Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Ayers attacks in tonight's debate will not help McCain

Today, pundits and the mainstream media have nearly unanimously agreed that Sen. John McCain must give a knock-out performance in tonight's debate to have any chance of closing the gap with Obama in the presidential race.

McCain hinted earlier this week that he will bring up William Ayers tonight, and vowed to "whip," Sen. Barack Obama's, "you-know-what," but the lead New York Times story today suggested that negative attacks are actually hurting his campaign.

The Online100 agrees.
62% of the panel suggested that it is not a smart strategy for John McCain to bring up William Ayers in tonight's debate. But the majority of the panelists admitted that McCain probably will bring it up anyway.

One panelist suggested that the Ayers issue was, "a stupid sideshow that only hurts his ability to attract independent voters," and another respondent warned, "It will look cheap, desperate, and nasty and I'm sure Obama has a good reply waiting."

Is it a smart strategy for John McCain to bring up William Ayers in tonight's debate?
10/14/2008



34% of the panel however, including 70% of right leaning panelists agreed that bringing up Ayers during the debate would be a smart move for McCain. As one panelist commented, "Obama's long working relationship with Bill Ayers, his political godfather, goes to the heart of his character and judgment." Another respondent noted, "There is a way to use it effectively, but i doubt he will."

One panelist thought that McCain should use the attack, "but only in passing, perhaps mentioning that one is judged by the company they keep."

70% percent of the panel predict that McCain will bring up Ayers tonight regardless, and several respondents suggested that McCain is "running out of time."

Do you believe John McCain will actually bring up William Ayers tonight?
10/15/2008



Only 17% of respondents thought that McCain would shy away from using the Ayers attacks, although a few that commented, noted that Bob Schieffer, would bring up the issue tonight, as one wrote, "The debate moderator will make sure McCain is asked about it after talking about it so much on the campaign trail."

RESOLVED: SARAH PALIN IS NOT ANDREW JACKSON

Posted from dailybeast.com
by Jon Meacham

Bill Kristol's comparison of the Alaskan governor to Old Hickory doesn't fly.

First, a stipulation: I like and respect Bill Kristol. There is, as you might expect, a “but” coming.

This morning in Maureen Dowd’s column in The New York Times, Bill compared Sarah Palin to Andrew Jackson. I have just finished five years of work on a Jackson biography, and am therefore particularly sensitive on this topic, and I have written about my reservations about Governor Palin in Newsweek. So Bill’s remark resonated with me on several levels.

The chief problem with the Palin-Jackson analogy is that Jackson was, by the time he came to the White House in 1829, a senior figure in American life. He had defeated the British at New Orleans and added millions upon millions of acres of land to the United States through his Indian campaigns. He served as a judge, a senator, a general, and, in 1824, won a plurality of the votes for president, only to lose the election to John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives. He was much more than a mayor and a governor of two years’ standing.

For Palin admirers, there is much to like in a Jackson analogy. He was largely unlettered, ran as a champion of the people versus elites, and consistently surprised political observers and prognosticators with success upon success. But Jackson was an experienced hand at public affairs, and his populism, while genuinely felt, was not unthinking or unreflective. Perhaps Palin’s vision of the world is more complex than we know. If it is, she has 19 days to prove it.


Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, is the author of American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.

Olbermann: McCain, Latest Pander Plan

by: Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown

intense mccain

The GOP ticket is inciting supporters to violence against Barack Obama. Transcript 1:25 PM Eastern Time, today, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. During the warm-up act by a Red Meat Congressional Candidate aptly named Chris Hackett, Hackett mentions Obama and a Palin audience member shouts "Kill Him." And Gov. Palin, as usual, does nothing about it says nothing to these thugs and psychos. She may not have heard this one. It is impossible to believe that by now she has not heard about the other ones. Her silence is deafening. Read full post/see video here»

Cindy Rodriguez: "Wish It To The Cornfield" - Painting Acrylic, 2008


Description: While cringing about the upcoming presidential race between Barack Obama and Joe Biden vs. McCain and Palin, a three headed jack-in-the-box - Bush, Palin, and McCain formed into this piece that's been wished to the cornfield. Political satire inspired by an old Twilight Zone episode circa 1960, where a young boy would wish away people that he didn't particularly care for. Look out! Will be on Ebay for auction soon! Check back for updates.



Welcome to the Revolution

Posted from truthout.org
by: Steve Weissman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

A painting of Barack Obama by artist David Choe.
A painting of Barack Obama by artist David Choe. (Photo: Getty Images)

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States proclaimed itself the world's only super-power and hawked American-style capitalism as the only economic system worth considering. How the mighty have fallen. A needless war in Iraq now calls into question whether the American military can control the oil and natural gas of the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea, while the current financial chaos has driven the faith-based Bush administration to pray for government ownership in banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions. Full Story Here»

Obama Dominating Among Early Voters in Five Swing States

SurveyUSA has a lot of good habits as a pollster, and one of them is breaking out the results of early and absentee voting in states where such things are allowed. So far, SurveyUSA has conducted polling in five states where some form of early voting was underway. In each one, Barack Obama is doing profoundly better among early voters than among the state's electorate as a whole:

...    Poll    % Voted                  Non-Early
State Date Early Early Voters Likely Voters
====================================================
NM 10/13 10% Obama +23% Obama +6%
OH 10/13 12% Obama +18% Obama +4%
GA 10/12 18% Obama +6% McCain +11%
IA 10/9 14% Obama +34% Obama +10%
NC 10/6 5% Obama +34% McCain +5%
We should caveat that these are not hard-and-fast numbers. Estimates of early voting results are subject to the same statistical vagaries as any other sort of subgroup analysis, such as response bias and small sample sizes.

Nevertheless, Obama is leading by an average of 23 points among early voters in these five states, states which went to George W. Bush by an average of 6.5 points in 2004.

Is this a typical pattern for a Democrat? Actually, it's not. According to a study by Kate Kenski at the University of Arizona, early voters leaned Republican in both 2000 and 2004; with Bush earning 62.2 percent of their votes against Al Gore, and 60.4 percent against John Kerry. In the past, early voters have also tended to be older than the voting population as a whole and more male than the population as a whole, factors which would seem to cut against Obama or most other Democrats.

Now certainly, early voters tend to be your stauncher partisans rather than your uncommitted voters -- just 1-2 percent of early voters in 2000 and 2004 reported that they would have voted differently if they'd waited until election day. So it's unlikely that John McCain is actually losing all that many persuadable voters to the early voter tallies.

What these results would seem to suggest, however, is that there are fairly massive advantages for the Democrats in enthusiasm and/or turnout operations. They imply that Obama is quite likely to turn out his base in large numbers; the question is whether the Republicans will be able to do the same.

Keep in mind that there are veteran pollsters like Ann Selzer who think that most of her colleagues are vastly understating the degree to which youth and minority turnout is liable to improve in this election; Selzer's polls have been 5-6 points more favorable to Obama than the averages in the states that she's surveyed. So while these early voting numbers could turn out to be something of a curiosity, they could alternatively represent a canary in the coal mine for a coming Democratic turnout wave.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

LOOKING AHEAD: THE NOVEMBER ISSUE OF VOGUE


from left: Senator Biden's niece, Missy Owens; her mother, Valerie Biden Owens; Hunter Biden's wife, Kathleen; her daughters Maisy, eight, and Finnegan, ten; Jill Biden and daughter Ashley; Senator Biden's mother, Catherine ("Jean") Finnegan Biden; Kathleen's eldest daughter, Naomi, fourteen; Beau Biden's wife, Hallie; and her daughter, Natalie, four. On Jill Biden: Ralph Lauren Black Label cardigan. Anne Fontaine shirt. Michael Kors trousers. Details, see In This Issue.
Photographed by Arthur Elgort.
Sittings Editor: Tonne Goodman.

BUCKLEY BOWS OUT OF NATIONAL REVIEW


Posted from dailybeast.com

Christopher Buckley, in an exclusive for The Daily Beast, explains why he left The National Review, the magazine his father founded.

I seem to have picked an apt title for my Daily Beast column, or blog, or whatever it’s called: “What Fresh Hell.” My last posting (if that’s what it’s called) in which I endorsed Obama, has brought about a very heaping helping of fresh hell. In fact, I think it could accurately be called a tsunami.

The mail (as we used to call it in pre-cyber times) at the Beast has been running I’d say at about 7-to-1 in favor. This would seem to indicate that you (the Beast reader) are largely pro-Obama.

As for the mail flooding into National Review Online—that’s been running about, oh, 700-to-1 against. In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot. Lethal injection would be too painless.

I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.

Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review. But there was one bright spot: To those who wrote me to demand, “Cancel my subscription,” I was able to quote the title of my father’s last book, a delicious compendium of his NR “Notes and Asides”: Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription.

Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.

My father in his day endorsed a number of liberal Democrats for high office, including Allard K. Lowenstein and Joe Lieberman. One of his closest friends on earth was John Kenneth Galbraith. In 1969, Pup wrote a widely-remarked upon column saying that it was time America had a black president. (I hasten to aver here that I did not endorse Senator Obama because he is black. Surely voting for someone on that basis is as racist as not voting for him for the same reason.)

My point, simply, is that William F. Buckley held to rigorous standards, and if those were met by members of the other side rather than by his own camp, he said as much. My father was also unpredictable, which tends to keep things fresh and lively and on-their-feet. He came out for legalization of drugs once he decided that the war on drugs was largely counterproductive. Hardly a conservative position. Finally, and hardly least, he was fun. God, he was fun. He liked to mix it up.

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Thanks, anyway, for the memories, and here’s to happier days and with any luck, a bit less fresh hell.

PALIN IS A LOSER ON SO MANY LEVELS

install the latest version of the Macromedia Flash Player.

Palin is a loser on so many levels by Tony Medina.
Palin in her hate filled fervor at recent (borderline klan) rally trying to implicate Senator Obama with terrorists has shown her for what she really is... a desperate house wife seeing her political career going down the drain. She is clearly not what an empowered woman would be defined as... she is McCain's watchdog/stepford wife pawn. She should be sad, because clearly once this is over and Barack Obama is President, she will become an anecdotal footnote soon to be relegated to trivial pursuit board games.

The GOP will then discard her useless political carcass to the winds never again to be heard from, except maybe from a future episode of Surreal Life.

Illustration credit to Mike Thompson

Three 2008 Nobel Laureates In Science Endorse Obama

Barack Obama's campaign will announce today that three 2008 Nobel laureates in Science have added their names to a list of 62 Nobel winners endorsing the Democratic candidate for president: Martin Chalfie of Columbia University, Roger Tsien of the University of California at San Diego, and the University of Chicago's Yoichiro Nambu.

Here's Chalfie's recorded message to voters:

Full text of the letter to the American public from the Nobel winners is available after the jump.

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM 65 AMERICAN NOBEL LAUREATE SCIENTISTS

An Open Letter to the American People

This year's presidential election is among the most significant in our nation's history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government's scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama's approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world's leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

60 SEATS GOING TO DEMS WITHIN GRASP

Senate Projections, 10/14

Posted from fivethirtyeight.com

The Democrats appear to have nearly as much momentum in the race for Capitol Hill as they do for the White House, and now have approximately a 3 in 10 chance of winding up with a 60-seat working majority in the Senate.




Noteworthy movement since our previous update includes Minnesota, which our model is finally giving to Al Franken after Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polls put him slightly ahead; North Carolina, where Kay Hagan is hardly out of the woods but now clearly appears to be favored, and Georgia, where one poll now shows a literal tie between Jim Martin and incumbent Saxby Chambliss, and several others have the race within the margin of error. Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Udall also appear to be solidifying their positions in New Hampshire and Colorado, respectively.

Indeed, it is difficult to identify any race in which the Republican candidate currently has the momentum. Alaska is perhaps the only state where the Presidential coattails clearly are liable to help them, but with a verdict still forthcoming in Ted Stevens' corruption trial, they have to dodge a bullet that has the potential to ruin their chances of retaining the seat. Meanwhile, the Republicans are being out-campaigned in North Carolina, suffering under the weight of the economy in states like Georgia and Kentucky, and are having difficulty mounting any offense in states like New Mexico where Barack Obama is strong. Even in Minnesota, where Al Franken's campaign has had many false starts, it's now Norm Coleman who is on the defensive.

The Democrats are now favored to take over eight seats from the Republicans: Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Colorado, Alaska, North Carolina, Oregon, and Minnesota. If the Democrats win all eight of those races, they will only need one more to achieve 60 seats, and they have good opportunities in Georgia, Mississippi and Kentucky.

The good news for the Republicans is that they have the financial advantage in most of these races, as the Democratic rank-and-file scrambles to put together a budget for candidates like Jim Martin in Georgia. But, all the money in the world won't help you if you don't have an attractive message to sell, and right now the Republicans' pleas for mercy are falling on deaf ears.

-- Nate Silver at 9:33 AM

GREEN MACHINES

It's the Green Economy, Stupid

It's the Green Economy, Stupid

October 14, 2008
This year's explosion of Democratic populism should be no surprise, coming as it does in the midst of an economic downturn and at the end of a Republican presidency reviled for its plutocratic priorities. Democratic candidates just need to stay on message: Oil companies are the problem and green energy is the solution.

Photo by Flickr user Ryan McD used under the creative commons license.

Posted from prospect.org

WHICH POL ACED THE MELTOWN?

It may be a little premature for report cards—it's unclear if yesterday's Dow surge was a turning point or an anomaly—but a column in the Financial Times grades the world leaders' performances anyway. The big winner is Gordon Brown, whose British bailout plan served as a model for other countries and quite possibly resuscitated his flailing career. His American counterpart did not do so well. President Bush weathered this one about as well as he did Katrina, says author Gideon Rachman, with a comment—"this sucker could go down—that rivals "Heckuva job, Brownie," in showing off how out of touch he is. Sarkozy also performed well, but the meltdown's biggest winner might not yet be an underclassman: Barack Obama.

THE GOP IS A MESS AND A FRAUD

Posted from realclearpolitics.com

By Eugene Robinson - WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON -- Since George W. Bush became president, the Republican Party has presided over massive, out-of-control government spending, converted a federal budget surplus into a half-trillion-dollar deficit, and looked the other way while Wall Street's greed and stupidity turned the hallowed free market into scorched earth. Now the party has to watch as a Republican president orchestrates the biggest government intervention into the workings of the private sector since the New Deal.

Can any Republican candidate claim with a straight face to represent the party of small government? For that matter, can any Republican candidate plausibly explain what the party is supposed to stand for these days?

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."

The Federal Reserve even announced Monday that it will make unlimited quantities of dollars available for currency swaps with the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank, as these institutions scramble to keep major commercial banks from failing -- and potentially taking U.S. banks with them. None of Bush's Cabinet members could be heard sniffing about the effete irrelevance of "Old Europe."

This attitude adjustment is necessary, mind you. The question isn't whether some kind of drastic, frankly socialistic measures are needed to save the American economy, but which ones -- buying up toxic mortgage-based investments (as the White House said it would do), buying up the troubled mortgages themselves (as John McCain wants to do), or pouring money into selected banks and taking part ownership (as the White House now says it will do). Sitting back and letting the dire situation correct itself is not an option, because the market's phoenix-like solution begins with self-immolation.

Politically, though, there is at least some justice in the fact that a Republican president has to deal with this Republican-made crisis. That little piece of irony isn't worth $700 billion, but so far it's all we're getting.

After eight years of the Bush administration, the Republican Party -- to put it bluntly -- is a mess and a fraud.

There is an intellectual case to be made for the economic philosophy that the party purports to represent. I disagree with it strongly, but I respect its integrity -- in a way that this administration and the Republican leadership in Congress clearly did not.

The Republican Party said it believed in free and unfettered competition, but it picked winners and losers through a system of crony capitalism. All it takes to make my point is a name: Jack Abramoff.

The Bush tax cuts, which heavily favored the wealthy, showed that the president and his allies in Congress didn't believe in progressive taxation. I think that's outrageous, but the administration goes further and actually seems to prefer a regressive tax scheme. That's the only explanation I can think of for why hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay taxes at a lower rate than their chauffeurs.

Now that it's election time, the party -- as usual -- is trying to convince Americans that it stands on the side of the little guy. Sarah Palin has been trotted out to convince everyone that the party cares deeply about the eternal roster of cultural issues -- God, guns, gays, abortion, etc. If McCain and Palin were elected, the party would doubtless return these issues to the storage locker until the next election, at which point they would be dusted off once more.

Oh, and isn't the Republican Party supposed to stand foursquare against intrusions on privacy? Then why were Republicans so unmoved when it was revealed that the Bush administration had been conducting unprecedented surveillance of Americans' private electronic communications?

When Ronald Reagan was president, I had a sense of what ideas and principles his party stood for. When Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" brigade took Washington by storm in 1994, I knew what they believed -- loopy though it was -- and what they hoped to accomplish. I defy anyone to give a coherent explanation of what today's Republican Party, under George Bush and now John McCain, wants to do except perpetuate itself in power.

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.

The Moment

by: John Cory, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Arizona Senator John McCain. (Photo: Gunby / AP)

Senator McCain. Was this the moment? The epiphany? The realization that stoking the flames of bigotry and fear had come home to roost?

As I watched your town hall gathering, I wondered what was going through your mind when you came face to face with the incendiary results of your campaign tactics. What did you see and feel when that elderly woman said Obama was an Arab? Or the man who said he feared an Obama presidency? And all the others?

I saw your face. I watched your body language as you took the microphone and quickly distanced yourself from that one.

At that moment, did you see your reflection in the mirror of her eyes? A reflection, not of a maverick, but a pariah? Did you see the decades of American scar tissue? Birmingham? Burning crosses? The noose? Did you see that awful year in American history when Dr. King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, cut down in the prime of their dreams for a better America?

Did you hear the echo of Dr. King's words about being "judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character," and suddenly realize that it was not your opponent's character in question - but yours? Perhaps you heard the whisper of Langston Hughes when he asked, "What happens to a dream deferred ...? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode?"

Did you suddenly smell the rot and fetid acrid aroma of fear and hate, the carcass of mendacious political tactics decaying at your feet? Or did you sniff the flop-sweat of your own campaign standing in a puddle of decimating poll numbers?

I watched your mouth dry up and wondered if you could taste the bitter words like "Arab," "terrorist," "treason," "kill him," - all served up on the plate of red meat politics by your campaign. Did it make you choke and want to spit out the rancid flavor of ignorance and violence? Or did you want to savor the success of the politics of personal destruction?

Did you feel the cold chill of defeat? Did your heart pound with the all-encompassing realization that you would never be president? Could you sense that the America you appeal to is stale and dying out and being replaced by the freshness of hope and tolerance and a rainbow of change?

No doubt, the media will genuflect before your image and be pushed by your campaign spinners to reanoint you as a maverick and honorable man in rising to the defense of your opponent. But your ads still sully the airwaves. Your surrogates still spew their venom. After all, this is just politics. People need to understand that. Nothing personal - it is just politics.

But here was this moment. And you know it, regardless of whether or not you were reading from cue cards or just looking down to avoid having to face the ugliness before you - you know.

And when the crowd booed as you struggled to use words about decency and honorable character to defuse the situation you created, you must have recalled the words from Proverbs, "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind ..."

This is not a moment for you to be proud of in this campaign. Garnering credit for coming to the defense of Senator Obama is like an arsonist claiming heroism for saving lives after having set fire to the building in the first place.

It does not matter how the media or your advisers and consultants spin this moment because it can only reflect badly on you. If it is tossed off as politics as usual, your campaign appears shallow and less interested in what's best for America than what is best for John McCain. If it is said that there is no room for this kind of rhetoric in a presidential campaign, then you look weak and unable to control your own staff that continue to push these messages. If it is about leadership and going against the flow, then we see that a McCain presidency will be divisive and reinforce the meme of "two Americas." We have already had eight years of a divided country from the man who ran as a "Uniter not a divider."

This was a defining moment.

And you, sir, lost.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

National Debt Clock runs out of numbers

Figure has ballooned to about $10.2 trillion; new clock will go up in 2009

Image: National Debt Clock
In a sign of the times, the National Debt Clock, shown on Oct. 9 in New York, has run out of digits. The "1" from has been moved left to the space once occupied solely by the digital dollar sign. A non-digital, improvised dollar sign has been pasted next to the "1."

MCCAIN'S POIGNANT VALEDICTORY: By Tina Brown

The word I would use to describe this "endorsement" of Obama, written by Tina Brown on her site The Daily Beast, is "stunning". She captures it all so perfectly... the essence of Obama and why the man and his message are the perfect elixir for this once-every-hundred-years-moment we're in. Mark

It has taken eight years for the unravel, but we are now watching the past melt away.

There were two key moments in last night’s debate. The first when Obama spoke about the chance missed by Bush to rally the nation to service after 9/11, and the second when McCain in his closing words talked about his unique qualifications of toughness in tough timesbut in doing so, essentially said farewell. The moments, an hour apart, were linked by the powerful emotional undertow of an election that has little to do with the war of manufactured “gaffes,” factual distortions and outright lies that both sides have been propagating in their desperate desire to win.

As always on TV, the moments were enhanced by the cruel physicality of the screen. The received wisdom so far has been that Town Halls are better for McCain because he can loosen up and relax and make direct contact with what are nowadays called "real people.” But a Town Hall also meant the public saw a tall lithe young senator primed for the terrors of the future, against a stiff, hunched old guy hobbling around the stage in a body held together by an act of will.

Whatever compromises with the truth Obama has made on his chilly rise to the top, he understands the central zeitgeist of the moment.

During the campaign McCain has aged dramatically. Like Dorian Gray, the bargains he has made with his conscience are reflected in the mirror. He has developed a strange Jimmy Cagney rasp and new verbal eccentricities that seem to have fused the speaking styles of Bob Dole and Ross Perot. Critics have already pounced on the explosive contempt of his jab, “You know who voted for [the energy bill]? ... THAT ONE.” The younger man watched him from his Frank Sinatra stool with the look of a family visitor marveling at the antics of the household’s resident crazy uncle.

This is all horrible to those of us who once fell in love with McCain's flinty heroism and independence. It's as if he when he made the decision that fateful day on August 10th, 2004 in Pensacola, Florida to grit his teeth and bear hug Bush, he contracted a political virus that ate away at the nobility of his soul. The most telling moment in the campaign was on Monday when in Albuquerque, New Mexico, McCain shouted at the crowd, “Who is the real Barack Obama?” and an audience member yelled back, “A terrorist!” And there was a panicked look on his face that said, “My God, what have I done?”

Whatever compromises with the truth Obama has made on his chilly rise to the top, he understands the central zeitgeist of the moment. Raising 9/11 at the debate as a psychic event rather than one of national security was a masterstroke that won the day.

“You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day,” he told the small studio audience, “and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country. And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, 'Go out and shop.' That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for. And so it's important to understand that theI think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.”

Right now Americans feel they are experiencing another 9/11 as the brand-name financial institutions stagger and suddenly collapse before their eyes like the World Trade Center. Obama knows that the last dark years under Bush have been about the long postponed millennium. We all knew the shopping spree Bush sent us on had to end. It has taken eight years for the unravel, but now we are there watching the structure of the past melt away. Last night a former key player at Goldman Sachs told me at a dinner party the vast infusion of capital we need can only come from China. They have trillions of our dollars. But China won't come forward unless invited with a specific request by the president. And then they will, indeed, step in. “This is coming," he said. “And it will accelerate the twenty-first century.”

OBAMA RIDES WAVE OF ENTHUSIASM FOLLOWING ECONOMIC CRISIS

Obama in Philadelphia
Jeff Fusco / Getty Images
ON OBAMA: “I really believe that [he] has a much better grasp of what the middle class is going through right now,” says a former Bush donor who hosted a fundraiser for the Democrat.
Surveys indicate the financial crisis has drowned out other concerns, pulling even longtime Republican voters away from John McCain.
Faltering economy boosts Obama
The financial crisis is issue No. 1, and even longtime GOP voters are saying McCain is unsteady.

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...