Sunday, October 12, 2008

Every creature

Every creature by ghb624.
From a commentary by Paul Theroux in the L.A. Times ...
"All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in 'The Maine Woods,' killing these big, gentle, myopic creatures is more 'like going out by night to some woodside pasture and shooting your neighbor's horses.' "

The full article is at:
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-theroux14-2...

THE HOME STRETCH

"LOSE" AD FROM OBAMA CAMPAIGN

It looks like we're winding down with this one. We can only hope.

Are McCain's Ads "Dangerous"?

Let's compare two commercials. The first is an RNC spot entitled "Chicago Way", which hits Barack Obama on his connections to Tony Rezko, William Ayers and (somewhat oddly) William Daley:



This is a pretty standard negative ad. The message is essentially: "Obama's a little wet behind the ears, he might be corrupt, and he's made some poor judgments in his associates". The ad is straightforward and -- dare I say -- relatively fair. Nothing is taken out of context. In poking fun at the Chicago tradition, it even seems to have a bit of a sense of humor.

By comparison, take a look at "Dangerous" -- the most recent spot put together by the McCain campaign:


This is a much darker ad. The viewer is caught in a matrix-like web of television screens. The colors are washed out. There a sinister (although barely audible) low-pitched hum in the background. The female narrator is humorless, scolding.

It is an ad, in short, designed to engage the viewer on an emotional rather than intellectual level, to play to the subconscious mind. And that carries through to the tagline -- "Who is Barack Obama?" -- a question that the ad addresses only obliquely. What, precisely, is that supposed to mean? Shouldn't the ad be telling us who Barack Obama is, rather than asking our imaginations to run wild?

I am no advertising critic, but the McCain campaign's ads are routinely among the most bizarre that I have ever seen, appearing to originate from a sort of parallel universe in which cartoonish Obama heads float disembodied before sepia-toned backgrounds, in which language is distilled to a technocratic shorthand, in which the line between imagination and reality is blurred. I find them exceptionally disturbing, and that is surely the reaction they are meant to evoke.

Nate Silver

Posted from fivethirtyeight.com

STEVEN GAINES ON HAMPTONS REAL ESTATE AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS....HE'S NOT FEELING SORRY FOR ANYONE.

WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Martin Klimas for The New York Times
The Food Issue

International food prices spiked almost 40 percent last year, indicating that the monetary price is finally catching up with the true costs of cheap food: obesity in the U.S., malnutrition in developing countries and environmental degradation everywhere. This issue is devoted to these problems and some possible solutions, many of them sprinkled throughout the essays and reports.

Farmer in Chief
By MICHAEL POLLAN: What the next president can and should do to remake the way we grow and eat our food.

THE AUDACITY OF THAT ONE

Obama Has Bought 30 Minutes of TV Time on Oct. 29

Barack has made a huge TV time buy--30 minutes on CBS and NBC in prime time on Oct. 29 and is negotiating for ABC and Fox. This slot would compete with game 6 of the World Series--if there is a game 6. He hasn't announced what he will say then, but given Obama's history, it is likely to be a serious, sober assessment of the country's problems and how he plans to solve them.

WAR HERO MCCAIN ACCUSED OF COVER-UP

1
Hundreds of American prisoners remained hostage in North Vietnam ’s camps after John McCain and 590 other prisoners were released in 1973, says the Pulitzer-prize winner Sydney Schanberg. And McCain, he alleges, has played the central role in Congress in keeping their abandonment secret: they were most likely executed and few if any are alive. His long and detailed investigative article has been strangely shunned by the mainstream press. It can be found in its entirety on the Nation Institute website (nationinstitute.org). Get it@Nation Institute

SAY ANYTHING

Posted from truthout.org

by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

McCain supporter in Ohio.
Michael Winship believes that John McCain and Sarah Palin's manipulation of fear and anger to rally supporters against Barack Obama threatens to "overrule basic common sense and decency." (Photo: Tony Dejak / AP)

And so it has begun. The final month of the presidential race, the campaign that feels as if it commenced some time during the Coolidge administration. And as we slide into these last weeks, what we all feared is coming true. Just when you thought the bottom of the swamp had been scraped, sludge gurgles up from the primordial ooze. This is the endgame, the ugly stuff, meant to assassinate character and distract the electorate with foolishness as our financial house of cards flutters away into the uncertain winds of whatever's left of the global economy. "It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a "top McCain strategist" told the New York Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose." READ MORE HERE»

ThatOnePostrC.jpg by shantyminister.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

From Tom Friedman's op-ed in today's NY Times.

“I have no idea what the stock market is going to do next month or six months from now,” Warren Buffett told CNBC on Friday. “I do know that the American economy, over a period of time, will do very well, and people who own a piece of it will do well.”

Saturday, October 11, 2008

HE BE DE PREZ

Obama: Bush's decision on North Korea an
"appropriate response"

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on the Agreement with North Korea:

“North Korea’s agreement to these verification measures is a modest step forward in dismantling its nuclear weapons programs. President Bush’s decision to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism is an appropriate response, as long as there is a clear understanding that if North Korea fails to follow through there will be immediate consequences. It is now essential that North Korea halt all efforts to reassemble its nuclear facilities, place them back under IAEA supervision, and cooperate fully with the international community to complete the disablement of the Yongbyon facilities and to implement a robust verification mechanism to confirm the accuracy of its nuclear declaration.

“The last eight years have demonstrated the necessity of confronting the threat from North Korea through aggressive, sustained, and direct bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. Too often, there has been a failure to effectively engage our partners throughout this effort. We must dramatically improve coordination with our allies Japan and South Korea, as well as with China and Russia, particularly as we ensure that any agreement reached on verification is fully implemented.

“If North Korea refuses to permit robust verification, we should lead all members of the Six Party talks in suspending energy assistance, re-imposing sanctions that have recently been waived, and considering new restrictions. Our objective remains the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. This must include getting clarity on North Korea’s efforts to enrich uranium and its proliferation of nuclear technology abroad

“Looking ahead, North Korea must also resolve all questions about the abduction of Japanese and South Korean citizens, and of the Reverend Kim Dong-Shik. I urge the Bush Administration to continue to use our diplomatic and economic leverage to press North Korea to cooperate fully with Tokyo, Seoul and Washington on these matters.

“The Six Party Talks offer North Korea a clear choice. If North Korea abandons its nuclear weapons programs, there will be meaningful incentives. If it refuses, it faces a future of political and economic isolation,” said Senator Barack Obama.

ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH ENDORSES OBAMA

Sunday editorial: Barack Obama for president
By Editorial Board

Nine Days before the Feb. 5 presidential primaries in Missouri and Illinois, this editorial page endorsed Barack Obama and John McCain in their respective races.

We did so enthusiastically. We wrote that either Mr. Obama’s message of hope or Mr. McCain’s independence and integrity offered America “the chance to turn the page on 28 years of contentious, greed-driven politics and move into a new era of possibility.”

Over the past nine months, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions.

In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man. He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear.

He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, “County First,” by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.

In making political endorsements, this editorial page is guided first by the principles espoused by Joseph Pulitzer in The Post-Dispatch Platform printed daily at the top of this page. Then we consider questions of character, life experience and intellect, as well as specific policy and issue positions. Each member of the editorial board weighs in.

On all counts, the consensus was clear: Barack Obama of Illinois should be the next president of the United States.

We didn’t know nine months ago that before Election Day, America would face its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression. The crisis on Wall Street is devastating, but it has offered voters a useful preview of how the two presidential candidates would respond to a crisis.

Very early on, Mr. Obama reached out to his impressive corps of economic advisers and developed a comprehensive set of recommendations for addressing the problems. He set them forth calmly and explained them carefully.

Mr. McCain, a longtime critic of government regulation, was late to recognize the threat. The chief economic adviser of his campaign initially was former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who had been one of the architects of banking deregulation. When the credit markets imploded, Mr. McCain lurched from one ineffectual grandstand play to another. He squandered the one clear advantage he had over Mr. Obama: experience.

Mr. McCain first was elected to Congress in 1982 when Mr. Obama was in his senior year at Columbia University. Yet the younger man’s intellectual curiosity and capacity — and, yes, also the skills he developed as a community organizer and his instincts as a political conciliator — more than compensate for his lack of more traditional Washington experience.

A presidency is defined less by what happens in the Oval Office than by what is done by the more than 3,000 men and women the president appoints to government office. Only 600 of them are subject to Senate approval. The rest serve at the pleasure of the president.

We have little doubt that Mr. Obama’s appointees would bring a level of competence, compassion and intellectual achievement to the executive branch that hasn’t been seen since the New Frontier. He has energized a new generation of Americans who would put the concept of service back in “public service.”

Consider that while Mr. McCain selected as his running mate Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, a callow and shrill partisan, Mr. Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Mr. Biden’s 35-year Senate career has given him encyclopedic expertise on legislative and judicial issues, as well as foreign affairs.

The idea that 3,000 bright, dedicated and accomplished Americans would be joining the Obama administration to serve the public — as opposed to padding their resumés or shilling for the corporate interests they’re sworn to oversee — is reassuring. That they would be serving a president who actually would listen to them is staggering.

And the fact that Mr. Obama can explain his thoughts and policies in language that can instruct and inspire is exciting. Eloquence isn’t everything in a president, but it is not nothing, either.

Experience aside, the 25-year difference in the ages of Mr. McCain, 72, and Mr. Obama, 47, is important largely because Mr. Obama’s election would represent a generational shift. He would be the first chief executive in more than six decades whose worldview was not formed, at least in part, by the Cold War or Vietnam.

He sees the complicated world as it is today, not as a binary division between us and them, but as a kaleidoscope of shifting alliances and interests. As he often notes, he is the son of a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas, an internationalist who yet acknowledges that America is the only nation in the world in which someone of his distinctly modest background could rise as far as his talent, intellect and hard work would take him.

Given the damage that has been done to America’s moral standing in the world in the last eight years — by a preemptory war, a unilateralist foreign policy and by policies that have treated both the Geneva Conventions and our own Bill of Rights as optional — Mr. Obama’s election would help America reclaim the moral high ground.

It also must be said that Mr. Obama is right on the issues. He was right on the war in Iraq. He is right that all Americans deserve access to health care and right in his pragmatic approach to meeting that goal. He is right on tax policy, infrastructure investment, energy policy and environmental issues. He is right on American ideals.

He was right when he said in his remarkable speech in March in Philadelphia that “In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand: that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”

John McCain has served his country well, but in the end, he may have wanted the presidency a little too much, so much that he has sacrificed some of the principles that made him a heroic figure in war and in peace. In every way possible, he has earned the right to retire.

Finally, only at this late point do we note that Barack Obama is an African-American. Because of who he is and how he has run his campaign, that fact has become almost incidental to most Americans. Instead, his countrymen are weighing his talents, his values and his beliefs, judging him not by the color of his skin, but the content of his character.

That says something profound and good — about him as a candidate and about us as a nation.

"In honor" to George Bush... (Córdoba Capital, Córdoba, Argentina).

"In honor" to George Bush... (Córdoba Capital, Córdoba, Argentina). by thejourney1972.

GUILTY

QUOTE OF THE DAY

From William Cohan's report in dailybeast.com

"Detoxification is never a pleasant experience, as any addict can attest. But during the cleansing period, there is always the hope that on the other side lay the chance for a fresh beginning. The time has come for what remains of Wall Street to return to the period when banks knew their borrowers, when bankers and traders were held accountable for their actions through some form of shared liability, and where compensation was a reflection of the actual contribution to society discounted for future disasters rather than a short-term grab for riches.

Only then will the graduating class of Harvard Business School—always a harbinger—choose professions other than those whose main criteria for success seems to be nothing more than the ability to push paper around."

Troopergate Conclusion: Palin Abused Her Office

posted by John Nichols on 10/10/2008 @ 10:07pm

Posted from thenation.com

Far from being the good-government "reformer" that Republicans have attempted to present her as, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has governed in an abusive manner that violated the public trust and the statutes of the state.
Palinshotgunpool_2

So concluded special investigator Steve Branchflower, a veteran Anchorage prosecutor who was hired by Alaska's Republican-controlled legislature to investigate Palin's firing in July of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. The firing caused a firestorm in Alaska because Monegan, a former Anchorage police chief was a highly-regarded lawman and because the public service commissioner and other state officials suggested that he had been removed because he refused to dismiss Mike Wooten, a state trooper was the governor's former brother-in-law.

Alaska's Republican-dominated Legislative Council, which authorized the investigation of Palin's wrongdoing, voted unanimously to release the 263-page report in which Branchflower writes:

"I find that Governor Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52 110(a)of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52 110(a) provides:

The legislature affirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

Branchflower said the evidence he gathered in the course of a two-a-half-month inquiry led to the conclusion that "Governor Palin and Todd Palin and her family have, over an extended period of time, endeavored to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired from his job as an Alaskan State Trooper."

Branchflower does not dispute that, as governor, Palin had the authority to fire Monegan. Alaska's Constitution, written in the 1950s at a time Alaskans were seeking statehood status, created an extremely strong governorship, with what the investigator describes as "broad" authority to appoint and dismiss state department heads.

But, even if Palin used powers vested in her as governor, she did so in a manner that put her in conflict with the ethics act. How so? Branchflower determined that Monegan's refusal to do the governor's personal bidding -- and fire Wooten -- was "likely a contributing factor" in her decision to remove him from his position.

"The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in 'official action' by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation]," concludes Branchflower.

Specifically, the investigator writes, "The governor knowingly... permitted [husband] Todd Palin to use the Governor's office and the resources of the Governor's office ... in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

Governor Palin, who once welcomed the "Troopergate" inquiry and demanded that the legislature "hold me accountable," refused to cooperate with Branchflower after she accepted the Republican vice presidential nomination. Branchflower's report details the many roadblocks placed in the way of his investigation by Palin and her appointees, especially Alaska Attorney General

McCain campaign operatives and associates of former White House political czar Karl Rove made a number of moves to shut down the inquiry. But Republican legislators in Alaska refused to do so.

The Legislative Council's unanimous vote to release the report, which came after seven hours of deliberation, was the latest evidence of the determination of the state's legislators, Democrats and Republicans, to check and balance an abusive executive who now seeks to move from the state to federal level of government.

Friday, October 10, 2008

QUOTE OF THE DAY

McCain Surrenders

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"

I'LL NEVER FORGET SUE ANN NIVENS

THE REAL SARAH PALIN

The evidence is mounting that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is part of America’s extreme, racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government political movement.

As reported in today's Salon.com by Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert, Palin’s political career has been mentored and financially supported by a collection of secessionists, militia leaders, One World paranoids, Christian theocrats and anti-Semites, including, but not limited to, Mark Chryson and “Old Joe” Vogler of the Alaskan Independence Party.

She may not be able to name the newspapers she reads, but there is photographic evidence that she reads the magazine of the John Birch Society.

And, as we noted last week, Palin appears to be surprizingly quite familiar with former Bush lawyer John Yoo’s constitutional law rationale for an imperial presidency whose power is unlimited by the courts or Congress.

Our first view of Palin was that, in regard to substance, she was far less than she appeared.

Now I think that she may be far more.

WHAT A GOOD MOMMY

ESQUIRE MAGAZINE ENDORSES OBAMA

This is a poignant excerpt from Esquire Magazine's very powerful endorsement of Obama, and following it is an equally thoughtful quote, also from the endorsement. Mark


"More than any other recent election, we are voting this year not merely for a president but to overthrow two governments. The one we can see is the one in which constitutional order has been defaced, the national spirit degraded, and the country unrecognizable because so much of the best of itself has been sold off or frittered away. The other one is the far more insidious one, a doppelgänger nation of black prisons, shredded memos, and secret justifications for even more secret crimes. Moreover, the current administration has worked hard not only to immunize itself from the political and legal consequences of the government we can see, but it has also worked within the one we cannot see in order to perpetuate itself."

and...

"Bushism must be ripped out, root and branch, everywhere it has been established, or else the presidential election of 2008 is a worthless exercise in futility."

MCCAIN COUNTRY

TRANS-ATLANTIC CONSENSUS: OBAMA WILL WIN


Andrew Rawnsley, Editor in Chief, PoliticsHome

There's a hardening and overwhelming consensus among political experts and insiders on both sides of the Atlantic that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

Amidst mixed results from conventional polls and inconclusive debates between the two men, our unique panels which track expert opinion in both America and Britain are now powerfully forecasting that the Democrat will take the White House.

The US Online 100 panel is calling the contest for Barack Obama by a whopping majority. Eighty eight per cent of the American panellists now forecast he will win against just two per cent saying John McCain will be the victor.

The British PHI100 panel is calling the race for the Senator from Illinois by a very similar margin to the American panellists. Eighty nine per cent of the PHI100 now forecast an Obama victory against just ten per cent predicting that his opponent will win.

These panels, composed of people with their fingers pressed to the pulse of power, are uniquely well-qualified to track political sentiment.

Political experts on both panels swing towards Obama


The PHI100 is Britain's most authoritative survey of expert and inside political opinion. Its members include politicians from all the main parties, among them senior Ministers in the Government, including members of the Cabinet, along with leading figures from the Opposition parties.

The panel also comprises senior editors and commentators in the media, key party strategists and the heads of campaign organisations and think tanks.

The US Online panel is composed of one hundred of the most influential and informed online political voices in America. Members of the US100 include Arianna Huffington, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, Andrew Sullivan and Joe Trippi.

On both panels, there has been a massive swing to calling the presidential battle for Obama.

The US panel had the contest on a knife-edge when surveyed a month ago. Panellists then split 49 forecasting an Obama win to 48 tipping McCain. That has now dramatically switched with a massive 88 to 2 forecast of an Obama victory.

Online100 Election Prediction Tracker: Sep-Oct 2008
At this point, who do you think is more likely to win the Presidential Election?


The British PHI100 has tended to be more confident about an Obama win for longer. That panel had the race at 76 to 20 in the Democrat's favour when surveyed in July. That has now swung even more heavily his way with the PHI100 calling it for Obama by 89 to 10.

PHI100 US Election Tracker
At this point, which party do you think is most likely to win the US Presidency in November?


On both sides of the Atlantic, left-leaning panellists have become much more confident about predicting an Obama victory in the November election. So have non-aligned panellists. Not a single American panellist who is left-leaning or non-aligned now forecasts victory for McCain.

Even more striking is the collapse of confidence in John McCain among right-leaning panellists on both sides of the Atlantic. That is the largest thing accounting for the crushing majority of panellists now predicting a victory for his rival.

Just a month ago, the vast majority of right-leaning panellists on the Online100 were forecasting victory for the Senator from Arizona. Eighty two per cent of them expected the Republican to win.

Confidence in John McCain has since evaporated like a snowball in the Grand Canyon. Now just five per cent of the right-leaning American panellists believe that the Republican is heading for the White House.

British unimpressed by McCain


Many UK panellists were scornful of McCain, with one Lib Dem parliamentarian calling him ‘totally uninspiring’.

A right-leaning panellist said that he ‘looks as though he is on his own and becoming everyone's angry old uncle’, while another said ‘the only hope for McCain is scorched earth and hoping that the independent groups can hit Obama.’

Some noted the importance of the economy to the race, with one saying that ‘the economic mess helps Obama.’

Another pointed out that Sarah Palin ‘appears to be irrelevant to the needs of the USA in a time of acute economic difficulty.’

A media panellist said that ‘there is now a real possibility that the Republicans could lose very badly’, although another disagreed, predicting that ‘it will be close’.

US consensus: trends favour Obama


On the US panel, there was a general mood that everything was pointing towards an Obama victory, with a right-leaning state blogger saying that ‘trends are all going his way.’ A left-leaning panellist from a national blog agreed, saying that ‘Obama gets more plausible, while McCain is making people nervous.’

Another left-leaning panellist confidently declared: ‘It's over. The question is whether we're on the cusp of Reagan's 10-point victory of 1980 or Clinton's more narrow 5-point victory of 1992.’

A non-aligned state blogger, however, was more cautious, saying: ‘It's too close to call at this point. Neither has the edge.’

- ENDS

Friday Senate Line: 60 in Sight?


New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)


What was once only a pipe dream is starting to look like a real possibility.

We speak not of Britney Spears' musical comeback but rather the prospect of Democrats controlling 60 seats -- a filibuster-proof majority -- following the November election.

In a huddle with reporters earlier this week in Washington, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) acknowledged that his party's chances of reaching the 60-seat plateau were "better than they were two weeks ago" -- the result of an across-the-board collapse in Republican numbers due to the economic crisis and handling of the bailout bill by Congress. (Yes, we know Democrats control the House and Senate. But, the American public overwhelmingly blamed President Bush and House Republicans for the initial failure of the "rescue" legislation.)

And, respected non-partisan observers are also beginning to openly speculate about the possibility. In a must-read column earlier this week, Stu Rothenberg wrote: "Where I once wrote in this space that Democrats had a chance of reaching 60 seats in 2010, I now can't rule out 60 seats for this November."

Our take? Sixty seats for Democrats remains something less than a 50-50 proposition but a relatively plausible path to a filibuster-proof majority does exist.

Four Republican-held seats -- Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and New Hampshire -- are either done deals for Democrats or getting there. In at least four others -- North Carolina, Oregon, Minnesota and Alaska -- the Republican incumbent is either tied or trailing their Democratic challenger.

That's eight seats where Democrats have any even money or better shot at takeovers on Nov. 4. And, assuming they can reelect Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) they must pick off one of three seats to get to 60: Kentucky, Georgia or Mississippi. (Scroll down to see which of that trio we believe presents Democrats with their best chance.)

Could Democrats run the table? Yes. The decided tilt of the national environment toward their party has grown even more pronounced in recent weeks. But, Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi are less than friendly territory for Democrats at the federal level and the GOP incumbents in each state are doing everything they can to avoid being washed away in the wave.

Stay tuned.

As always, the number one ranked race on the Line is the most likely to switch parties in the fall. Agree or disagree with our picks? The comments section (eagerly) awaits.

To the Line!

10. Louisiana (D): Democrats are increasingly publicly confident about Landrieu's chances at reelection but the DSCC's decision to begin spending money on television against state Treasurer John Kennedy (R) belies that they still retain some nervousness about her chances. Republicans are taking an interesting strategic tact in this race -- painting the Landrieu race as voters' chance to continue the cleanup of Louisiana politics that began with the election of Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) last year. In a neutral political year, Landrieu would be in deep trouble. But this is not a normal political year. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Kentucky (R): This election cycle has taught us to never say never in politics. We never thought Sen. Mitch McConnell, one of the savviest political minds in American politics, would be in a real race against Bruce Lunsford (D), whose sole distinction in politics before this race was two unsuccessful gubernatorial bids over the past five years. And yet, public polling of late has shown McConnell and Lunsford in a dead heat and the DSCC is now on TV bashing McConnell on the bailout. Will the underfunded National Republican Senatorial Committee respond in kind? And, if not, can McConnell withstand the ad onslaught? (Previous ranking: N/A)

8. Alaska (R): It's virtually impossible to handicap this race. Almost everything hangs on the outcome of the federal trial of Sen. Ted Stevens (R) currently in progress in Washington. The prosecution rested on Thursday, and Stevens's defense is now underway. If Stevens is convicted on any of the corruption charges against him, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is the next Senator from the Last Frontier. If Stevens is acquitted, he could well win reelection. Fascinating stuff. (Previous ranking: 5)

7. Minnesota (R): The last 14 days have not been kind to Sen. Norm Coleman. Just when it looked like he was building a small but significant edge over comedian Al Franken (D), the economic crisis hit -- bringing the race back to dead even. And now Coleman is caught up in allegations over whether or not he accepted suits from a contributor -- a controversy that caused, perhaps, the most awkward press conference in the history of politics earlier this week. Independent candidate Dean Barkley remains the x-factor in the contest; he is gaining support by the day but who does his rise hurt more? (Previous ranking: 7)

6. Oregon (R): Democratic strategists told us almost 18 months ago that Sen. Gordon Smith was going to lose. And, even after a series of high-profile recruiting failures left them with the less-than-impressive state Rep. Jeff Merkley (D) as their candidate, these same strategists stuck by their prediction on Smith. And, if recent polling is to be believed, they were right. Smith seems stuck in the low to mid 40s, not a great place for an incumbent to be a month before the election -- especially one who sits in a decidedly Democratic-leaning state. (Previous ranking: 6)

5. North Carolina (R): Sen. Elizabeth Dole is nearing the point of no return in her reelection bid against state Sen. Kay Hagan (D). A series of recent polls show Hagan ahead and party strategists say that internal polling confirms the public results. What happened? The DSCC effectively cast Dole as someone with tenuous (at best) ties to the Tarheel State and who stood too close to President George W. Bush over the last six years. And now, with 26 days before the election, Dole is on television with a 60-second ad trying to reassert her ties to the state. Not good. (Previous ranking: 8)

4. New Hampshire (R): In the three polls conducted in the race between Sen. John Sununu and former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D) this month, the Democrat has leads of nine, eight and five points. More troublesome for Sununu is that he has trailed in this contest since it began nearly two years ago. Incumbents who spend that long behind almost never win. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Colorado (R): Almost no one on either side of the political aisle believes that former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) is going to beat Rep. Mark Udall (D). And yet, despite the well-documented struggles of Schaffer, Udall has yet to put the race out of reach. Why not? That question haunts paranoid Democratic strategists. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. New Mexico (R): The only question left to ponder in this open-seat contest is whether Rep. Heather Wilson (R) could have kept it closer against Rep. Tom Udall (D) than has Rep. Steve Pearce (R). Probably but it's hard to imagine either Republican winning in this climate. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Virginia (R): O-V-E-R. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Chris Cillizza | October 10, 2008; 6:00 AM ET | Category: Senate , The Line
Previous: RNC Uses Ayers in New Ads |