The Inaugural Inaugural Write-Up!

Because of a lengthy trial yesterday, I was unable to watch the Obama inauguration until last evening (Thank you, DVR!). I have not seen, heard, nor read a single thing about the event yet because I wanted to give my “gut” impressions. Here they are:

- DAMN! Barack Obama flubbed his oath. This will give Republicans fodder for the next four years. Also, some Freeman wackos plus Advance Indiana will probably say Obama is not president because he hasn’t REALLY taken the oath of office. President Obama looked at Chief Justice Roberts like, “Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?” I don’t blame him. Isn’t every significant oath given in rhythmic phrases of NO MORE than five words? To have and to hold? In sickness and in health? How are you going to hit a guy with more than that when you know he has to be nervous about becoming the most powerful man in the world? I have a sneaking feeling Justice Roberts is thinking today, “Ha ha! Got him!”

- When George Bush walked out, he looked as comfortable as a black man at a clan rally. His eyes kept darting back and forth like he was expecting someone to throw shoes at him or something. He might be suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from that well-heeled attack. Lord knows it’s the closest thing to combat he’s ever faced.

- Somebody needs to tell Michelle Obama not to wear that color of lip stick or lip gloss. It looked like her bottom lip was radioactive white during certain camera shots. (Oh, by the way, I’m still waiting for that top secret video where Michelle Obama says “whitey” that was much talked about on the internet. I guess Republicans are going to hold it until Obama runs for re-election?!?)

- People who can get past the fact the invocation was delivered by the “controversial” and “conservative” pastor Rick Warren will say he gave a phenomenal prayer. Of course, for some liberal activists, that’s almost like saying, “Hitler gave some great speeches if you can get past the whole holocaust thing.”

- Obama’s faith was on display throughout his speech. It was very scripture-based, which will make some people nervous. But he did something I hadn’t heard before from a U.S. president. He publicly acknowledged our nation also has “non-believers.” Conservative critics will attack him for it.

- I thought Obama’s speech was very moving, but not everyone agreed. I counted no fewer than eight people whose eyes were shut or whose heads were bobbing during the speech, and most of them were on the dais. Having people nodding off after an early morning that follows late-night festivities is nothing new, but this is where you can tell BET is not used to covering political events. Come on, BET! You NEVER show the sleeping people! Take a lesson from CNN. If CNN had shown all the people asleep at a McCain afternoon rally (say two hours after the MCL lunch rush), we would have seen entire rows in snoozeville. Even Michael Dukakis and the late, great Paul Tsongas never suffered the indignity of a public airing of people asleep during their events, but you KNOW there had to be thousands of potential targets from which to choose.

- I watched the movie Gladiator the other night, and the line that stuck with me is when Hinsou tells Crowe, “You have a great name. You must kill it before it kills you.” That’s what Obama is probably thinking. If he embraces his middle name of “Hussein,” he gives license to the conservatorati, like Greg Garrison, to say it with derisive emphasis (Barack HUUUUSEEEIIIIN Obama). But I cringed when I heard them announce “Barack H. Obama” as the President-Elect entered. Aside from mental comparisons to Hubert H. Humphrey, it was an obvious dodge of his own name, which everybody was going to hear anyway during the swearing in.

- Hillary Clinton seemed to have a forced smile to me during the entire proceeding. You know, the one where the mouth is turn up waayyy too high to be natural, so it suggests the person is really exerting effort? Inside her mind: “I should be taking that oath, damn it!” Bill Clinton kind of looked mad. Inside his mind: well, this one is actually anybody’s guess, but I’m going with, “Look at the diversity of hotties up in here.”

- It was, indeed, a broad swath of Americans, young and old, black, white, Asian, Arabic, and a whole lot of census-box-confounding “others.”

- While we all know Reverend Lowry was being ironical and tongue-in-cheek comedic at the end of his benediction when he said he hopes American can get to a place where “black doesn’t have to get back, yellow can be mellow, the redman can get ahead, man, and white can do right,” I promise there will be people who criticize that remark for (a) calling native Americans “red,” (b) calling Asians “yellow” (though when he said it, BET cameras caught some Asians who were laughing and applauding, and (c) for suggesting the white man needs to do more things right. I promise you Lowry will be painted by the same “white hater” brush that the conservatorati used on Reverend Wright.

- John Williams is a great composer (Close Encounters, Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Apollo 13, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, and Schindler’s List, to name his signature works), but I wasn’t impressed with his original piece, which is saying something given that he had the world’s best violinist and cellist in the quartet. If every American got the joy out of their job that Yo Yo Ma gets out of playing his cello, we’d be absolutely destroying the industrialized world in productivity.

The Inaugural Inaugural Write-Up!

McCain See the Handwriting

John McCain sees he's not getting enough traction attacking Senator Obama's character, so he's now doing what Democrats did to soften up Palin - campaigning against somebody he's not directly running against.

John McCain's message over the past 48 hours (and one that is likely to continue until election day) is that Americans should be terrified of what GOP's sees as the axis of evil - President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If you elect Obama and keep both of these congressional leaders, we'll apparently all be communists before March of '09.

This is an intriguing tactic...if you're objective is to minimize Republican congressional losses. This may be what GOP leaders are privately saying to McCain: "we think you're toast, but you can still help us." If this were a fruitful approach to actually winning the election, wouldn't McCain have brought it forth long before now?

Using the fear of one-party rule plays on most Americans' contradictory but consistent propensity to split votes on federal governmental control. However, I don't foresee this effort having much success. Democrats will still pick up seats.

McCain See the Handwriting

ACORN is Weapon of Mass Distraction

Everybody should be concerned with any person or organization that interferes with the right to vote by suppressing turnout, purging voters who shouldn't be, or casting doubt on the integrity of the electoral process.

Accordingly, ACORN needs to evaluate its employment practices. Any company that gives financial incentives for the number of registrations a person turns in WILL get people who submit the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys in Texas (no, I'm not kidding) and "Jimmy Johns" in Indiana.

The problem is that most state laws require you to submit a registration card to state authorities. If ACORN employs me, and I give them a card that says "Peyton Manning" with an address at Lucas Oil Stadium, they can fire me, but they have to turn in the card. In many cases of bogus registrations, it is ACORN itself whose supervisors are flagging the problems for the state. And in many of these cases, people do get canned.

But even if you think this is all intentionally orchestrated, top-down attempts by ACORN to engage in voter fraud, here's a critical sentence from the Boston Globe:

"There is no evidence that anyone has actually voted as a result of the bogus registrations, which in some cases involve names being listed multiple times at fake addresses."

This organization has allegedly been submitting bad registrations since 2004, and there isn't a SINGLE act of fraudulent voting. In fact, here's the best that an ACORN critic can say:

But Cairncross of the RNC said the bad registrations constitute fraud and tie up local election officials and law enforcement agencies.

"What's going on here is a fair amount of partisan behavior on the part of local election officials," said Kettenring of ACORN. Noting that ACORN had flagged problematic registration cards to local authorities, he added, "They're politicizing cards that we identified ourselves and marked as such."

What? This is all McCain and the Republican Party have on ACORN?!?

I guess when nobody believes you can help the economy, you have to terrify America.

I saw an ad today talking about having Mayor Daley as an advisor. Did I miss something? Was Mayor Daley ever charged with a crime. It seems these days that all you need to do is say "Chicago" and Obama in the same sentence.

But what this desperation really shows is the vacuousness of the McCain campaign.

ACORN is Weapon of Mass Distraction

What the Heck is Going Down With Gas Prices?!?!

Gas prices were $2.72 last night in Indianapolis. Aside from Linda Pence saying she would zealously investigate Indiana gas stations as Attorney General, what has changed? (No, I know that couldn’t do it. Yes, she’s a bad@ss, but she’s not even in office yet!)

Seriously, America hasn’t begun drilling anywhere new yet, and most authorities say even if we did so TODAY, we won’t see the results for shy of a decade. Can someone explain how gas prices can drop so precipitously so quickly without market manipulation in the first instance or “politically-oriented price manipulation" now?

Some conspiracy-minded friends (who apparently are prescient) told me to watch gas go as low as $2.00/gallon until right after the election low gas prices helps McCain. This is common sense. Every public opinion taken on the matter says when the economy is bad, McCain suffers. Low gas prices lower the cost of everything.

But such a theory would assume that some American and European oil companies believe they’d be better off with John McCain. What would make them think that? Oh, wait. Barack Obama is going to tax them, isn’t he?

But how can the private oil companies alter production when they're all operating at capacity? And we know they are at capacity because multi-national corporations never lie, even when restraining production generates record profits for all of them. So, this price change must have occurred somewhere else.

Oh, guess what? On September 10, the Saudis said they would ignore OPEC requests to reduce production to keep oil prices from dropping below $100 per barrel. Oh, and guess what? The Saudis privately prefer McCain because they believe they want him to keep troops in Iraq, and they like his Iran rhetoric.

In short, two plus two equals cheap gas until November. Then watch us get crushed because then the Saudis won't care anymore.

What the Heck is Going Down With Gas Prices?!?!

McCain is in McPain

He regurgitated every talking point he'd been given, but no matter how hard John McCain tried, he just couldn't get a bunch of undecided voters to turn their little dials to strong approval for him, except in one context which I'll address below.

I didn't find Senator Obama particularly smooth tonight. That means only one thing, and it has to be disconcerting to Republicans. Despite all the Obamamessiah, "cult of personality," and "rock star status" talk, it was Obama's substance, not style, that decided the debate tonight. Americans just aren't buying what John McCain is selling.

This is great news for the Obama campaign because ALL campaigns reflexively think the message is fine but the delivery is off whenever they are flailing. Expect McCain's people to try to retool how McCain delivers his message for the next debate, instead of changing what he says. Once they realize they've goofed, this thing will be over.

The occasions McCain had the dials up were when he talked about how amazing America and its people are. Understand this. I love America, though I think its current president is a moron who has thoroughly discredited America on the international stage. America is probably the most prosperous and freest country in the world, our republican form of government with its checks and balances is genius, and our workforce is productive.

But even feeling as I do, I wonder whether other people like me, who aren't susceptible to empty appeals to patriotism, found it almost sycophantic to see McCain so brazenly suck up to Americans.

It was as if John McCain morphed into Eddie Haskell from Leave It To Beaver before my eyes. You always knew Eddie would get Beaver and Wally in trouble, but he ALWAYS avoided it himself by complimenting Mrs. Cleaver to pull the wool over her eyes.

Politicians take note...as a rule of thumb, the more you try to kiss my butt, the more suspicious I am of you.

McCain is in McPain

Sorry, Gordon Gecko...greed is apparently NOT good!

Palin is talking about ending Wall Street greed, helping main street and working class folks, and keeping taxes low, and she's roasting the scale.

Biden had his lowest moment of the debate on the dial when he said he spends time at Home Depot. (I guess people prefer Lowe's).

But when he started talking about how corporate America has "benefited plenty," he jumped up again.

How cute. Sarah Palin just gave a "shout out" to some third graders. They must be ecstatic.

And, holy cow, if I were John McCain, I'd rewrite Governor Palin's stump speech to say:

"Education, wah wa waaa waaaaaah, education, blah blah, GO EDUCATION!"

Governor Palin's lines about education, which were exhortatory cheerleading, garnered the strongest sustained approval of the night for her.

Sorry, Gordon Gecko...greed is apparently NOT good!

Zakaria: "Ditch Palin"

Earlier this year, Advance Indiana churned the notion floating among conservatorati that Barack Obama would ditch Joe Biden after he exhibited too much "crazy Uncle Joe" at consecutive campaign stops while "Palin syndrome" infected America. Now it appears Palin is under assault.

("Palin Syndrome," which has a Republican strand called "Obama-mania," refers to the public's irrational, fevered pitch enthusiasm for a completely unknown political candidate because (s)he "looks and feels the part" for a demographically diverse ticket).

CNN's world affairs expert, Fareed Zakaria, captures my sentiments about Palin, and even my general admiration for Senator McCain, better than I ever could in the following interview with CNN:

CNN: What did you initially think when Sarah Palin was announced as the Republican vice presidential nominee?

Zakaria: I was a bit surprised -- as I think most people were. But I was willing to give her a chance. And I thought her speech at the convention was clever and funny. But once she began answering questions about economics and foreign policy, it became clear that she has simply never thought about these subjects before and is dangerously ignorant and unprepared for the job of vice president, let alone president.

CNN: You don't think she is qualified?

Zakaria: No. Gov. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly --nonsense. Just listen to her response to Katie Couric's question about the bailout. It's gibberish -- an emptying out of catchphrases about economics that have nothing to do with the question or the topic. It's scary to think that this person could be running the country.

CNN: Does it make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?

Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.

Every time I hear Palin's answer to Katie Couric's bailout question, I'm reminded of the scene in Billy Madison where Adam Sandler gives an infantile answer to a question during an academic competition, and the moderator/principal replies:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

But Palin will never get bounced, and my party is the reason. If McCain kicks Palin to the curb now, the Democrats will make him eat it for dinner. We'll put up ads about how he made a horrific call for political expediency.

So here's what I propose: bi-partisanship for the national interest, just like when Senator McCain championed campaign finance reform. Barack Obama agrees to SAY NOTHING about the change if John McCain will just do it. It would be like Obama giving McCain a political mulligan. Maybe if he did that, McCain would at least look at him in the next debate.

Zakaria: "Ditch Palin"

Conservatives Admit Palin is Shaky, but Fox Hides the Evidence

You often hear how Obama and his supporters mysteriously make negative news disappear from the internet. Apparently, they are not alone. Below is a story that used to be on Fox News. It's gone now, and I know why. Fox doesn't want you to know that it's not just George Will saying Sarah Palin has "negligible experience" now. In fact, if all the Republicans who haven't drank the Kool-Aid could speak without fear of damaging the ticket, they'd tell you what they now know: Sarah Palin is a twit.

John McCain isn't, and we're not voting for VP, right? So why care? First, Senator McCain belied everything appealing about himself when he picked Palin for political reasons. Good judgment? Out the window. "Country First?" Out the window. But more importantly, even holding the view I do that McCain is in fine physical and mental shape (it's not "advancing age" that makes him "unsmooth"; he's always been that way), I'm can't shake "what if..."

In my lifetime, I cannot think of anybody vying for the VP role, except for Sarah Palin and Admiral Stockdale, who actually terrified me. Any public figure can recreate or improve a public image, so Palin can still shock the world, but so far, she has been a vacuous soundbite spitter who believes the more emphatically you say something, the truer it is.

In fact, SHE would be more like the third Bush term than McCain could ever be. If she gets into the White House, it will be more "from the gut/ignore countervailing facts" governance. And, in accepting the VP role, Palin showed she has no ability to assess when she's in over her head. That's a terrifying prospect in an international crisis.

I predict that Americans will tune into the VP debate this Thursday in greater numbers than the first presidential debate. Many of those will be driven by schadenfreude ("enjoyment from the misfortune of others") because they anticipate Palin being "deer in headlights." That won't happen, but Palin and the McCain apparatus has gone into overdrive to downplay expectations just in case.

Palin seemed to take glee in emphasizing Biden's age (65), saying it will be "quite a task" going against a "great debater" who was first elected when she was in second grade who has been (in Washington) a "long, long, long" time. (I'm not making that up. It was like Palin was struggling to get to 500 words on a high school essay).

I understand downplaying expectations as a political tactic for election results, but I don't understand it here. It's as if Palin thinks the reason she might get beat is because she didn't take debate in college and hasn't had decades to absorb sound bites by osmosis, not because she'll be revealed as knowing nothing on most national issues.

Respectfully, if a candidate can't sell the American public on the idea she knows what she's doing, how will she sell world leaders?

Anyway, here's your phantom story:

Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft by Associated Press Sunday, September 28, 2008 http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/28/conservatives-begin-questioni...

A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven - and sometimes downright awkward - performances in her limited media appearances.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”
“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s- t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”

There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers.

Asked about Palin’s performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: “She did fine. She’s a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate.”

But there is also no doubt many Republican insiders are worried she could blow next week’s debate, based on her unexpectedly weak and unsteady media appearances, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does.

What follows is a viewer’s guide to some of Palin’s toughest moments on camera so far.

Speaking this week with CBS’s Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off- guard by a very predictable question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused by several news outlets of retaining ties - and profiting from - the companies despite his denials.

Where a more experienced politician might have been able to brush off Couric’s follow-up question, Palin seemed genuinely stumped, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to boilerplate language about the “undue influence of lobbyists.”

These missteps could be attributed to inadequate preparation and don’t necessarily reflect more deeply on Palin’s ability to perform as vice president. But when reporters have tried to probe Palin’s thinking on subjects such as foreign policy, she’s been similarly opaque.

In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Palin gave a muddled answer to a question about her opinion of the Bush Doctrine. And given the chance to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin recited familiar talking points, telling Gibson that her experience with energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues.

In the same interview, Palin let Gibson lead her into saying it might be necessary to wage war on Russia - a suggestion that most candidates would have avoided making explicitly and that signaled her discomfort in discussing global affairs.

Then, asked this week by Couric to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations - in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience - Palin tripped herself up explaining her interactions with Alaska’s neighbor to the west. Watch CBS Videos Online

On the economy, too, Palin has avoided taking clear stances. In a largely friendly interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Palin spoke in tangled generalities in response to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout - and even preempted her campaign by coming out against it.

On Thursday, Palin finally took questions from her traveling press - but shut things down quickly after Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel asked her whether she would support Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who has been indicted for corruption, and Rep. Don Young, who is under federal investigation, for reelection.

Unlike her other interviews, at least this time Palin had the option to walk away.

Conservatives Admit Palin is Shaky, but Fox Hides the Evidence

Top Two Reasons Letterman Is Peeved at McCain

In my opinion, David Letterman is venting his ego here. Scheduled to attend Letterman's show, Senator John McCain canceled at the last minute, telling Letterman's people that he was suspending his campaign to "race to the airport" so that he could get to D.C.

After glowing praise of McCain's POW courage, Letterman lays into Senator McCain for not acting like the McCain he knows. It would never occur to Letterman that someone would completely strand him to attend to a “national crisis” instead.

BUT perhaps Letterman is justified in his anger. If John McCain is suspending his campaign, why did he do an interview with Katie Couric at the exact time he was scheduled to go on Letterman?

Also, why COULDN’T Sarah Palin continue to run the campaign? I’m sorry, but it’s pretty obvious that even John McCain’s people don’t trust her to go unscripted (a claim that could arguably be made about Obama, by the way). McCain's people have been hiding Palin from the media like nuns hiding the pregnant girl at a convent.

Top Two Reasons Letterman Is Peeved at McCain

Race Costs Obama Six Percent

An absolutely fascinating poll using inquiries about white people's attitudes toward black people suggests that Senator Barack Obama's lead over Senator John McCain would go up by six percentage points if America could be instantly purged of its racial animus.

The poll, which was conducted on-line because it is believed people will be more truthful giving non-PC answers to a computer screen, found that forty percent of all Americans, including one-third of white Democrats, held unfavorable views toward black people generally.

It is critical to note several findings so the wrong conclusions are not reached from this poll.

First, Republicans harbor racial prejudice as well as Democrats, but their opposition to Senator Obama is overwhelmingly based on a reluctance to vote for ANY Democrat for president, regardless of race.

Second, more white people say positive things about black people than those white people who say negative things.

Third, many white people who say negative things about black people are still eager to vote for Obama, meaning that they can assess Obama as an individual, regardless of the group labels they give black people.

And, finally, race is NOT the biggest factor driving away white Democrats from Obama. Many do not believe he is capable of bringing about the change they want.

Having said all of that, this poll makes it pretty clear that a close election will be decided by race, just as race affected the Democratic primary outcomes. Among white Democrats, for example, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well.

In addition, a quarter of white Democrats agree with the statement, "If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." Though, to my knowledge, Senator Obama has never embraced a contrary notion, those who agreed with that statement curiously were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.

Finally, despite our progress in race relations, over half of white people gave a more negative impression of black people than they did of their own kind.

In short, if Obama had begun in the U.S. Senate ten years before he actually did, right now he would be a sure thing. But this would only be because he could more easily overcome the votes of a sizeable segment of the white American population that harbors subconscious racist sentiments.

Were Obama a white man with the same resume with such an unpopular opposing party president? Yeah, he'd be crushing McCain.

Race Costs Obama Six Percent

McCain's Faith at the Forefront

There are many things I could say about the back-to-back McCain/Obama 60 Minutes interviews last night (and I will), but one thing that struck me is John McCain's first-time public comment that he believes his faith kept him alive in Vietnam.

I have no doubt this is true. Faith is powerful. But when asked why he hadn't spoke on it before now, McCain said he was a private person. McCain's "testimony" would have been powerful, but as a private person myself, I respect McCain's right not to disclose. What bothers me is that after decades of being a private person, now that he needs to curry favor with evangelicals, he has decided to talk about it?

McCain did something laudable by suggesting that Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who served in the Clinton Administration, should head the SEC. But McCain gave it right back by changing stripes from the private man who goes to his room to pray to a man who would offer up his faith at the altar of political gain.

McCain's Faith at the Forefront

A Contest for You! Who Tops McCain's Roll in the Pig Muck?

First, McCain's campaign says Senator Obama made a sexist attack against Sarah Palin ("lipstick on a pig") when it's clear from the video that Obama was talking about McCain himself.

Now this...

Senator McCain accuses Barack Obama of voting to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners "before they're even taught to read." GASP! How deplorable. Here's the problem. The bill in question allowed school teachers to teach "age appropriate" sex education information so that children could learn enough to protect themselves from sexual predators.

I've been in and around politics for a long time, and I've seen some pretty disgusting stuff, but man, this is the worst distortion of a position I think I've seen. Ever. There are people like me who hated the obvious racial overtones of the Willie Horton ad, but nobody could say it wasn't factually accurate, even if the implications were off. Horton was furloughed, and he DID kill somebody.

But here...the ad is just not true in fact or in its implication. McCain's campaign just lost ALL of its credibility about misleading ads. (Or should I say they gained tremendous credibility to speak on the subjct because they clearly know how to make them!?!?)

Here's Newsweek's Joe Klein ripping on the McCain ad:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/apology_not_accepted.html

I'm interested in compiling your top twelve picks for the vilest campaign distortions of all time. Post or drop me an e-mail at [email protected], and I'll post the "Dirty Dozen" soon. I've said before that my all-time negative "ad" was actually a yard sign. All it had was the candidate's name, and underneath that name it read: "No Morals!"

A Contest for You! Who Tops McCain's Roll in the Pig Muck?

Palin Laughs at the "B" Word?

Oh, yeah. She'll make women proud!

Sarah Palin was on an Alaskan Bob and Tom-type radio show last year (actually named "Bob and Mark"), and one of the hosts called one of her political opponents, Lyda Green, who actually survived cancer, "a cancer" and a "bitch."

In the moment, Palin laughs at least twice. Maybe she was just giggling because she's nervous, and she has never heard anybody say the "b" word in public. But instead of collecting herself and suggesting to the radio hosts that their remarks were inappropriate, she subsequently tells them she'd be honored to have them sit with her during her State of the State address.

Palin's critics called the appearance "conduct unbecoming a Governor." I'll just leave it at evidence that she either has a pandering streak or a vicious streak. If it's the latter, the McSame ticket is truly complete. Palin will give us four more years of Cheney.

Palin Laughs at the "B" Word?

Grandma Palin Has Some Explaining To Do

John McCain's VP pick, Governor Sarah Palin, has a pregnant, seventeen-year-old daughter.

Since this story broke, the conservatorati has attempted to blunt legitimate policy inquiries by calling this storyline "sordid," "lurid," and "unseemly." My witty retort: why?

If anything, the specifics of how this happened have major ramifications for every teen and pre-teen in America.

Let's start with abstinence-only education, which John McCain favors. In an Eagle Forum questionnaire, Governor Palin was asked the following question:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Her reply? "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Is this the approach Governor Palin took with her own daughter? To say nothing "explicit?" If so, it's pretty clear that Governor Palin's personal AND state policy is ridiculously flawed, isn't it? (Seriously, is Governor Palin one of those mothers who handed her daughter a health book and religious pamphlet when her daughter asked her questions about sex? Did she tell her masturbation would make her blind? We don't know. And, yet, Republicans will take the leap of faith that she can tell the American people "the truth" should she become president?!?

And, of course, we can't ask her daughter questions that would probably reveal she knew about contraception from her friends and television but didn't get any from Planned Parenthood or at the drug store because she was afraid of how it would affect her right-wing Republican Governor mother should someone engage in a "unseemly smear campaign" about how little Palin doesn't practice what her own mother preaches to the citizenship of Alaska, not just her own family.

That would be very telling, indeed. But we can't ask these questions because politicians badger the media for badgering the families of politicians. Normally, I would say, "No doubt. Leave that subject alone."

But Governor Palin didn't. She could have issued a simple statement saying, "My daughter is pregnant. Respect her privacy. We will have no further comment." Instead, she kowtowed to conservatives by playing up that (a) her daughter is making a "life affirming" decision to not have an abortion; and (b) her daughter is doing the morally responsible (a/k/a "politically expedient") thing by getting married.

My point is that politicians who want us to "respect their families' privacy" don't get to open the door for their own purposes and then shut it at their leisure. And, unlike generally irrelevant questions about family members, such as, "Governor Bush, how many times have your kids been arrested," "President Bush, how many times have your girls been drunk in public," or "President Clinton, how many times have you cheated on your wife," questions around this incident have actual policy repercussions. We have a living, breathing case study on teenage pregnancy right in front of us, and, at a minimum, we should be entitled to ask Governor Palin how her daughter's pregnancy has influenced her thinking on abstinence-only education.

Since these crazy kids have no chance of making it (with the teenage shotgun wedding success rate being surprisingly low), we should probably also be able to ask Governor Palin her thoughts about reinstituting "fault-based" requirements for divorce, which is being pushed by many evangelical Republicans.

And how many times in the past few years have we heard evangelical Republicans advocate the use of shame in teenage pregnancy and divorce as a tool to decrease the incidence of both? (I will have some surprising comments on this in an upcoming post).

Yet, here we have Mom and teen, in a loving public embrace of support and warmth, almost bordering on excitement over teenage pregnancy. YIPPEEE!!!

The hypocrisy is staggering, folks, until you realize that many evangelical Republicans only want to condemn people who aren't them or who don't look like them.

At least Senator Obama told fathers in the African-American community to take their parental roles seriously.

Who will be the first evangelical to call out Sarah Palin for not shaking her finger publicly at her daughter and sending a message of condemnation over this immoral conduct? I'm waiting.

Grandma Palin Has Some Explaining To Do

The Woman Who Destroyed History When She Couldn't Make It

The Clinton sabotage saga continues...

Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star reports that only 47% of Hillary Clinton's supporters are "solidly" behind Obama. One Clinton delegate from Wisconsin already appeared in a John McCain commercial in which she urges Clinton supporters to defect. Given how clearly McCain's policies contradict Clinton's own, this reaction is can only be characterized as irrational, emotionally-driven "taking my ball and going home." Even ardent Clinton supporters, such as Indianapolis City-County Councilor Joanne Sanders see that.

(Am I going to be branded a sexist now because I called this woman's reaction "irrational?")

Now Clinton is set to take the stage to mend fences. I hope I'm wrong, but I detect "too little, too late." In cruel irony for Obama, the more spectacular Clinton is on the podium, the more she will fuel the discontent at what could have been. Clinton could have been on the phone all along directly to her key supporters, including this Wisconsin delegate, but did she do that? No. She just kept leaving the bread crumbs.

And that's why, according to the Star:

Republicans were hosting a "Happy Hour for Hillary" party Monday in Denver, inviting "open-minded Democrats" who might see McCain as the better qualified candidate.

In what other universe has one party's nominee been so easily torpedoed by its own people?

Respectfully, I must remind Councilor Sanders and those Clinton supporters who are upset that Clinton was not considered for VP of the divisive and insulting fear mongering that characterized the Clinton campaign. Had HRC wanted to be VP, she could have evened her tone and made it palatable for Obama to work with her. Instead, SHE chose to go for the win with scorched earth (though, admittedly, not as scorched as her consultant Mark Penn wanted to make to it).

Clinton can't cry now when she has to walk in ashes.

The Woman Who Destroyed History When She Couldn't Make It

McCain Not "Standing Up" for His Viagra Vote?

Holy cow! Watch this.

John McCain advisor and former Hewlitt-Packard CEO, Carli Fiorino, said it was unfair that some insurance companies would cover Viagra but not birth control for women. McCain, who voted against a bill to require companies to offer both (which seems like a very common sense gender equality issue), was asked about this on his Straight Talk bus.

After looking at this tape, I think he needs to rename it the "Bumbling Stumbling Wheel that Goes Round and Round."

Watching this tape is painful, but it reminds me of my favorite stories about Julia Carson involving a very similar issue.

At a debate at the Press Club against Republican Gary Hofmeister, Mary-Beth Schneider asked Julia Carson about whether she thought it was acceptable for Medicare to cover Viagra if it didn't cover birth control. Congresswoman Carson's answer was as follows:

"I don't know anything about that Viagra. You'd have to ask Mr. Hofmeister that question."

Hofmeister was visibly flushed as the crowd roared.

At the same debate, I promise it sounded like each time the Congresswoman said Hofmeister's name it morphed closer and closer to "house master," which would have served as a not-so-subtle reminder of the racial dynamic in that campaign.

(The progression, which I recall like it was yesterday, was "Hofmeister," "Haufmeister," "Hausmeister," "Hausmister," "Hausmaster," "Housemaster").

McCain Not "Standing Up" for His Viagra Vote?

McCain Proves Facts are Impolite

I’m going to bash McCain, so hang in there because I first have to bash conservatives generally, and then rag on some oversensitive liberals.

Political correctness is killing facts, folks.

I say this, not because I delight in giving ammunition to people who use "facts" for malicious purposes, but rather, because if anything should be sacred, it’s the idea that we know some things to be true, and we’ll admit to the same, whether it helps or hurts our position and whether it tells the whole story or not.

Conservatives frequently crow about how liberals distort the teaching of history by being part of a “blame America” crowd. Instead of talking about how great Columbus Day is, those silly, unpatriotic liberals focus on an indigenous people inflicted with unintentional disease and intentional genocide and subjected to rampant thievery. Sorry to rain on your Columbus Day liquidation sale, conservatives, but these are facts.

Native American immune systems were not capable of fending off European disease, and hundreds of thousands died. Native Americans were killed, often wantonly, by Europeans who wanted their land. And as for the thievery part, Native Americans lived here before Europeans, never sold the land to Europeans (except for a few deals that we ignored), and now Native Americans only “own” a handful of small reservations and some casinos. If you never bought the land, they never gave it to you voluntarily, and you live on it now, how do you THINK you got it?

Does that mean American is not the greatest country ever? I say it still is. But that’s an ARGUMENT I would make based on weighing or analyzing facts in a particular context. In my argument in defense of America, I would weigh the following positive “facts”:

(1) staggering prosperity (average income);

(2) overall health (low infant mortality rate and high life expectancy);

(3) unprecedented freedom (nobody gets killed by the government for speaking out in America…though you will sell fewer Dixie Chick CDs);

(4) Democratic government (see constitution); and

(5) Improvement in inclusiveness (see Obama, Clinton, gay marriage in California)

…against the following negative facts:

(1) America’s mass land grab;

(2) America’s obesity;

(3) American’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II;

(4) America’s hypocrisy of saying “all men are created equal” while enslaving a whole race;

(5) America’s creation of more pollution than most of the rest of the world combined; and

(6) America’s role in promulgating reality TV (What B-list American celeb DOESN’T have a reality show now!?!).

We set forth "facts," and based on the weight of those facts, we persuade. We don't act like people who state facts are evil.

Another “negative” fact is that we killed an estimated 220,000 people in Japan, including women and children, with our atomic bombs. I suppose the total number of deaths could be disputed, but it’s pretty easy to count those who were there and then were gone in a blinding flash or who died from radiation sickness in the months thereafter.

Or is it a positive fact? What if I say "all is fair in love and war" and that by dropping atomic bombs, we saved more American (and possibly Japanese) lives by making an island incursion unnecessary? That's subjective. But you can't argue with "the fact" itself. You’ll never hear me hide from THE FACT that America killed children, which is conduct that we call “terrorism” when it’s done by anybody but America.

You see, I take America, warts and all, and do my best to make it live up to ideals it espouses and tries to press upon the rest of the world. I’m sure some conservatives are going to say I hate America for not seeing just the good.

But it’s not just conservatives who run from truth. Try talking about crime and race. You’ll get liberal eyebrows raising before you start. Here’s a fact. In 2002, 63% of inmates were either black or Latino, even though they represented only 25% of the population combined. Liberals run from this “fact” because they think it plays into arguments that Latinos and blacks are “criminals.” But the incarceration “fact” can’t tell the story of massive racial discrepancies between the charging rates on drug crimes of blacks versus whites. Nor can it speak to the discriminatory sentencing that keeps blacks and Latinos in jail for longer periods than their white counterparts. These facts rebut the incarceration fact, but they don't make the incarceration rate no longer true.

….which brings me to Charlie Black and John McCain.

Good old Charlie said that a terrorist attack would help John McCain in the general election. Black apologized for his comment. McCain then came out and said it wasn’t true and even used Black’s gaffe as an opportunity to recount his work to prevent another terrorist attack.

You know whose comments I find more deplorable? McCain’s. Here’s why. What Charlie Black said is a fact. The polling data shows in compelling fashion that the only area McCain demolishes Obama is on dealing with terrorism. This is why McCain jumped all over Obama when Obama said we should actually try terrorists instead of just holding them forever without trials. McCain wants to direct as much attention as possible to terrorism.

Common sense tells us the more an issue can be put on the public’s mind, the more likely the public is to vote for the candidate who wins on that issue. The reason James Carville coined the phrase, “It’s the Economy, Stupid,” is because he knew Clinton couldn’t win talking about foreign relations.

As a Democrat, I have wondered periodically whether Charlie Black has a soul. But is there anybody in this country (except for Ron Paul supporters who think we blew up ourselves on 9-11) who seriously believe Charlie Black WANTS a terrorist attack? That’s an abhorrent insinuation.

(Having said this, it IS interesting that the coverage of Black’s gaffe in the story above shows a picture of ground zero wreckage, thereby putting it in the public's mind. Is Black that stupid, or that ingenious? I honestly can’t tell).

But not wishing for an attack doesn’t mean that such an attack wouldn’t benefit your candidate. And McCain KNOWS it would. And so do we, without question. But America won’t let him, or Charlie Black, say it...because we are too afraid of facts.

McCain Proves Facts are Impolite

OBAMA TO STOP THE DRAMA...DAVID O. SAYS NO!

Rumors are like tumors ...they WILL grow until detected and treated. Sometimes they're benign, sometimes they're malignant but treatable, and sometimes you're just too late. They kill you.

Barack (Barry) Hussein (Muhammad) Obama (Dunham), a life-long Christian (former Muslim), born in Hawaii (outside the U.S. with no birth certificate), who was sworn in on his family's Bible (the Koran), has finally realized, no doubt from his education at a diverse (radical Islamic massadah) grade school, that he and his lovely (anti-Whitey speech giving) wife, Michelle, can be as patriotic (refuse to say the pledge or wear American flag lapel pins) and upstanding (snort cocaine before gay sex) as possible, but they'll get no peace against internet rumors that go "viral" unless they crush them, preferrably by touching their fists together (a/k/a "a terrorist fist jab").

(Use "The Google," as John McCain might say, and you will see how Obama has been subjected to an avalanche of allegations that would be defamatory were he not a candidate).

Karen Tumulty at Time reports that Obama ushered in a new style of answering rumors by creating http://www.fightthesmears.com/. The website features video clips and stories that counter the scurrilousness noted above.

In my opinion, this is (a) genius and (b) long overdue. The Internet is a mixed blessing. It provides easy access to a staggering wealth of information AND misinformation.

And, unlike "the old days" when you had to at least pay for copying scandalous fliers and you could get your @ss kicked for passing them out, a negative chain e-mail COSTS NOTHING to distribute, and it requires acumen most don't have to to track its source. The "cost" of disseminating bogus info is negligible.

This makes the cost-benefit calculus of "do it/don't do it" pretty easy if it works.

On that score, ask yourself how many e-mails you have received that claim Microsoft will pay you $500 for forwarding that same e-mail?

How many of you men have received a chain e-mail warning not to have drinks with an attractive woman or you'll end up in a bath tub full of ice with "Call 9-1-1" on your chest...only to discover after examination that you have stitches on your back because you were drugged before one of your kidneys was harvested for apparent sell on the black market?

Absurdities like this STILL circulate, though admittedly not as much. The decline is attribuate to "clearinghouse" websites, such as http://www.snopes.com/, that debunk all urban legends.

Stopthesmears is Obama's Snopes, and if he had made this available earlier, he would be up 15 points now on McCain instead of 7 because he would have staved off rumors that helped make legitimate stories seem bigger than they were.

Rumors are most effective when they plays into the voter's worldview. After all, if the man refuses to wear a flag on his lapel, and you're a flag-burning amendment proponent, why would you believe Obama when he says he doesn't share Reverend Wright's dismal view of America? Or let's say you're somewhat suspicious of Muslims. If somebody tells you Obama was sworn in on the Koran, and you're only semi-attuned to politics, how likely are you to actually investigate independently to see if it is true? I'd say even money at best. You see, some Americans are so excited about sharing something titilating with their friends, they certainly aren't going to let the facts get in the way of a good story. This applies to all ideologies, by the way.

Political rumor-mongering will also grow because, even when debunked, each rumor has a "shelf life." Unlike a flier that gets chucked in the trash, a rumor continues to be found at The Google until it so widely-debunked, that people will point and giggle (with emoticons) if you keep posting or IMing about it.

The rumor need not even be that effective to get the desired result. Hoosiers cast 1.27 million votes in the presidential Democratic primary, and the margin of victory for Hillary Clinton was 13,000. This means a rumor e-mail that makes 6,500 people (1 in 200) suspicious enough to NOT vote for Obama has just changed the primary outcome. (Maybe it already did???)

In honor of Obama's anti-rumor campaign, I want to put the final chemo treatment on a rumor I actually floated last week (shame on you, Ipopa!) about David O. supporters asking Ed Delaney to hand over his seat. I can now report that this is unequivocally false. Neither David O., nor anybody associated with David O. or the House Democratic Caucus has made this request of Ed Delaney, nor has Ed offered to step aside. David O. is comfortable being cheerleader for Ed Delaney's effort, and Ed is committed to winning his campaign.

See what happens when you actually investigate a story before you start churning it? You get THE TRUTH. That's as radical as Obama's grade school.

See how I got you on that one?!? IT'S NOT RADICAL AT ALL. Don't believe me?

http://www.fightthesmears.com/.

Mark it in your favorites next to Snopes...and help stop the madness.

OBAMA TO STOP THE DRAMA...DAVID O. SAYS NO!