REPUBLICAN FEARS OF OBAMA LANDSLIDE UNLEASH CIVIL WAR WITHIN PARTY

Senior Republicans believe that John McCain is doomed to a landslide defeat which will hand Barack Obama more political power than any president in a generation.

By Tim Shipman in Durango, Colorado

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.
They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.
The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.
Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.
Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.
If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.
David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".
"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.
"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."
In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."
Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.
A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.
Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."
A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."
The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.
More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.
One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.
Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.
He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.
"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."
Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.
But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.
In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".
The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.
Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".
During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.
Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".
He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"
Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.
He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."
Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.
He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.

THE SOCIALIST WITHIN US

JUST BEAUTIFUL

MCCAIN SURRENDERING IN COLORADO

Posted from truthout.org

by: Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian UK

Washington - John McCain's path to the presidency narrowed further today with reports that the Republican was giving up on Colorado, a day after a campaign swing through the battleground state by his running mate, Sarah Palin.

The signs of retrenchment for McCain came as a new poll showed Barack Obama steadily increasing his lead since mid-September. read full post here»

DRESS-UP

Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE GOES THROUGH PENNSYLVANIA

THE BATTLE FOR THE KEYSTONE STATE

Blogger Al Giordano has theories on why John McCain has apparently pulled up stakes in Colorado and other states and staked his campaign on winning Pennsylvania. One, McCain got sick of news blaring that he was “defending red states” rather than trying to pick off blue ones. Two, McCain “will try to relive the April 22 Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania: a reappearance by Rev. Wright and Obama's ‘bitter’ comments in paid TV ads combined with a tightening of poll numbers.” It’s unclear how Rev. Wright will reappear, but it’s an interesting theory. Moreover, McCain’s gambit might convince the national media to converge on Pennsylvania, making it the round-the-clock cable-news set that Florida was in 2000 and Ohio was in 2004.

READ IT @ The Field

$150,000 AT NEEDLESS MARK-UP. CHARGE IT!!!

After September 11, President Bush encouraged Americans to go shopping. If that advice applies to our current recession, then Sarah Palin is every bit as patriotic as she claims. Politico reports that the Republican National Committee has spent over $150,000 on its vice presidential nominee's wardrobe since she was picked for the ticket in August. Nearly half of that money was spent on a single shopping spree at a Minneapolis Neiman Marcus in September. Other line items: $5,000 at Bloomingdale’s; $700 at Barney’s; $4,900 at Atelier, a “high-class shopping destination for men” beloved by First Dudes everywhere; and nearly $300 at the baby store Pacifier. The campaign says the clothes will go to charity after the election.

READ IT @ Politico

JOHN STEWART TO PALIN ON "PRO-AMERICA": FUCK YOU

JOHN STEWART CLARIFIES REMARKS

GO BACK TO THIRD GRADE, SARAH!!

BLUE STATES TO SECEDE

Sent to Chill Baby, Chill by Dan Suffoletta

Dear Red States...

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Michigan , Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave states.

We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom...or what's left

We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama .

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq , and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.


With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.


With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clems on and the University of Georgia.


We get Hollywood and Yosemite , thank you. Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy b*****ds believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Peace out,


Blue States

BERNANKE ENDORSES DEMOCRATIC STIMULUS PLAN

After Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama Sunday, it looked like things couldn't get any worse for John McCain on the endorsement score. Well, they just did. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has endorsed the economic stimulus plan supported by Obama and the Democrats. Having the Fed chairman say that Obama and the Democrats have the right ideas on the economy will surely be helpful to Obama even if he wasn't named explicitly. President Bush and the Republicans generally oppose the Democratic plan.

MCCAIN CONCEDES COLORADO, IOWA AND NEW MEXICO

CNN is reporting that McCain is making those tough decisions that politicians love to talk about. According to CNN, McCain is abandoning Colorado (9 EVs), Iowa (7 EVs) and New Mexico (5 Evs). If Obama wins these three he gets 21 EVs. Add these to the 252 EVs Kerry won and he has 273 and becomes President. McCain's strategy at this point is to win Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and--get this--Pennsylvania. The first six are arguably swing states, but our three-poll average puts Obama 12 points ahead in Pennsylvania. McCain is effectively betting the farm on a state which looks like an Obama landslide. It is a strange choice. Colorado looks a lot easier than Pennsylvania. James Carville once famously said that Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama sandwiched in between. Maybe McCain is going to go all out to win the white working class men in the Alabama section of Pennsylvania. McCain can't possibly do it on the economy. What's left? Maybe run against the Wright/Ayers ticket? Any way you look at it, this has to be a desperation move.

THE PESSIMIST'S PARTY

by Tucker Carlson

Posted from Daily Beast

Republicans know the race is over. Only Democrats, so accustomed to failure, still believe Obama could lose.

Wondering if you're really a Democrat? Here's a quick way to find out: Given everything the Democratic party has going for it this year—the overwhelming financial advantage, the legions of new voters, George W. Bush—do you believe the Obama campaign could still somehow, in the final moments, find a way to blow it and lose this election?

If you answered yes, you're a Democrat.

Two weeks out, only the Democrats in Washington think Obama might not win. That's not the result of a scientific study, but instead the conclusion I've reached after many lunches, dinners and elevator rides with DC Democrats. Against all evidence, a good number of them have convinced themselves that John McCain is going to be the next president.

Republicans have no master plan for victory, no October Surprise. You'll never convince most Democrats of that.

Partly this is superstition, like throwing salt over your shoulder when you spill the shaker: predictions are bad luck. But it's also the voice of experience.

"We're the Cincinnati Bengals," says Jay Rouse, a longtime Democratic political consultant. "Democrats are used to losing, not winning." That's especially true at the national level, where in the past 64 years only a single Democrat has been reelected president. The last two presidential elections raised doubts about whether Democrats were capable of wining at all. "People are still traumatized by '04," says James Carville.

They shouldn't be. A mediocre candidate running against an incumbent in a time of war isn't likely to win under any circumstances; if anything, Democratic insiders were too quick to blame John Kerry for his loss. Circumstances all but doomed him from the beginning. The problem was, up until about dinner time on election night, few of Kerry's supporters realized that.

The shock stings four years later. "Democrats are losers," says one former Democratic campaign operative with sadness. "Don't underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," Obama himself told supporters last week. "Don't underestimate our ability to screw things up."

Give them a few drinks and many Democrats make remarkably self-loathing noises: we're disorganized, our interest groups are out of control, the rest of the country hates us. To these Democrats, Obama isn't really winning; the Republicans are losing. They fear fate could intervene at the last minute to change the course of the election.

It's the nightmare scenario, says Jay Rouse. "They're worried that Osama bin Laden is going to say, 'I want to have sex with Barack Obama.'"

If that happens, Karl Rove will get all the credit, at least in Democratic circles. Rove’s too busy giving speeches and doing TV to pick up his dry cleaning, yet Democrats imagine he's having breakfast with Satan every Thursday at the Four Seasons to chart strategy.

No one's more confident in Republican efficiency than Democrats. It's almost touching, and totally unwarranted. In real life, there are no WMD: Republicans have no master plan for victory, no October Surprise. The operation is as disjointed as it looks. You'll never convince most Democrats of that.

Even those Democrats who understand the true, greatly weakened state of the Republican Party have grave doubts about ordinary voters. If you've been out to dinner in a blue state in the last six weeks, you've heard the argument: This is still a racist country. Once they get in the booth, they'll never vote for a black man. It's the Bradley Effect, etc...In other words, it only looks like 2008. Actually, it's 1956.

Except that it's not. If anything, Obama’s race has been a net political asset so far. We'll find out for sure on Election Day, but in the meantime I'd be willing to bet that Obama wins a larger proportion of white men than John Kerry did four years ago. It's a different country than it used to be.

The question is whether, even in victory, Democrats will come to understand that. In order to govern successfully, they'll need to.

WON'T SHE EVER GO AWAY!

Sarah Palin will be the hero of the Republican base should Obama win the presidential election

If Obama takes the White House on November 4th, Sarah Palin's next act will be "hero of the GOP base."

Exactly one half (50%) of our Online100 panel agree that the Alaskan governor will play a larger role in the national Republican party, even if the McCain-Palin ticket loses this year. However, only 16% believe she'll have a very powerful voice within the party and become a presidential nominee herself one day.

32% of the panel believe that her political status would turn negative since she would be part-blamed for the loss.

Across the political spectrum, the panel sees Palin's future as hero of the base, with 50% of the left, right, and center predicting this as her future role. However, the remainder of the left (44%) and center (42%) largely saw her political status turning sour in the event of a loss, while the remainder of the right (36%) saw her being very powerful in the future.

Should Barack Obama win the presidential election on November 4th, what would be Governor Sarah Palin's political status within the GOP going forward?

Some of our panelists qualified their answer by commenting, for example, that she will be "She'll be blamed for the loss (by some) and be a hero of (others) in the base." Another says, "Oddly enough she WILL be a cause for McCain's loss (if he loses) AND a hero of the base."

One of the left-leaning panelists believes "She'll be in play as a possible future nominee, and I can see her winning a Senate seat down the road, but many in the party establishment clearly don't think much of her."

A right-leaning panelist says that "Palin can go as far as she wants to. The 2012 nomination is hers for the taking."

WORLD FOR OBAMA

Gallup Poll - World News Special Report

World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by Nearly 4-to-1

October 21, 2008

Gallup Polls conducted in 70 countries representing more than 2 billion of the world's adult citizens reveal a nearly 4-to-1 preference for Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain among those who say they know enough to have an opinion. Citizens in Europe are the most likely to state a preference for the next president of the United States, while citizens in Asia are the least likely. Only Georgia and the Philippines prefer McCain to Obama.

LA TIMES ENDORSES OBAMA

October 19, 2008

He is the competent, confident leader who represents the aspirations of the nation.

It is inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness, so it can be disorienting when the nation stumbles or loses confidence in bedrock principles or institutions. That's where the United States is as it prepares to select a new president: We have seen the government take a stake in venerable private financial houses; we have witnessed eight years of executive branch power grabs and erosion of civil liberties; we are still recovering from a murderous attack by terrorists on our own soil and still struggling with how best to prevent a recurrence.

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

• The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.
  

Our nation has never before had a candidate like Obama, a man born in the 1960s, of black African and white heritage, raised and educated abroad as well as in the United States, and bringing with him a personal narrative that encompasses much of the American story but that, until now, has been reflected in little of its elected leadership. The excitement of Obama's early campaign was amplified by that newness. But as the presidential race draws to its conclusion, it is Obama's character and temperament that come to the fore. It is his steadiness. His maturity.

These are qualities American leadership has sorely lacked for close to a decade. The Constitution, more than two centuries old, now offers the world one of its more mature and certainly most stable governments, but our political culture is still struggling to shake off a brash and unseemly adolescence. In George W. Bush, the executive branch turned its back on an adult role in the nation and the world and retreated into self-absorbed unilateralism.

John McCain distinguished himself through much of the Bush presidency by speaking out against reckless and self-defeating policies. He earned The Times' respect, and our endorsement in the California Republican primary, for his denunciation of torture, his readiness to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and his willingness to buck his party on issues such as immigration reform. But the man known for his sense of honor and consistency has since announced that he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill, and he redefined "torture" in such a disingenuous way as to nearly embrace what he once abhorred.

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment.

Obama's selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.

He is no lone rider. He is a consensus-builder, a leader. As a constitutional scholar, he has articulated a respect for the rule of law and the limited power of the executive that make him the best hope of restoring balance and process to the Justice Department. He is a Democrat, leaning further left than right, and that should be reflected in his nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a good thing; the court operates best when it is ideologically balanced. With its present alignment at seven justices named by Republicans and two by Democrats, it is due for a tug from the left.

We are not sanguine about Obama's economic policies. He speaks with populist sweep about taxing oil companies to give middle-class families rebates that of course they would welcome, but would be far too small to stimulate the economy. His ideas on taxation do not stray far from those put forward by Democrats over the last several decades. His response to the most recent, and drastic, fallout of the sub- prime mortgage meltdown has been appropriately cautious; this is uncharted territory, and Obama is not a master of economic theory or practice.

And that's fine. Obama inspires confidence not so much in his grasp of Wall Street finance but in his acknowledgment of and comfort with his lack of expertise. He will not be one to forge far-reaching economic policy without sounding out the best thinkers and practitioners, and he has many at his disposal. 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.

On paper, McCain presents the type of economic program The Times has repeatedly backed: One that would ease the tax burden on business and other high earners most likely to invest in the economy and hire new workers. But he has been disturbingly unfocused in his response to the current financial situation, rushing to "suspend" his campaign and take action (although just what action never became clear). Having little to contribute, he instead chose to exploit the crisis.

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

BARACK: SO COOL

One Cool Customer Paul Waldman October 21, 2008 | web only Amid all the talk about John McCain's character, the press has missed the most important personal story in this election: Obama's steady, mature, and thoughtful approach to politics appeals to voters. While McCain shows how far he'll stoop, voters are discovering that whatever else you think about Barack Obama, the man is calm. Posted from prospect.org (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

MCCAIN EMPLOYING GOP OPERATIVE ACCUSED OF VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD

by: Sam Stein, The Huffington Post

John McCain's campaign has directed $175,000 to the firm of a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states.

According to campaign finance records, a joint committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the RNC and the California Republican Party, made a $175,000 payment to the group Lincoln Strategy in June for purposes of "registering voters." The managing partner of that firm is Nathan Sproul, a renowned GOP operative who has been investigated on multiple occasions for suppressing Democratic voter turnout, throwing away registration forms and even, once, spearheading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots so as to hinder the Democratic ticket. Read Full Story Here»

"SOCIALIST" IS NOT AN EPITHET

Posted from The Nation

"There is always a charge that socialism does not fit human nature. We've encountered that for a long time. Maybe that's true. But can't people be educated? Can't people learn to cooperate with each other? Surely that must be our goal, because the alternative is redolent with war and poverty and all the ills of the world." -- Frank Zeidler

John McCain hopes to revive his campaign by suggesting that Barack Obama is some kind of socialist.

The Republican nominee for president says that his Democratic rival's plan for stimulating the economy sounds "a lot like socialism."

"At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama," the Arizona senator claimed over the weekend.

Asked if he thinks Obama is a socialist, McCain offers an insinuating raised eyebrow and a shrug non-response: "I don't know."

McCain is not really concerned about socialism. He is trying to suggest that Obama is somehow un-American.

Obama's no socialist.

But, as a Wisconsinite, I can't buy the basic premise of McCain's argument.

I grew up in a state where socialism was as American as my friend Frank Zeidler.

Zeidler, an old-school American socialist who served three terms as the mayor of Milwaukee from 1948 to 1960, died two year ago at age 93. His passing was mourned by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, who recognized the gentle radical as one of the most honorable men ever to cross the American political landscape.

Zeidler actually ran for president in 1976 as the nominee of the American Socialist Party. In fairness, it was more an educational campaign than a serious bid for an office that the former mayor never really coveted. Like so many of the great civic gestures he engaged in over eight decades of activism, Zeidler's 1976 campaign promoted the notion that: "There's nothing un-American about socialism."

Campaigning on a platform that promised a shift of national priorities from bloated defense spending to fighting poverty, rebuilding cities and creating a national health care program, Zeidler won only a portion of the respect that was due this kind and decent man and the values to which he has devoted a lifetime.

Had Zeidler been born in another land -- perhaps Germany, where the roots of his family tree were firmly planted -- his Socialist Party run would have been a much bigger deal. Indeed, he might well have been elected.

In most of the world, the social-democratic values that Zeidler advanced throughout his long life hold great sway. Latin America has been experiencing a revival of socialist fervor in recent years. And virtually every European country has elected a socialist government in the past decade. Indeed, the current leaders of Britain and Spain head political parties that are associated with the Socialist International, of which Zeidler's Socialist Party was a U.S. affiliate. In the recent Canadian elections, the socialist New Democratic Party experienced a substantial boost in its parliamentary delegation.

In Zeidler's youth, America's Socialist Party was a contender. During the 1920s, there were more Socialists in the Wisconsin legislature than Democrats, and a Wisconsin Socialist, Victor Berger, represented Milwaukee in the US House. When Norman Thomas sought the presidency as a Socialist in 1932, he received almost a million votes, and well into the 1950s Socialists ran municipal governments in Reading, Pennsylvania; Bridgeport, Connecticut and other quintessentially American cities – including Zeidler's Milwaukee.

For millions of American voters in the past century, socialism was never so frightening as John McCain would have us believe. Rather, it was a politics of principle that added ideas and nuance to a stilted economic and political discourse.

For the most part, Zeidler and his compatriots campaigned along the periphery of presidential politics, especially as the Cold War took hold.

But they earned respect in communities such as Milwaukee, where voters kept casting ballots for Socialist candidates even as Joe McCarthy was promoting his "red-scare" witch hunt.

Years after he left the mayor's office, Zeidler's contribution -- a humane, duty-driven, fiscally responsible version of socialism that is reflective of the man as much as the philosophy –- was always recognized by Wisconsinites as a very American expression of a legitimate and honorable international ideal.

Zeidler was the repository of a Milwaukee Socialist tradition with a remarkable record of accomplishment -- grand parks along that city's lakefront, nationally recognized public health programs, pioneering open housing initiatives, and an unrivaled reputation for clean government -- that to his death filled the circumspect former mayor with an uncharacteristic measure of pride.

Because of its emphasis on providing quality services, the politics that Zeidler practiced was sometimes referred to as "sewer socialism." But, to the mayor, it was much more than that. The Milwaukee Socialists, who governed the city for much of the 20th century, led a remarkably successful experiment in human nature rooted in their faith that cooperation could deliver more than competition.

"Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for a common good can produce a greater benefit both for society and for the individual than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest," Zeidler told me in an interview several years ago. "And I think our record remains one of many more successes than failures."

Would that John McCain – and, frankly, Barack Obama -- had the intellectual honesty to assess those successes, and the ideals that underpinned them. The candidates would not, necessarily embrace socialism. But they would recognize the absurdity of tossing the "S" word around as an epithet.

LES MISBARACK

Thank your for this, Dan Suffoletta

IT'S DOGGY DOG OUT THEIR ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

CHICAGO TRIBUNE ENDORSES THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR THE FIRST TIME

Sent to Chill Baby, Chill by Dan Suffoletta

FROM THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD
Tribune Endorsement: Barack Obama for President
2:33 PM CDT, October 17, 2008

However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.

In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.

On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.

-----------------------

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.

We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.

The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.

-----------------------

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause - the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.

With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.

The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.

We see parallels today.

The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.

We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.

It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate - but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate - he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

-----------------------

McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.

He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois - not popular with some Democratic constituencies.

He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate - not popular with Washington politicians.

His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat" - a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.

-----------------------

Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

PENGUIN OF GOTHAM CITY INFORMS MCCAIN CAMPAIGN

OBAMA THE GREAT......MARKETER

In the increasingly unlikely outcome of an Obama loss in November, the Democratic presidential candidate might want to consider a career as a Mad Man: Last week, he edged out Apple, Zappos.com, Nike and Coors to win AdAge.com's 2008 marketer of the year. "I think he did a great job of going from a relative unknown to a household name to being a candidate for president," an AOL executive told AdAge, while BusinessWeek columnist Jon Fine attributed the candidate's success to social-networking campaigns. "It's a fuckin' Web 2.0 thing," he said. One executive who voted for Coors disagreed with Obama's marketing win, charging that political campaigns ran "false and misleading" ads and that political advertising in general went against the ANA's mission. Still, he's sexier than a Mac. Does that make McCain PC?

READ IT @ AdAge.com

OBAMA LEADS IN NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS 105 TO 33

Generals aren't the only ones who make endorsements. There was a time when the voters were fairly ignorant about politics and needed newspapers to tell them how to vote. Those times are gone (well, the second part, anyway). Nevertheless, the newspapers keep trying. It is not clear how much effect these endorsements have, except possibly when a strongly Republican newspaper endorses a Democrat or vice versa. One surprising endorsement came yesterday when the Houston Chronicle, the leading newspaper one of the reddest states in the country, endorsed Obama. Another surprise was the Obama endorsement from the Salt Lake Tribune the leading newspaper in the reddest state of them all, Utah. Other papers endorsing Obama are the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the NY Daily News. McCain's major endorsements have largely come from papers such as the San Francisco Examiner, the New York Post, the Columbus Dispatch, and the San Diego Union-Tribune, but all these are Republican oriented and all endorsed Bush in 2004. Editor and Publisher keeps score on endorsements. The current tally is Obama 105 to McCain 33. Here is the complete list. For comparison purposes, the final endorsement score in 2004 was John Kerry 213 over George Bush 205.

WHAT'S AT STAKE

What's at Stake

Nation Forum: A panel of legal analysts assesses the damage the Bush presidency has done to the judiciary--and what the next administration must do to repair it. 11:49 ET

MCCAIN GETTING HAMMERED ON HEALTH CARE

One of the great untold stories of this race so far is just how much McCain is being damaged on health care.

As Ben Smith has noted, Obama is blasting his rival on the airwaves primarily on this topic (Anybody who watches TV or listens to the radio in Washington, D.C. can testify to this.)

And McCain has not pushed back with any major ad campaign. His campaign aides have denounced Obama's claims through the media, but, in yet another example of how the Democrat's financial advantage is coloring the race, the shots have been unanswered on the air.

So many, many voters now are concerned about what will happen to their healthcare were McCain to be president.

According to a NYT/CBS poll earlier this month, 54% of voters surveyed said they were not confident McCain would "make the right decisions on health care." Only 10% said they were very confident he'd do so.

Further, there is anecdotal evidence that Obama's paid media onslaught has gotten people thinking about health care.

McCain held a conference call last night with Nevada voters and what is he asked about twice? His health care plan

VOTERS SAY THEY WERE DUPED INTO REGISTERING AS REPUBLICANS

by: Evan Halper and Michael Rothfeld, The Los Angeles Times

(Image: North Carolina Voter Education Project)

YPM, a group hired by the GOP, allegedly deceived Californians who thought they were signing a petition. YPM denies any wrongdoing. Similar accusations have been leveled against the company elsewhere. Sacramento - Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country. Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Full Story Here»

VOTE OBAMA

POWELL ENDORSES OBAMA

posted from truthout.org

Sunday 19 October 2008

by: Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times

US secretary of State, Colin Powell endorses Senator Barack Obama for President. (Photo: Getty Images)

Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning as a candidate who was reaching out in a “more diverse and inclusive way across our society” and offering a “calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach” to the nation’s problems.

The endorsement, on the NBC public affairs program “Meet the Press,” was a major blow to Senator John McCain, who has been a good friend of Mr. Powell for decades. Mr. Powell, a Republican, has advised Mr. McCain in the past on foreign policy.

Mr. Powell told reporters after the taping of “Meet the Press” that he had been disturbed in recent weeks by the negative tone of Mr. McCain’s campaign, particularly its focus on Mr. Obama’s passing relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s radical and founder of the Weather Underground. The McCain campaign has sought to promote the idea that Mr. Obama is “palling around with terrorists,” in the words of Mr. McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, because of Mr. Obama’s weak links to Mr. Ayers.

“I thought that was over the top,” Mr. Powell told reporters. “It was beyond just good political fighting back and forth.”

Mr. Powell did offer Mr. McCain a small dose of solace by calling him a different kind of Republican, although one who would support the party’s standard positions.

“As gifted as he is, he is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it,” Mr. Powell said. “But I think we need a generational change.”

In offering his endorsement, Mr. Powell becomes the highest profile Republican to add his support to the Democratic ticket. Aides said it was not yet known whether the two men would campaign together – or what Mr. Powell would do alone – in the final two weeks of the presidential campaign.

Those talks, aides said, were underway on Sunday.

Mr. Powell’s endorsement exposed a fundamental policy rift in the fractious Republican party foreign policy establishment between the so-called pragmatists, a number of whom have come to view the Iraq war or its execution as a mistake, and a competing camp, the neoconservatives, whose thinking dominated President Bush’s first term and played a pivotal role in building the case for war.

Mr. Powell, who is of the pragmatist camp and has been critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, was said by friends in recent months to be disturbed by some of the neoconservatives who have surrounded Mr. McCain as foreign policy advisers in his presidential campaign. The McCain campaign’s top foreign policy aide is Randy Scheunemann, who was a foreign policy adviser to former Senators Trent Lott and Bob Dole and who has longtime ties to neoconservatives. In 2002, Mr. Scheunemann was a founder of the hawkish Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraqi exile and Pentagon favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, who was viewed with suspicion and distaste at the State Department when Mr. Powell was secretary of state.

Mr. Powell met with both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama in June in preparation to make a possible endorsement. He has said repeatedly in recent months that he wanted to wait until after the political conventions and the presidential debates before making a decision.

Mr. Powell’s support of Mr. Obama was not a surprise to people who know him well and within Washington’s foreign policy establishment, but the Obama campaign welcomed it as a powerful reassurance to voters about Mr. Obama’s national security credentials. Other voters, however, could discount it as an action of a disgruntled member of the Bush administration or as simply the support of one African American for another.

Mr. Powell also told reporters on Sunday that he was troubled that a number of Americans believe that Mr. Obama is a Muslim, although he did not directly link that supposition to the McCain campaign. At a recent town-hall style meeting, Mr. McCain told an audience member who said she thought that Mr. Obama was an “Arab,” “no, ma’am, he’s a decent family man.”

“These are the kinds of images going out on Al Jazeera that are killing us around the world,” Mr. Powell said. “And we have got to say to the world it doesn’t make any difference who you are and what you are. If you’re an American you’re an American.”

Mr. McCain was asked about Mr. Powell’s endorsement during an interview on Fox News Sunday.

“I have always admired and respected General Powell,” Mr. McCain said. “We have a respectful disagreement.”

GOTTA LOVE THE LITTLE ONES!

Colin Powell might endorse Obama

By MIKE ALLEN | 10/17/08 10:07 AM EDT

Text Size:

Retired Gen. Colin Powell, once considered a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now may endorse his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), according to Republican sources. But an air of mystery surrounds Powell's planned live appearance Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," and no one is sure what he will say.

Powell’s unassailable national security credentials could sway voters who are vacillating about whether Obama is ready to be commander in chief, and would make a national security emphasis by McCain in the closing days extremely difficult.

Powell, 71, a professional soldier for 35 years, has advised the last three Republican presidents.

The general’s camp is being coy about what he might or might not say on Sunday. But some McCain advisers suspect, without being sure, that Powell will endorse Obama.

WASHINGTON POST ENDORSES OBAMA

Barack Obama for President

Friday 17 October 2008

»

by: The Washington Post | Editorial

The Washington Post endorses Senator Barack Obama. (Photo: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images)

The Nominating process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.

Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

Of Course, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.

Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.

A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.

The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.

Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.

On The Second set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.

But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.

Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.

We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.

It Gives Us no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.

But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.

Any Presidential vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's resume is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

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.

NOW WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

posted from electoral-vote.com

McCain Campaign Strategy Appears Muddled

John McCain is campaigning vigorously in Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania New hampshire, and Wisconsin--states he has no chance of winning barring something very unforeseen. But he is ignoring states like Virginia and North Carolina, that he has a chance of winning but is currently behind in and which he can ill afford to lose. It appears the campaign has completely lost its compass. Obama meanwhile, flush with cash, is campaigning in many red states, but with leads in virtually all the swing states, he has the luxury of going after states like Georgia and Indiana. McCain has no such luxury. He's 7 points behind in Virginia, and a loss there would be absolutely fatal to him as would be losses in Ohio and Florida, other states he is behind in. So what is in doing stumping all over Iowa and Wisconsin? He should be in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio pretty much full time. It makes no sense at all.

MEET THE REAL JOE THE PLUMBER

posted from electoral-vote.com

At the debate Wednesday, John McCain kept bringing up the "fact" that Joe the Plumber would be taxed more under Obama's tax plan. The trouble with making Joe a national hero for conservatives is that the national media descended on Joe. They learned a couple of things, like (1) his name is Sam, not Joe, (2) he does not have a plumbing or contractor's license, items required by city ordinance, (3) the taxable income from his plumbing business would qualify him for a tax cut under the Obama plan, not an increase, and (4) he has an outstanding lien for over $1000 in backtaxes he owes. Maybe he wasn't such a great choice as role model for McCain after all.

WILL JOE THE PLUMBER BE THE OCTOBER SURPRISE THAT TURNS THE ELECTION?

The jury is still out. I think Joe The Plumber might be all the middle class plumbers, electricians, etc. that don't want to vote for the black guy....or, at least, that's why JM brought him up. We'll see. Mark

by Paul Alexander

McCain the fighter was back, with Barack Obama on the defense most of the night.

I once asked John McCain why Al Gore lost the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000. His answer was simple: the debates. It was McCain’s belief that three different Gores showed up for the three debates (who can forget the rouge-cheeked “Ronald Reagan” Gore?), which proved unsettling to voters.

During this debate season, we did not have three different McCains. We had two tepid, placating McCains, offering pleasant, affable commentary carefully chosen not to upset anyone, especially his opponent, before the “real” McCain appeared last night. The most passionate moment in McCain’s campaign so far was the moving, from-the-gut call-to-arms at the end of his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention—the fighter calling his fellow citizens to his cause. That was what we saw in the third presidential debate—McCain the fighter taking it to Barack Obama, who looked on the defense most of the night.

There were campaign-defining lines (“I am not President Bush!”), zingers (“that old washed-up terrorist,” meaning William Ayers), and personal digs (“who has never been south of our border,” meaning Obama). But the most memorable aspect of the debate was McCain’s passion. This was the in-your-face defender of the common man—one journalist once called him Citizen McCain—who was willing to lay into Obama in defense of all the Joe the Plumbers across American, who are not keen on ideas like a redistribution of wealth. Had the real McCain shown up for the first two debates how different his campaign may be today.

JOE THE PLUMBER'S PLUMBER

What John McCain doesn't realize, or simply can't admit, is that when you "spread the wealth around", you give a little more to the guy that needs it (that guy that works for Joe the Plumber) so he can - maybe - save a little more, and spend a little more too. That way, everyone benefits...everyone prospers a little more. Even the rich enjoy greater prosperity because the base of people who can afford to buy their products and services increases when more people (the middle class) have discretionary income. But that's not the real story. You see, the last thing the John McCain's of the world want is for Joe the Plumber - or worse: Joe the Plumber's plumber - to show up at the same restaurants they eat in. Having Joe the Plumber sitting at a 4 star restaurant next to John McCain scares the living shit out of John MCain. It's a direct assault on his "whiteness" and his sense of superiority. More on all of this in a future "comment". I've been waiting for the right moment. It just arrived. Mark

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.