spectacle... And Anything Else

Adding to the pile, my opinion is that Obama mopped the floor with McCain. Obama was eloquent, calm, empathetic and quite presidential. McCain, on the other hand, seemed angry, weaselly, and a bit desperate. It wasn't a knockout but Obama still earned a decisive victory in my book.

Obama killing Kerry and Gore in the polls (for what it's worth)

The Talent Show has a great pollster graph posted which compares polling data from the 2000 and 2004 presidential races to this year's campaign. This graph shows a couple of things which I find interesting and encouraging:

• Neither Kerry in 2004 nor Gore in 2000 ever had a lead in the polls anywhere close to that held by Obama at this time.


• Comparing the polling as of a specific number of days before the election, Obama has been ahead of where Kerry was, usually by a wide margin, for all but about 20 days of the campaign. Similarly, Obama has also outperformed Gore at each time period for all but approximately a week of the campaign.

I have a history of premature optimism- I thought Kerry was going to win right up until election day 2004- but I am feeling like an Obama landslide is a real possibility as of now. I'll continue to hold my breath, of course, for any swift boatian attacks that could put a dent in Obama's lead in the coming weeks.

Presidents Who Died Early in Term

Where's The Outrage? freaked me out a bit with his post today regarding presidents who died early in a four year term. As much as I find the idea of a McCain presidency distasteful, the thought of a Palin presidency is much scarier.

Read the post. It's quite enlightening.

The New Yorker Endorses Obama

In a thorough and well written editorial, The New Yorker makes the case for Barack Obama:

At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

I obviously agree wholeheartedly. After a little more than 40 years on this planet, I am hopeful that a transformational leader for the Left may finally have arrived in the person of Barack Obama. Liberals, by definition, don't generally revere their leaders like conservatives do. That said, I have always hoped that we would one day get "our Reagan". Whether deserved or not, Ronald Reagan represents for most Republicans the gold standard for their party. For conservatives, Reagan was inspiring and confident and he represented to them all of the positive qualities to which they aspire. We Liberals expect a lot from our leaders so it will be very hard for any leader to achieve a "Reagan-like" stature amongst progressives. Count me as one cynical idealist who is ready to give Obama a shot at being a progressive leader for the ages.

A Little Sunday Reading

• Blue Gal scored what may or may not be an actual interview with the ever adorable Joe Biden.
  

• Is there a better site anywhere for pissed off lefties (like me!) than Crooks & Liars? (With a great new layout, to boot.)
  

• I bet you can't run just one election simulation over at 270towin. Now that Barack is ahead I find their simulator to be particularly addictive. Seeing all those states turn blue one by one almost brings a tear to me eye...
  
  
• ThinkProgress covers Dick Cheney's recent lies speech where he claimed that the Bush administration has made environmental conservation a high priority.
  
  
• Rude Pundit chimes in with his assessment of the Biden/Palin debate.
  
  
• Read Tim Dickinson's Make Believe Maverick piece in Rolling Stone. After 8 years of a make believe cowboy in the White House, a pretend maverick is the last thing any of us needs.

On Push Polling

The always insightful and funny Gun Toting Liberal has a great piece on recent complaints of the McCain campaign engaging in push polling in battleground states. I'm personally in shock that Mr. Straight-Talking Integrity and Honor would allow his campaign to engage in the very tactic Bush used to smear him during the 2000 Republican primaries.

A tongue-in-cheek example of such push polling from GTL:

“If you knew Barack Obama was involved in the murder of O.J. Simpson’s wife and the Las Vegas kidnapping/robbery scheme, would you still vote for him"

I've heard rumors from completely unreliable sources that the following questions are also being asked in push polls throughout purple America:

"If you knew Barack Obama was a direct descendant of Pontius Pilate, the executioner of our Lord, would you be less likely to cast a vote for him?"

"If you learned that Barack Obama hates NASCAR, listens to the Fugees, and is a vegetarian would you be less likely to vote for him?"

"Would you be less likely to vote for Barack Obama if you learned that he thinks Carrot Top is funny and, in a previous life, caused dinosaurs to become extinct?"

For me the answer is clearly "yes", "yes", and "absolutely".

Awaiting A Swift Boat Attack

With a McCain victory looking more and more like a long shot, what can we expect from the Republicans in the next four weeks? A swift boat style attack or two, of course. October is the perfect time for a totally unsubstantiated attack simply because the victim has a difficult time dispelling the myth completely before election day. My guess is Karl Rove and company have more than a few ideas of how to slander Senator Obama in the coming weeks.

The most likely theme of a swift boat attack on Obama will be to make claims which portray him to be as black and/or as liberal as possible. With states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri seemingly in play, the old Karl Rove playbook would suggest that Obama needs to be shown to have associations with scary black people and that he favors the closure of all churches and believes in abortion even after birth (without "pre-conditions", of course). The fact that none of it is true doesn't matter, of course. The point is simply to distract enough white people away from disastrous Republican policies by planting the seed that Obama is a militant black man who shares Karl Marx's economic beliefs.

Democrats undoubtedly know it's coming and will probably still flail about when it actually happens. Personally, I'm holding my breath waiting for October to end.

Palin's Evasive and Spastic Performance

The political press is buzzing this morning about Governor Palin's VP debate performance last evening. I'm finding the pundit reviews to be mostly positive, at least to the extent that most people believe she exceeded the incredibly low expectations that had been set for her.

Personally, I found Governor Palin's performance to be a bit spastic and incredibly evasive. She openly avoided answering questions asked of her and instead returned over and over to her canned talking points. I found her to be over-the-top folksy and never once found her to be the least bit presidential. Her knowledge of issues seemed superficial at best. While she didn't fall flat on her face, I thought she needed to be great to stem the flow of recent McCain losses. She clearly failed to be great.

I thought Joe Biden played it pretty safe in the debates. He came off as serious and extremely knowledgeable and avoided appearing condescending. He did not deliver a knockout blow but I don't believe he needed to. Senator Biden's charge was simply to not screw up Obama's recent positive momentum and I expect he accomplished that modest goal quite nicely.

Numbnut of the Day: Rep. Eric Cantor!

So, let me get this straight. The reason Eric Cantor didn't vote for the bailout bill today was because he didn't like the speech Nancy Pelosi gave about the bill before the vote? Seriously?

Per his own grand proclamation today, Cantor believed in the bill and planned on voting for it right up until the point where Speaker of the House Pelosi laid our current financial crisis at the feet of George W. Bush specifically and Republican policies in general (De-regulate!). Call me crazy but I thought that Congress was voting on a very important bill and not on what the Speaker of the House said about the bill before the voting began. What kind of numbnut would let his vote on a crucial piece of legislation be swayed by something said by a member of the other party? Could Cantor's skin be any thinner?

If I lived in the 7th Congressional District of Virginia I might just hold a grudge against Cantor based on the fact that I lost several percent of my meager savings today when the stock market imploded after he and his thin-skinned Republican brethren failed to pass a bailout bill because mean old Nancy Pelosi hurt his delicate feelings. The truth of the matter is that Eric Cantor is a numbnut and I hope Virginians in his district remember that on November 4th.

CORRECTION: Eric Cantor actually DID vote in favor of the first bailout bill. He had the inner strength, apparently, to fight off Pelosi's partisan shenanigans. He was merely suggesting that many of his Republican brethren were thin-skinned, hyper sensitive, and spineless enough to change their votes based on the Speaker's speech. Upon further reflection, I've decided that this makes Cantor even more of a numbnut than I originally thought.

Let the Pie Eating Contests Begin!

Debate Reaction Cacophony

The first presidential debate is in the books. Who won? As always, no matter what your wacky view is, you can find a supposedly credible somebody who agrees with you. Behold:

Jim Geraghty: Major Win for McCain

Tom Bevan: Solid Win for McCain

Jonathan Last: McCain wins handily

Mickey Kaus: A Small Victory for McCain

Byron York: Obama plays nice guy and loses

John Dickerson: It was a tie!

Dan Balz: It was a dead heat!

LA Times: Too Close to Call

Joe Klein: Obama Wins Debate

Clive Crook: Comfortable Win for Obama

Madeleine Albright: Breakthrough Night for Obama

Dick Morris (of all people!): Obama Won

David Corn: McCain loses by not beating Obama to a bloody pulp

Chuck Todd: One of the best debates in a long time

Roger Simon: One of McCain's Strongest Performances ever

Josh Marshall: McCain seemed "angry, angry, angry"

Reid Wilson: Echos of Reagan and Clinton

NY Times: Crotchety McCain

Tom Shales: McCain was Condescending and Rude


There you have it, a clear consensus.

"Most Liberal Senator" Nonsense

In last night's debate McCain trotted out the standard and extremely tired "most liberal" senator charge against Obama. This claim, based on the assessment of the conservative National Journal, is dubious at best. Amazingly, they somehow are able to apply the "most liberal" title to whoever the Democrats nominate for President whether it is Kerry or Gore or Dukakis or Mondale. Go figure. What ticks me off more than the dubiousness of the label is Obama's lack of response to the charge during the debate.

Conservatives have worked so long and so hard to turn "liberal" into a four letter word that Democrats reflexively cringe in unison when the word is blurted at them. Obama, too, seemed unable to form a sentence in response to McCain calling him such a profane name. To me, the correct response is simple and a man as eloquent as Obama is the perfect person to deliver that response.

In the eyes of Republicans all you have to do is call someone liberal and you've automatically banished that person to the extreme outer reaches of society; You've defined that person as leftist and out of touch with the mainstream by uttering one simple word. This connotation of the word liberal is, of course, nonsense and was created out of thin air by people like Rush Limbaugh. Democrats, however, have for many years seemed powerless to disarm the totally fabricated and inaccurate definition of the word.

Step one in responding to the word liberal is to expose Republicans as the propagandists they are. Explain briefly and coherently the source of the ranking- a conservative publication- and the fact that said publication has a history of labeling every Democratic nominee as "the most liberal". The charge lacks credibility and the candidate needs to say so.

The second step for a candidate like Obama is to say "I'd like to address Senator McCain's charge by explaining which votes and views of mine have earned me- right or wrong- the 'most liberal' label. Frankly, the majority of Americans agree with the vast majority of my so-called liberal positions." Obama can then briefly recite his positions on a number of positions:

• I believe our veterans shouldn't be nickled and dimed on health care.
• I believe that corporations should be held accountable.
• I believe quality public education benefits all of society.
• I believe in pursuing energy independence.
• I believe we have a responsibility to protect the environment
• I believe in stem cell research.
• I believe that our trade partners should have to play on a level playing field.
• I believe that the power of lobbyists and special interests are too great.
• I believe all Americans should have access to quality health care.

There are obviously dozens of other view he could cite. The point is to deconstruct the term "liberal" down to its components and show that the views that make Obama liberal are all incredibly mainstream.

It's time for Dems to stop cowering when they are called "liberal". Instead, they need to attack the charge head on and actually try to take the profanity out of the word once and for all.

Is Palin a dotcom bubble waiting to happen?

Chuck Todd provides an analysis of the Sarah Palin enthusiasm bubble and asks Will it bulge or bust? Todd contends that while Palin appears as of now to have had a positive impact for Republicans up and down the ballot, this is probably as good as it's going to get:

The Obama campaign is counting on the Palin effect wearing off. They’re hoping that the final month of the campaign will be about Obama v. McCain.

I think he's right. Obama needs to stop focusing on Palin and try to let the enthusiasm die down a bit. While I expect the Republican base to stay in love with Palin (and McCain by default), I think Governor Palin's celebrity has probably peaked with independents.

Could Romney have Delivered Michigan for McCain?

Right in the midst of Palin mania, I still find myself thinking that Sarah Palin's appeal is by far the strongest in the reddest of red states. Yes, she will undoubtedly help ensure a Republican rout in Alaska, The deep south, Idaho, Kansas and the Dakotas. That said, any old Republican chosen at random from the phone book could defeat Obama by double digits in those states. But does she push McCain over the top in any of the key swing states? I'm not so sure.

Yes, McCain appears in polls to have gotten stronger in Pennsylvania and Ohio since the RNC. That said, Pennsylvania will probably still swing to the Dems in November and Ohio still looks to be a coin flip as usual. As I tinker endlessly with the innumerable combinations and permutations on my beloved 270towin.com, I keep finding myself coming back to Michigan. Simply put, if the Dems lose Michigan they've probably lost the White House once again. And which potential running mate would have given McCain the best chance of locking up Michigan? Mitt Romney, of course.

I see the core most winnable states for Obama in three distinct groups: 1) Out West (CA, OR, WA, NM), 2) the midwest (MN, IA, WI, IL), and 3) the Northeast (PA, MD and everything northeast of there). With all of these states shaded blue, Obama would have 243 electoral votes and would still need 27 more delegates to reach the magic 270. If he wins Michigan's 17 electoral votes, he reaches 260 and- this is extremely important- puts himself in a position where he can win the Presidency while still losing both Ohio and Florida. With Michigan going to the good guys, Obama could win the race by merely winning one of the three of OH, FL, or Virginia. Without Michigan, the math gets much tougher. Without Michigan, winning Ohio alone would not be enough to put Obama over the top. Without Michigan, Obama could win both Virginia and Colorado (neither of which will be easy) and still lose the White House. Without Michigan, Obama would probably need Florida and we all know how hard that state is to deliver to a Democrat.

Recent polls (see here, here, and here, for instance) are showing an extremely tight race in Michigan. Romney, who won the Michigan Republican primary by 9 points over John McCain and is the son of a three term Michigan Governor, could very well have been the tipping point in swinging Michigan, and perhaps the election, to the GOP.

In November we will hear lots of pundits say that Palin shook up this election for McCain. I won't be suprised, however, if Romney might have been the VP who could have actually won this election for McCain.

Palin and the Hillary for VP Second Guessers

Politico.com asks "Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems"?

The short answer in my estimation is "yes". I don't mean that Hillary would have counteracted Palin's appeal to women. Rather, I mean that if Obama had chosen Senator Clinton as his running mate that McCain would never have chosen Governor Plain as his VP in the first place.

When Obama made the safe choice in running mate of an old school Washington insider and most importantly, a white male, the door was left open for McCain to choose a game changer such as a woman or a minority. Palin, at this moment, is looking to be just such a game changer. Had Obama chosen Hillary to run with him, the obvious alternative for McCain would have been to choose someone safer such as Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney.

I don't blame Obama for not choosing Hillary. Having both Bill and Hillary at the forefront of the campaign most assuredly would have been a distraction. Further, I still maintain that there would have been no better way to maximize Republican turnout than to add Senator Clinton to the Democratic ticket. If Obama loses, the second guessing of this decision will linger for years. That said I still think he did the right thing in picking Biden.

It's All About Fannie and Freddie...

The bailing out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is yet another example of our government not practicing what it preaches in regard to the wisdom of free market capitalism. A government bailout to the tune of billions of dollars used to be rare; In 2008 it's become standard procedure. Frankly, however, if the U.S. were lead by capitalist idealogues who refused to intervene, we'd be looking at a crash of our entire economy akin to 1929.

Yes, government intervention in this case was pretty much inevitable given the current housing and liquidity crises. That said, intervention only became inevitable because of banking de-regulation which directly lead to the sub-prime mortgage mess. Capitalism isn't a perfect system and can lead to all sorts of wild market swings and vicious downturns. That's why government regulation became necessary in the financial markets in the first place. I'm not holding my breath, however, waiting for a Republican epiphany in regard to the fact that de-regulation often leads ultimately to tax payer bailouts.

Here are some interesting Fannie/Freddie articles:

Bloomberg: Fannie, Freddie Credit-Default Swaps May Be Settled

AP: US government takes on big role in mortgage market

CNBC: Bailout Bolsters Markets But May Not Solve Crisis

NY Times: Few Stand to Gain on This Bailout, and Many Lose

Sunday Links

• Jesus General shares McCain's new slogan, No You Can't...

• Why should Palin have to actually face this press? She's only running for VP! TPM chimes in.

• Yep, the Republicans lost their way when they were in charge. And now McCain wants to re-brand the GOP. The platform is exactly the same as it has always been but he's calling it "new and improved". Here's Ezra Klein's take.

• RNC vs DNC: The words they used.

• Whatever it is, I'm Against It has a great recap of the RNC. Of Moose and Mavericks, indeed.

• Early on during the primaries it became obvious that the kryptonite for John McCain is to remind people that he agrees with Bush almost all the time. Is comparing Palin to Bush the way to burst her bubble as well?

Greenwald On One-Way Character Attacks

From the wicked smart, Glenn Greenwald:

Every four years, the GOP unleashes unrestrained personality attacks on Democrats and exploits cultural resentments. Every four years, Democrats tell themselves that such attacks don't work and are counter-productive. And every four years, that belief is disproven. These "character" issues end up mattering largely because Democrats, in election after election, allow wars over "character" to be waged in a largely one-sided fashion.

My succinct reply is "true dat". The Karl Rove method of viciously attacking your opponent's strength- such as John Kerry's military service- is boilerplate Republican strategy. The Democrats, on the other hand, have time and time again opted for the "John McCain is an American hero but..." approach. Whereas Rove comes right at you and punches you in the face before the opening bell even rings, his opponents too often lose the rhetorical battle by sticking with the rules of civil discourse.

I've been waiting my entire adult life for Democrats to not only hit back, but also to hit first from time to time. And maybe even hit first and hit below the belt from time to time. Personally, I'm not optimistic that Obama/Biden will be the ones to end this Dem habit

Late Deciders Will Determine Outcome (As Always)

It is important to remember, especially after having watched enthusiastic Democrats and then enthusiastic Republicans rallying at their respective conventions during consecutive weeks, that a good chunk of the electorate still isn't paying close attention to this election. In a close election- which this will undoubtedly be- the voters who decide the winner often make their decision very late in the game.

As we sit here one day less than two months before election day it is instructive to look at exit polling from 2000 and 2004 to get a feel for how many voters still haven't made up their minds between McCain and Obama. In 2000, according to the CNN polls, an astounding 31% of voters decided who they were going to vote for within a month of election day. More than half of that group of late deciders made the decision within a week of election day. There were fewer late deciders in 2004- probably because Bush was an incumbent- but 11% of of voters still made their decision within a week of election day.

Like the past two presidential elections, I'm expecting Obama/McCain to be decided by, at most, a few percentage points. Furthermore, I once again expect that several swing states will be decided by razor thin margins. If that is the case, it will be the last voters to decide who ultimately determine the winner. It makes me wonder what will be the tipping point that pushes those last minute deciders toward one candidate or the other. Will it be the press coverage or a specific world event or a gaffe by one of the candidates that decides it? Will it be a particular TV ad or a swift-boat type attack that provides the margin of victory?

This just in from the RNC...

John McCain is a maverick. You heard it here first.

Obama in command in Minnesota

A CNN poll released today has Senator Obama with a commanding 12 point lead over Senator McCain in Minnesota. This is up slightly from the 10 point lead Obama enjoyed as of last month.

Obama's strength in Minnesota brings two questions to mind:

• Could Obama enthusiasm in Minnesota help Al Franken in his Senate campaign against incumbent Republican Norm Coleman? As recently as six weeks ago polls were showing Coleman with a double digit lead. The latest poll from mid-August shows Franken having pulled into the lead at +1 percentage points.


• How will the Sarah Palin "hockey mom" meme play in Minnesota? If it doesn't help McCain in Minnesota it's not going to help him anywhere. I believe Minnesota is where the term "hockey mom" was invented...

RNC's Greatest Hits

I've watched a bunch of the speeches from the RNC this week purely because I'm a masochist political junkie. Granted I'm not the Republicans' target audience but up until Governor Palin spoke, every speech had felt to me like the 10,000th time listening to Lynard Skynard's Greatest Hits on cassette tape. If you listen closely you get a hint of their appeal; Even if Skynard isn't your thing you can sort of see why others might like them. The problem is that by now you've heard the album way too many times and the cassette is worn and never really sounded all that great in the first place and your musical taste has changed a bit over the years. Sure, the folks in attendance in St. Paul still scream and hold up their Bic lighters when they hear the opening bars of Freebird. I think most of us watching from afar, however, just want to hear something else. Anything else.

Guiliani, Romney, Whitman, Fiorina, etc al. each trotted out the Republican greatest hits- small government, low taxes, and a sort of populist moral superiority. The problem is that the Republicans had many years controlling every single branch of the government and failed miserably in actually delivering any of stuff they talk about endlessly. As we sit here with a giant, bloated, corrupt and inefficient government largely of the Republican's making, the right is still trying to sell with a straight face the same stuff they've been yapping about since Goldwater but have failed to deliver. I'm obviously biased in the totally opposite direction but I have to believe that the same old Republican talk has to come off to your average American as being nothing but empty promises.

Why Not Kay Bailey Hutchinson?

If McCain wanted a woman on the ticket, why didn't he choose the senior female in the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison? She's been in the Senate 15 years, has been mentioned for years as a potential VP or Presidential candidate, is widely respected among Republicans and checks off all the right boxes:

• She's pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-free trade.
• She's anti-immigration, anti-union, anti-church state separation, anti-social security, anti-taxes, anti-affirmative action, anti-gay rights, anti-public health, anti-environment.

She obviously has serious conservative cred! So why didn't McCain choose Hutchison? I think the answer is fairly simple. Yes, McCain was pandering to women when he chose Sarah Palin. His campaign was just cynical enough to think that supposedly disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters might just slide over and vote for a woman who had nothing besides ovaries in common with Senator Clinton. But being a woman, of course, was only half of the intended pander. The other half of the pander was to choose someone more acceptable to the religious right than McCain. This metric is where Hutchison falls short. Whereas Palin is reputedly a conservative Pentecostal Christian with "no abortion under any circumstances" views, Hutchison is a little less pure in her religious ideology. Hutchison is an Episcopalian (a liberal protestant sect) and is on the record as saying that she does not believe abortion should be made illegal. Abortion is now- and has been for decades- the cornerstone of evangelical politics and Hutchison simply has the wrong opinion on the subject.

So that's it in a nutshell. Standard single issue politics has brought us Sarah Palin instead of innumerable more qualified men and women, including Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Organized Democrats?

Tom DeLay (of all people) says the Democrats are now better organized than the Republicans. Wait, I thought "organized Democrats" was an oxymoron?

Exiled former Senator Rick Santorum has by far the funniest quote of the linked article when he laments how the left's control of Hollywood has helped them take power. "All we have is the family. All we have is the churches.” So says Righteous Rick as he trots out the world's most tired cliche about underdog Republicans.

WSJ Pronounces Obama Campaign Dead

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "Why Obama Can't Close the Sale", the writers lament Obama's inability to secure a lead over John McCain.

True, Mr. Obama enjoys several advantages. Republicans are struggling nationwide in head-to-head contests. Democrats lead in voter registration, and have a well-funded presidential candidate.

Yet Americans have not committed to Mr. Obama. Why?

Poor Republicans, if only writing of Obama's weakness would make it so. As I review five different national polls released yesterday (Gallup, Rasmussen, USA Today, Hotline, and CBS News), I see Americans are "not committed" to Obama to the tune of a 6 to 9 point lead over Senator McCain. The Rasmussen write-up notes that "this is the highest level of support enjoyed by Obama at any point in Election 2008". The CBS News poll notes that Obama now has sizable leads among women and independents and has pulled even with McCain among male voters. That same CBS News poll notes that Obama leads McCain in "enthusiastic" supports 67% to just 25%.

Since the national head to head vote doesn't actually matter, I'm looking forward to seeing post-convention swing state polls over the next few days. I'm expecting Obama's bounce to have put him back in the lead in key states such as Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and perhaps even Florida and Virginia. Even after these state polls show Obama with a healthy lead in the electoral vote projections, I still expect that the WSJ will continue to clutch onto their own version of reality where Obama can't get any traction in this race.

I acknowledge there is obviously a lot of time between now and election day for Senator McCain to reclaim the lead from Senator Obama. This race is far from over. That said I would argue that a respected publication like the WSJ should be at least somewhat honest as to the current state of the race. This opinion piece is pure Republican spin and is full of unsupported claims. How about a little bit of data to support the litany of claims made in the piece?

Bush gets kudos on Iraq? Not from me...

I'm feeling a bit apoplectic after reading a Jonathan Kay article about Bush's Iraq legacy. This paragraph in particular didn't sit well with me:

In the long run, history will be kinder. Bush's legacy will be based not on his intellect, nor on what becomes of New Orleans. It will turn on his signature project, the war in Iraq. Though the war itself was a mistake - at least in the clumsy, thoughtless way it was fought - an extraordinary new book has convinced me that Bush deserves enormous credit for turning the tide in what might have otherwise become the single greatest military disaster in American history.

Is Kay really arguing that history will be kinder to Bush simply because the consequences of his boneheaded decision to invade Iraq could've been worse? Bush drove the Porsche into the ditch and he deserves applause because he eventually stopped being pigheaded and we're now in a position where it's plausible that the car may one day be extricated from the ditch?

Isn't giving credit to Bush now while our soldiers are still in harm's way in Iraq potentially another "Mission Accomplished" banner? In order to accept what I respectfully find to be a faulty premise by Kay, the reader has to believe the following: 1) Bush deserves credit because the Iraq War has been less disastrous than it could have been, and 2) that we're now in the clear in Iraq and our soldiers will experience a minimum of casualties from this point forward, and 3) it was "the surge" that made it all happen. Call me stubborn but I'm not ready to concede any of the three points just yet.

Lastly, who is to say that Iraq still won't end up being "the greatest military disaster in American history"? Until we're out of Iraq completely and able to assess the long term impact of Bush's mistake on both Iraq and the middle east as a whole, I'm not willing to say that the Iraq War hasn't been a bigger disaster than Viet Nam. Personally, I won't be surprised if history ends up being less kind than the present when it comes to Mr. Bush's legacy.

Reaction to Sarah Palin, in a Nutshell

I'll leave it to others- such as The Huffington Post- to cover the swirling details of the Sarah Palin story. I will focus instead on trying to summarize the punditocracy's reaction over the past week to McCain choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate.

In short, here's the story in condensed form:

Choosing Palin was inspired, game-changing, gutsy, and bold. It was a brilliant, but risky choice that helped McCain reclaim his maverick image and electrified the conservative base. Although some critics have said the move was cynical or even breathtakingly reckless, the fact of the matter is that Palin is a dream girl for the GOP.

Palin's Resume Not the Issue; Lack of Time is

In a thoughtful post over at neo-conservative commentarymagazine, John Podhoretz argues that the quality of Sarah Palin's resume will not be the deciding factor as to whether she's a successful pick as McCain's VP:

“Palin will be a failed pick if her conduct between now and November 4 reveals that she does not have the judgment to be a heartbeat away; that her comportment is not what we would wish of our leaders; and that she does not seem large enough for the office.”

The above quote nails the issue on the head. The reason Palin is an incredibly risky pick is not because she’s inexperienced. As others have stated, her resume is actually fairly similar to Obama’s in breadth. The risk of Palin is entirely different for McCain.

In my opinion, the reason Palin is an irresponsible pick by McCain at this moment is more related to the timing of the choice. Mrs. Palin now has only ten weeks to overcome the “inexperienced” objections that Obama has been addressing for nearly two years. Obama has been in the national spotlight for four years now and was able to hone and rehearse his message beginning way back before the Iowa caucuses, when few were paying close attention. Palin, on the other hand, enters the battle at a point when the entire media and much of the citizenry is now focused on the race. Can you imagine if Obama were just now being introduced to America and had to spend the next month not only presenting his case and preparing to debate a heavyweight like Joe Biden but also defending against the charges Republicans threw at him (Rezco, Reverend Wright, etc.)? It’s hard to imagine that Obama could have ended up looking presidential in ten weeks and I seriously doubt Palin has better political skills than Obama.

The pundits who are spending time these days comparing the resumes of Obama and Palin are missing the point. Just because one relatively inexperienced candidate is deemed to be qualified by some doesn't mean that everyone who is similarly qualified gets an automatic free pass. Obama has had a two year headstart over Palin in convincing Americans that he's ready to lead. Ten weeks, in my opinion, is just not enough time for Palin to catch up.