Ceasefire in DRC

See articles below for more information. But I am skeptical of the ceasfire. Though I hope it will stick, it doesn't seem likely. Keep an eye out for articles and let me know if you see any.

Also, I still havn't heard either of the candidates talk about the crisis in the Congo. Has anyone?

The Economist

Washington Post

Photos

NY Times

Shame on... Obama?

In recent weeks, rising in the polls, has Obama started to embrace the ultra-left side of the Democratic Party? All election season, I have been criticizing McCain’s decision to snub all media outlets except the ultra-right FOX news, and kicking off the liberal columnists Joe Klein of Time Magazine and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times. I am disappointed to see that Obama is trending the same way.

Just today, it has been reported that the Obama campaign has ousted representatives of the conservative-leaning Washington Times, New York Post, and Dallas Morning News from its campaign detail. The choice was made because, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “We're trying to reach as many swing voters that we can and unfortunately had to make some tough choices. But we are accommodating these folks in every way possible.”

I understand the reasoning, but it looks bad. Also, if you are trying to reach swing voters, it is probably useful to include the readership of conservative leaning publications, instead of, well, The New York Times.

Mostly, we should hold our candidate to a higher standard. Sure, McCain kicks liberals off his press detail because he is spiteful and Republicans are evil. But we shouldn’t be like that. Keep those who disagree with you close by so that they can ask the difficult questions. That is why the press follows candidates in the first place.

While I like to see Obama appealing to the lefties (sitting for an interview for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow), I still wonder if this could be his undoing on Election Day. I still think he will win, but if there is something that could bring him down, it will be an external event like Osama bin Laden’s video four days before the 2004 election, or an internal unraveling that gives conservatives a chance to attack Obama's liberalism.

Where Did the Poor Go?

Another of Nielsen's Blogs, Nielsen Wire, shows that Obama's "infomercial" had a huge impact on the Primetime TV crowd last night. A few thoughts.

I thought that Obama’s infomercial was pretty good. I definitely felt inspired at times when he was talking about his general message and some of the vignettes about the regular working Americans worked well. In addition to targeting working class Americans in middle America, they were just interesting stories about people that I don’t hear much here in Philadelphia. I think that the infomercial did no harm and was just pretty good. I mean, if you have tons of money to waste, it was a good way to do it.

I did start thinking, though, about what it means that we are so obsessed with working class Americans. The middle class is VERY important and I’m obviously not saying that we need to be paying more attention to the most wealthy of us. But what happened to the extremely poor?

Though I wasn’t around for it, I get the feeling that Robert F. Kennedy’s Poverty Tour was focused on those who truly needed more help from the government in order to survive. The same is true for the welfare program, which has been reformed so many times that it barely exists today. Now we have the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which provides (not enough) funds for people who earn low wages, but almost nothing for those who just don’t work. But we aren’t talking about those people. Voters are not interested in helping out the extremely poor, whether they are homeless or mentally unstable or both. Voters are more accepting, though, of government programs that help the middle class, many of whom have lost jobs or are losing jobs because of the deindustrialization of the past few decades.

I am not saying that candidates should abandon the middle class in favor of the extremely poor. But it has become a foregone conclusion at this point that the election is a referendum on the economy. So let’s put the middle class and the extremely poor front and center and think about solving the economic woes for both of these groups.

Focusing only on the middle class while wiping the problem of homelessness under the rug indicates the cynicism of American candidates who will only adopt policies that benefit large voting blocks. In this election, that means working class voters are coddled to the detriment of those who are even poorer.

Barack’s infomercial definitely made a play for working class white Americans. But I’d like to see some acknowledgement of the poor as well.

PHILLIES!

A Disturbing Truth

You probably remember when Russia invaded Georgia only a few months ago. Seeming a threat to revive the Cold War, Russia’s invasion was all over the news. The United States quickly declared its support of Georgia and this became a pressing issue in the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain even sent his own delegation to Georgia to assess the situation. Joe Biden suggested that the United States pledge $1 Billion in aid, a suggestion that was eventually adopted. This week, a group of Western donors pledged more than $4.5 Billion in aid to the post-soviet country.

It’s not that this funding was inappropriate. I think that the international community was right to help this democracy after it was attacked by the former superpower that controlled it.

But I cannot help but wonder why this attack became such an international issue while the crisis in the Congo has flown under the radar. Since August, the deteriorating situation between the Congolese government and a rebel army led by Laurent Nkunda, who calls himself the protector of the Tutsis, has displaced more than 250,000 people.

This war could have a much more drastic result than the Georgia invasion if it does not conclude quickly. Congo’s Second Civil War (1998-2003) is often referred to as Africa’s World War because so many neighboring governments were pulled into the fighting. The civil war and the crisis that followed it has resulted in nearly 5.5 Million murders. As of January, 45,000 civilians continued to die per month, the same rate as directly after the Civil War.

Most haunting, is how the rival factions largely mirrored the Hutu/Tutsi conflict that led to Rwanda’s 1994 genocide. Rwanda borders the DRC to the east and could be pulled into their struggle if it remains a battle based on decades of Hutu/Tutsi hatred. After nearly being wiped out by the genocide in 1994, Rwandan Tutsis have consolidated control of the country and many have claimed that they are unlawfully suppressing the country’s Hutu majority, a claim that existed before the Hutus rose up to exterminate Tutsis in the 1990s. The fighting in the Congo could spill over to incite that hatred once again.

The New York Times has published a few articles about the crisis in the Congo, but the issue remains largely hushed within American politics. While we discuss Barack Obama’s character and John McCain’s age, people continue to be killed and displaced in central Africa because of their ethnic origin or ideological beliefs.

Are we still too afraid of the Dark Continent to protect it as we would countries with white majorities?

UPDATE: New NYT article. This situation could get a lot worse. Keep an eye out for it.

Latest McCain Scandal

Obama's First 100

So close to the end of this blockbuster campaign, it is time to start thinking about how these guys would actually govern. We should actually sit down and try to visualize what an Obama and McCain presidency would look like and what policies they would put through congress in the first year instead of focusing only on their generalities.

This morning, Pat Buchanan has written a dooming article about Obama’s first 100 days in office. It is a useful article because it talks specifically about what an Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate would try to accomplish in its first few months. The funny thing is, Buchanan is clearly presenting these accomplishments as negative. Here are a few examples:

Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

The end of the article mocks, “Welcome to Obamaland.” There is so much wrong with his tone that I don’t know where to start. Let’s start, then, with the fact that Democrats, even if they wanted to, would never be able to do all of this in barely more than three months. They are too scared to lose their majority in the 2010 midterm elections to take such risks.

More important, though, is that Buchanan is essentially saying that these initiatives are negative. Even if you take his word for it, and accept the examples above as what the Democrats will actually do, they will restore the United States as a beacon of hope through immigration reform and universal health care, restore equality in the forms of affirmative action and gay rights, and appoint judges who will counteract the ruthless conservatives of Bush’s appointments Roberts and Alito.

Errr…. Bring it on. Buchanan seems to say that these policies represent an American doomsday with Obama as its messenger. But it all sounds pretty good to me.

Palin's Free Mongering

Palin is now requiring that reporters submit questions to her campaign before the interview. This while she accuses the Obama campaign of supporting policies that are more common in countries “where the people are not free.” So Barack is a dictator because he wants to raise taxes on the upper class and increase some government programs, but Palin is a freedom wielding patriot even though she hopes to control the press. In other words, she is so American that she feels comfortable ignoring the first amendment altogether.

Are the Phillies Obama?

Last night, while watching the Philadelphia Phillies crush the Rays 10-2, I started thinking, why are the commentators still bashing the Phillies? Every time someone got on base, the commentators would say, "well they have left lots of men on in the past three games" or "let's see if they can bring him home tonight." Meanwhile, each hit by the Rays was lauded as one of baseball's greatest stories.

It's really a lot like the political climate right now. The Phillies were up by eight and Barack is up by eight points in most national polls. Still, a subsection of the press (the part that is not talking about GOP finger pointing) is talking about how the race is tightening in the last week. I know we are all expecting it to get a little closer but... where are the facts? Has it gotten any closer? On Open Left, Chris Bowers wrote a hilarious post about the tightening race:

As you can see, the campaign is getting much tighter. Obama's lead is
growing slowly over the past eleven days, which means that the campaign is getting tighter. Don't think about that sentence, just accept it. An increasing Obama lead means the campaign is getting tighter.

[...]

It is true. McCain's staff has renewed determination. And Obama's lead is growing, which means the campaign is getting tighter.

Tighter. Tighter, damnit. Tighter, tighter, tighter. TIGHTER!! Tighter infinity. Tighter infinity plus one. Tighter infinity plus infinity. Tighter infinity to the infinity power. And more determined staff, too.

So tonight the commentators will keep talking about how the Phillies are cursed and will likely not win and have rude fans. In the same vein, Obama is ahead, but are his followers loyal? Or will they get into the voting booth and all of a sudden decide that they want eight more years of stalwart xenophobia and irresponsible government instead of change wrapped up in a black man? There is too much need to coddle the team or candidate who is behind. Why can't we just let the Rays and McCain loose instead of displaying all the scenarios in which they can pull out a win?

Just wondering.

Obama's In the Moolah

On its blog "Connecting the Dots" David Martin of Nielson Online, probably the greatest company in the history of the world, posted that Obama's internet advertising has had a much stronger impact than McCain's. He writes, "Since July, Obama has placed 2.1 billion display impressions online, spread out over more than 200 unique ad creatives and 400 web properties. What’s even more stunning is that he’s out-gunned McCain with 23 times the impressions over that time period."

Martin also points out that this advertising surge began when the stock market started to fail and voters flocked to Obama in large numbers. This indicates that, even though the issues have been favoring Obama in the past month, his campaign has used the media skillfully to maximize the impact of Obama's surge.

This comes back to the fact that Obama has so much more money than McCain. The O-Campaign has raised almost twice as much as McCain's ($600 Million to McCain's $360 Million) and they are showing it. Obama is able to make more of an impression on the internet because he can throw money wherever he wants to (even video games). Next week Obama will air a half hour long program on multiple news networks to get his message out. McCain simply would not be able to afford that.

The thing that really angers me is how Republicans are suddenly shocked by a candidate's overwhelming use of campaign funds. According to an article on NPR's website, "McCain, speaking to Fox News, warns that Obama's accumulation of such massive amounts of money can lead to fundraising abuses. Obama is 'completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control,' McCain says."

This from the party that has constantly said, in opposition to campaign finance reform, that campaign funding is equal to speech and therefore cannot be constrained. This is typical Republican hypocrisy. Government should reduce spending while fighting two seemingly endless wars. We need to reduce the size government but dictate who you are allowed to fall in love with. Campaign funding is equivalent to speech until the Democrats have the louder financial voices.

I should note that McCain has historically been a proponent of campaign finance reform. Also, the Republicans are not the only ones crying wolf about campaign finance. The Associated Press reported today that the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign of violating campaign finance regulations. To me, the evidence for this accusation seems as thin as the Republican's assertion that Obama's successful fund raising campaign is suspicious.

In short, the campaigns are both anxious to point out inconsistencies of the opposing campaign's finance decisions because the impact of the funds accumulated are so powerful. It seems clear that Obama's surge in the polls has been the result of the dwindling economy and a constant string of missteps from the McCain campaign. But his extensive and unprecedented media advertising campaign is dwarfing McCain's. And this fund raising advantage makes it impossible for McCain, falling further behind in the polls, to make his case to undecided voters.

It's On

Obama: 53%
McCain: 44%
Other: 3%

Well I have received a number of submissions and they all look pretty good. My predictions are listed above. Good luck!

A Vote for Barack

It's true, the New York Times' endorsement of Barack Obama for President was unsurprising. It is clearly a left-leaning newspaper and has not endorsed a Republican since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956. But The Times article is well done and it remind me of the reasons that I am proud to vote for Barack Obama.

In the past few months, it is clear that Obama has been running a bit to the center in order to sway the undecided voters in the middle of the country. In that vein, he has also toned down his message of hope in favor of a more grounded message of necessity. That was smart and is probably the reason for his recent surge in the polls. But it is nice to step back once in a while and let yourself be idealistic and remember why Obama is so inspiring.

The NYT endorsement reminds us of Obama's 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. Below is an exerpt:

“Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology."

"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America - there's the United States of America."

Barack Obama is not John Kerry; he is not afraid to be a Democrat. In most cases throughout this campaign, he has explained to the voters why, exactly, he feels that government programs and taxes are not always bad. Also, whenever his campaign is faced with a crisis, like Reverand Wright's inflamatory remarks that surfaced this spring, Obama has treated the American people like adults. In that case, he gave a comprehensive speech on race in America. More of a political cynic, I can't help but believe that John McCain would have panicked in the face of something like that.

So even if Obama leads as a centrist President, let's remember that he is an incredibly inspiring figure and that his ascendence to the most powerful position in the world says a lot about the world we live in. And for once, the world is looking pretty good.

The Coolest Person in the World: Rachel Maddow

Read this interview with the new MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow. Here are some quotes from it:

Evening routine: Susan cooks dinner; I make drinks. We stay up all night talking or watching movies. Since we don’t have TV, we watch movies on the laptop. I do this whole arcane thing where I get cords and connect the laptop and the speakers to an outlet. It takes 10 minutes.

Clothing item a talk-show host needs: For me, it is sneakers, which I can wear 80 percent of the time, secretly behind the desk. That reminds me who I am, even though I am dressed up like an assistant principal in order to meet the minimum dress code for being on television.

So I don't technically want to be this "Susan" character because of what that would entail. But one can dream.

Palin in 2012? I Doubt It.

Both Ambinder (Atlantic) and Yglesias (Think Progress) have written today that Governor Sarah Palin is the leading contender for the 2012 Republican nomination if the McCain/Palin ticket fails on November 4. It would make sense for the 2008 VP candidate to turn around and run for President in 2008 in regular circumstances, but that is simply not the case here. Recent polls have shown that Palin is the central reason that McCain has dropped so sharply in the polls. More voters have chosen not to vote for McCain because of his choice of Palin as his running mate than because of his connection to George W. Bush. And he is very unpopular.

So why would she run in 2012? If she thinks that the VP nominee gets a lot of scrutiny, then she would be in for a rude awakening while running for President. In that case, you can't hide from questions about foreign or domestic issues because you actually have to endure a couple hundred primary debates (and, you know, be accountable for yourself). And her largest weakness, foreign policy, is not likely to get any stronger. This could only improve if she were to finish her term as Governor in time to run for US Senate in 2010 (She would face Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski). But since Palin became the Republican nominee, her popularity in Alaska has plummeted so it could be difficult for her to overcome an incumbent in the Republican primary.

So in 2012, I think that Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee will all be back and will compete much more strongly than they did this year. I think we will also see Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty enter the race (it would be smart for the GOP to try to get some of those blue battleground states back). Also, Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchenson could take a shot at the nomination as many commentators have been saying that she should have been chosen in lieu of Palin because of her strong appeal to moderate and independent voters.

In short, Palin will be a future star in the Republican party. But most likely as a commentator for FOX News, not as a Presidential candidate.

30 Reasons

Check out this innovative website called 30 Reasons. Each day, there is an artistic representation of why Barack Obama should win the Presidency. Some of them are very cool. Above is the reason for October 21.

LOL

Simone just showed me this David Sedaris quote:

"I look at these people and can't quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

Obama and Fantasy Football

Great article on ESPN by Rick Reilly about teaming up with Barack Obama for fantasy football. It sounds like he is much better than me, my record being 3-4 against 10 other people in my office.

More Talk on Matthews for US Senate

Today the NYTimes politics blog The Caucus picks up on the MSNBC host Chris Matthews' widely rumored run for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010. His contract with MSNBC ends in June of 2009, a perfect time to begin a Senate campaign for 2010. But Matthews' ratings are higher than ever and the network is likely to jump at the chance of renewing his contract.

But Matthews, 62, has a history in and passion for politics. Before he joined as a host at MSNBC, he worked as a top aide for Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill and as a speech writer for President Jimmy Carter. He even ran for the House of Representatives in PA in 1974 but lost in the Democratic primary. He has said multiple times that his lifelong dream has been to be a Senator. Click here for Matthews' bio.

In an earlier post, I alluded to a report in Politico about Matthews' potential Senate run. His probable opponant, 28-year Senator Arlen Specter (R), currently has a 59-29 approval rating according to Quinnipiac University. And Pennsylvania voters prefer Specter to Matthews 41-36 percent. But that is before Matthews has even announced his Senate bid, let alone started campaigning. Considering that, a five point lead for Specter could be easy for Matthews, an already well-known television personality, to overcome.

As you can tell from watching his show, Matthews is enormously passionate and he would be a Democrat not afraid to fight back against Republican BS. It would be fun to see him run a Senate campaign in the bellicose and no-nonsense "Hardball" fashion that has made his show so popular.

McCain Palling Around with Hoover

As we can already see in Obama and McCain’s policies, the Democrats and Republicans offer radically different policies to deal with the economic recession. Very simply put, the Democrats are likely to promote government programs (paid for by taxes on the wealthy), while many conservatives want to limit government spending (claiming not to tax anyone, period). Matthew Yglesias calls this Neo-Hooverism, a term which refers to the fact that when the Great Depression hit, Herbert Hoover’s response was to limit government spending. The situation got much worse and Hoover is widely considered one of history’s worst presidents because of it. We were eventually pulled out of the Great Depression (stronger than we were before it) by FDR’s massive government spending programs of The New Deal and the industrial engine of World War II.

That’s why I find it so odd that conservatives tend to align with Hooverite anti-spending policies. Though Obama and McCain would not spend or save as drastically as FDR or Hoover, they are advocating extremely different solutions to the economic crisis. Obama wants to spread the wealth through taxes and government programs; McCain doesn’t want to tax anyone and force a spending freeze.

In his admonition of Neo-Hooverism, Yglesias says the following:

"When you’re facing a recession, especially a recession wherein monetary policy has little ability to stimulate aggregate demand because the banking system is all seized up (remind you of anything?), you need public policy to stimulate aggregate demand. The recession is caused by overall demand for liquidity getting too high. In those circumstances, it becomes rational for any given individual and any given business to also prefer saving to spending. But that only makes things worse. What’s needed is for the government to break the cycle with deficit spending.”

This is proven by the economic records of Democratic and Republican presidents. I posted before that the S&P Stock Market Index has on average done much better under Democratic leadership than Republican leadership. Think Progress also writes today that the “tax and spend” Bill Clinton created nearly five times as many jobs as the fiscally conservative Bush. I think that fact speaks for itself.

So Obama promises to follow the strong economic examples of FDR and Clinton by advocating government programs to raise us out of this economic crisis. Why on earth is McCain promising to follow Hoover and Bush’s policies? His policies are irresponsibly myopic, hoping to get votes by lowering taxes, while ignoring the long-term economic consequences.

Bush Off the Hook

If Barack Obama pulls it out and wins on November 4, most people will say that it was inevitable that a Democrat would win after eight years of the least popular President of all time (a Republican). Let's shift that blame to John McCain as much as possible. This week, TPM highlighted a ABC/WSJ poll which showed Obama increasing his lead in most states and among most demographics. Americablog.com emphasized that the poll's main finding is that Governor Sarah Palin is now the biggest concern for people who have shifted from McCain to Obama or Undecided. 55% say that she is not qualified to be President and 47% view her negatively, compared to 38% who view her positively.

So let's let Bush off the hook and acknowledge that John McCain shot himself in the foot by choosing Sarah Palin, who has likely ruined his chances to become President.

"If its about the economy, argue about the economy. Not about Barack Obama's character"

Purple Partisanship Rising

To the GOP, McCain has recently become the friend that no one really likes. CNN reports that in tight House and Senate races throughout the country, Republican candidates are starting to distance themselves from McCain, who has been sliding in the polls in recent weeks with no sign of salvation. Even in the Republican primary, the presidential contenders followed a similar strategy by continually avoiding close connection to President Bush’s policies.

It looks like McCain is the new Bush.

Though this is happening throughout the country, the clearest sign of the GOP’s discomfort with McCain is in Oregon. Trailing behind the Democrat Jeff Merkely, the Republican incumbent Gordon Smith has even emphasized his connections to Obama’s policies in campaign ads.

"Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment," a narrator asks. "Barack Obama."

Granted, Oregon is more liberal than most states. So a Republican Senatorial candidate would typically run to the left in order to get elected. But this is happening across the country in states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. Conservative and liberal candidates alike have realized that Barack Obama is the most popular candidate since Bill Clinton and that he could help their chances to get elected, even in traditionally conservative districts.

This is strong proof that the politics of razor thin electoral margins and cultural antagonism that has prevailed in 2000 and 2004 is not our country’s default setting. Check out the website 270towin.com, which shows the electoral results of every election in history. As you can see, there were only a handful of elections in the twentieth century with miniscule margins (JFK v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Bush v. Gore). In fact, there are just as many in which one candidate has won overwhelmingly. Reagan won 489 electoral votes in 1980 and 525 in 1984. In 1962, Richard Nixon won every state except for Massachusetts. Even Bill Clinton, one of the most polarizing political figures by the end of his second term, won each of his elections by larger margins than Barack Obama is likely to.

Take this all into account and you realize that we agree more often than we disagree. We share the same goals more often than we strive for dominance. And everyone wants the United States to be great. We just have different ideas about how to keep it great. And it just so happens that in the past eight years, we have fought more often than usual. But if you take a step back and look at the big picture, that’s more of an aberration than anything else. And even in our most partisan episodes, as shown on the map above, the country as a whole is more purple than red or blue.

And maybe St. Obama can bring us back to our roots of cooperation.

Rage as Political Capital

More shocking but entirely unsurprising conduct by victory hungry conservatives. See the video by clicking the link. (And here for original Washington Times article)

On Sunday, the Washington Times’s Christina Bellantoni stopped by a polling place in North Carolina, where she reported that a “group of loud and angry protestors” — almost all of whom were white — were shouting and mocking voters — nearly all of whom were black. Bellatoni noted that people “were shouting about Obama’s acknowledged cocaine use as a young man, abortion and one man used the word ‘terrorist.’ They also were complaining that Sundays are for church, not voting.”

Obama has done almost nothing wrong this entire electoral season. Sure, he has stretched the truth from time to time like any politician would while running for President. But his attacks (and often the attacks of his supporters) have focused on John McCain's stances on issues, not on his human failings (though there are many to dwell on). The McCain campaign has recently stepped up its condemnation of hateful remarks at their rallies. Governor Palin called them "attrocious and unacceptable." I am happy that she did that.

But there is a latent but powerful force of hate among the GOP right now. Not among their leaders (many of whom seem to have relaxed accepted an Obama presidency), but among the rank and file Republicans who have enjoyed the past eight years as the victorious side in our nation's culture war. As you can see from the video footage in the link, this hate is only starting to boil over. If progressives are being attacked during the early voting stages of the election, then it follows that the attacks could get much worse and more concentrated as more people go to the polls.

This is a bottom-up version of classic voter intimidation as a last ditch effort to steal the election.

Nixon's Legacy

On the New Republic website, Howard Wolfson writes today that Obama’s rise, fueled mostly by positive political maneuvering in the face of the other side’s negativism, marks the end of the Nixon era. This caught my eye because I don’t usually consider Nixon a leader who created an era in his image. For the most part, our era-inspiring presidents have been Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. In the past few weeks, as Obama’s lead has risen steadily, pundits have been waxing poetic about the potential demise of the Reagan era. But what is the Nixon era? And what does it mean if it disappears?

Wolfson defines Nixonland as “the state of total political warfare over class and cultural conflicts.” Well jeez, I didn’t know that Nixon was responsible for that. Not only did he betray the American people and leave office amid controversy during one of our most turbulent decades, he also left us with a culture war that continues to rage. Since 2004, I had forgotten why the Kerry/Bush campaign had inspired such resentment in me against Republicans as an entire population. But this election and the harshly negative attacks against elites, liberals, and anti-Americans has reinspired that resentment like sandy gust of wind to my eyes. I hope that Wolfson’s prediction of the end of the Nixon era is accurate and that we can say good riddance to harshly negative politics as a thing of the past.

The fact is, even if we are experiencing the beginning in a shift towards a Democratic era, the pendulum will shift back the other way eventually. So how should the Democrats rule? Acting on the potentially overwhelmingly mandate could inspire massive conservative resentment against partisanism and the return of big government. But simply making minor improvements to current U.S. policy might not be enough to ease the population’s mind about our wars, debt and toilet-bound economy.

No matter what, the next President and Congress will have an enormously difficult time turning the country around in time for the 2010 midterm and 2012 Presidential elections. By that time, a new Republican might rise up to revive the Nixonian politics of negativity and cultural dogmatism. Until then, we won’t know whether the Nixon era has truly passed.

In Search of 60

I think we can all agree that it wasn’t a good weekend for John McCain. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama was clear and powerful and made the case for Obama even better than the candidate could have done himself. If there are still undecided voters out there, then Powell’s endorsement must have impacted a good number of them.

So once again, democrats are starting to wonder, "how are we going to screw this up?" Will an army of Joe the Plumbers sweep in to save the Republican Party from defeat? Or will the Democrats finally keep their cool all four quarters instead of fading after half time? Most likely, if there is another game changing event before November 4, it will not be a Presidential gaffe, but rather an external shock to the system. So let’s talk a little about how the next two weeks could look if McCain doesn’t achieve a much needed bounce in the polls.

In the 2006 midterm elections, democrats exceeded even some lofty expectations. It was clear that they would win back the House of Representatives, but the Senate would be much more difficult. In the end, a few acts of god occurred to show some GOP candidates as racists and sex offenders to cede their seats to the Dems by a miniscule margin (there are only 49 real democrats in the Senate and two Independents who caucus with them to secure the majority).

So if Obama’s popularity remains unblemished, we could see a massive shift in support for some candidates down the ballot in Senate and House races. As of now, it is clear that the Democratic margin in the House of Representatives will increase so the question is how many seats Dems can steal in the Senate. Many pundits are expecting that the Democrats will get 57 or 58 seats, gaining in states like Minnesota, Colorado and Virginia. Even some Democratic candidates who are trailing could benefit from Obama’s nearly flawless campaign and feed off his reputation. Read this for more information on some important Senate races.

If this happens, the Dems could reach the coveted 60 Senate seat advantage, which would even suppress a Republican filibuster. Combined with a Democratic President and control of the House, that would mean near-world-dominance.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

Watch this. Watch this four times.

Seriously, this guy is incredible. Watch this too.



The image Powell references:

The Quiet Veteran

It is clear that John McCain is using his status as a veteran as one of his qualifications for President. He touts this as an indication that he is strong on foreign affairs and constantly refers to the fact that he was a POW. McCain's service in an unpopular war should be praised. But there is a troubling trend in his stances on veterans issues after he returned from Vietnam. These stances led the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to give McCain a "D" on their Senate Report Card, the second lowest of all 100 senators. (Barack Obama received a "B"). Here is a list of Senator McCain's positions on Veterans Issues over the years:

• McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans' Health Care.
• McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans' Benefits, Including Healthcare.
• McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans.
• McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs.
• McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs.
• McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs.
• McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
• McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding.
• McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs.
• McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders.
• McCain opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans' Health Care.
• McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans' Care.
• McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs.
• McCain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous.
  

Well jeez. George mentioned recently that McCain might have a superiority complex about his service. Not superiority against non-serving Americans, but against other veterans who did not excel as he did upon return from these wars. This is most strongly supported by his opposition to mental services, including PTSD, for veterans. If he did not develop the disorder after five years of torture, he seems to say, then someone who developed PTSD does not deserve treatment. I know its a taboo to criticize McCain's service or anything related to veterans and McCain and I want to be clear, I respect that McCain served in this war.

But if he wants to flaunt his veteran record, then he should start voting for policies that help veterans rather than leave them in the dust like an arrogant-come-successful high school classmate.

Update: Think Progress on McCain's dishonesty about his record on Veterans issues.

Electoral Map Contest!

I'm getting a little weary of the whole campaign season. I think it's time to have a little fun with it. So I invite everyone to participate in the Projectile Politics Electoral Map Contest! The winner of the contest (rules and scoring described below) will win a marvelous prize (value: $10).

Rules

Visit this page on realclearpolitics.com to see state-by-state polling data and create your own map. On the map above (from Daily Kos) I've put the generally agreed upon swing states in yellow. But you can obviously switch any state to red or blue. When you are finished, click the link that says "Email this page to a friend." Enter in your information and send to me (ben.buchwalter@gmail.com). In the box marked "your comments," write the percentage of the popular vote you think each major candidate will receive. Predictions must be sent by next Friday October 24 (12 days before the election).

Scoring

• The person who gets closest to the official electoral college count will get 15 points.
• The person second closest to the official electoral college count will get 10 points.
• The person third closest to the electoral college count will get 5 points.
• The person who guesses the closest percentages will get 10 points.
• The person who guesses the most states correctly will get 5 points.

And anyone can play! So send this to your friends if you want. Call or email me with any questions. Have fun and good luck!

America Getting Bluer?

The other day I posted about Christopher Buckley’s departure from the Conservative National Review. Today in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker praises Buckley for his courage in the face of rabid conservatism. Parker’s tone betrays a deep depression about the state of the Republican Party and modern conservatives.

Why are they so intolerant of critiques from the right?

The answer becomes clear in two articles today in National Journal Magazine and Bloomberg Online. The Reagan era may be coming to an end and conservatives are terrified. The fact is, though, that the Reagan era was already forsaken when Bush conservatives embraced the expensive Iraq War and focused on social issues such as abortion and gay rights rather than limiting the size of government. The Reagan era is already a thing of the past. And conservatives (well, everyone) are anxious to leave the Bush era in the dust as well.

And that leaves only one option: we are likely about to experience a Democratic era. After November 4, Democrats will certainly control the House and Senate by large margins, and would even complete the trifecta if Obama gets elected President. Politico reports that, especially in the wake of this year’s economic meltdown, the Democrats could usher in the largest set of government programs since the New Deal’s Home Ownership Loan Corp. and Reconstruction Finance Corp. were disbanded if they obtain a large congressional advantage and the White House.

Whether or not this happens, though, it’s nice to hear Democrats talking like Democrats again and advocating for the government’s ability to mediate economic and social issues responsibly.

The question is whether conservatives will be able to bounce back and tap into the Reagan era or steer the country towards a new conservatism untainted by Bush’s legacy.

On FOX and MSNBC

I was initially shocked by the media coverage following the final debate. MSNBC and CNN seemed to call McCain the winner while FOX news said that Obama clearly won. Up was down and white was black because FOX was right. But also because FOX deviated from its regular position of bashing Obama whenever it gets the chance. For one night, FOX acted like a real news network.

This happened for two reasons. First of all, as George pointed out, its in the interest of these networks to keep their viewers interested. If CNN and MSNBC were reporting the Presidential race as it is rather than calling states "battleground" even though Obama leads by thirteen points, then people might (god forbid) stop watching the news 10 hours a day. So all news stations had an interest in making the debate seem closer than it was.

Second, all news networks want to seem non-partisan at any cost. Sometimes that means boosting any sign that the trailing candidate did well and delegitimizing the victor's strong points. Wouldn't it all just work better if we called the news channels what they truly are? Some are staunchly liberal, and some are just as conservative.

Last night, Daily Kos called FOX the "24 hour ACORN and Ayers" network. In the past few weeks, FOX News has mentioned ACORN and Ayers 1,231 times, compared to the 963 times that CNN and MSNBC combined have mentioned those semi-scandals.

I almost feel guilty criticizing FOX News because I am a proud fan of MSNBC, which has become almost as partisan and faux-journalistic as its rival FOX news. This is a full fledged rivalry that began when the liberal Keith Olberman, host of "Countdown with Keith Olberman" started openly attacking Bill O'Reilly, host of "The O'Reilly Factor," as "the worst person in the world" on his show in order to boost ratings. It worked.

Let's be clear. There is nothing wrong with having a liberal or conservative leaning news station. The problem is when popular stations (FOX receives way more viewers than MSNBC) pretend to be fair and balanced. One of FOX News' mottos is actually "fair and balanced." At this point, it seems like FOX is barely trying to hide the fact that it is part of a vast propaganda machine for the Republican party. Dems have blogs, the GOP has tv and think tanks.

This is what led liberal blogs like Daily Kos, MYDD and TPM to staunchly oppose the Democratic Primary Debate on FOX news last fall. Allowing this debate to take place would have amounted to the Democratic Party's tacit approval of the conservative station which masquerades as an exercise in journalistic ethics.

So this is just a call for stations like FOX and MSNBC to embrace their ideological leanings in order to become the best versions of themselves: staunchly and unappologetically partisan. Let Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, O'Reilly, Hume, and Hannity go wild. Let the other 24 hour news networks handle the the news.

McCain Trounced

After the first two Presidential debates, I was pretty sure the candidates had tied. If anything, I thought McCain might have won. But in both cases, post-debate polls overwhelmingly showed Obama to be the winner. Last night's debate was different. McCain got trounced.

I think the debate probably was, as the pundits were saying, McCain's best debate. He was aggressive and got Obama to talk about his association with Ayers and ACORN in a way that didn't make McCain seem overtly negative. But in every instance where McCain was good, Obama was better. His description of his association with Ayers was complete and direct.

The same was true of his defense of his tax and health care policies. Each time that McCain attacked those policies gave Obama an opportunity to talk more about them. And if anyone going into the debate had a doubt about whether Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class or about the details of his health care plan, they left the debate alleviated.

McCain's worst and most shameful moment was when the subject of abortion and Roe v. Wade came up. He criticized Obama for supporting choice in late-term pregnancies when the mother's heath is at risk. He called this one of the radical ideas of the pro-abortion movement. See the video:



I posted before the debate that the main test would be whether McCain would seem Presidential. He absolutely did not. It was clear by his constant snickering and grimacing that he simply does not like Obama and is incapable of acting like a statesman. The fact is, McCain is too much of a Maverick to be President. You can't act like a ten year old every time that someone disagrees with you. Not even George W. Bush does that.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed very presidential. Most so when he directly addressed the allegations about his connection to Ayers and the hateful comments at Palin rallies. His consistent plea to talk about today's pressing issues rather than character attacks was particularly strong. In response, McCain seemed even more childish, repeating the same nonsense about taxes and plumbers upwards of a million times in 1.5 hours.

McCain didn't get the final push that he needed in the final debate. So what matters now is what he will do in the next 20 days. He might be on to something with this attack on Obama for wanting to raise taxes even on the top 5%. But if that doesn't catch on, we might see McCain give up and start to preserve his legacy rather than win the White House.

Some interesting articles about the debate:
Slate.com
Politico
Karl Rove, WSJ
The Economist
Snap Polls show Obama win

Joe the Plumber

More on the debate later but this morning the now famous Joe the Plumber was interviewed by Katie Couric of CBS News. He said that, in their conversation, Barack Obama tap danced around the issue of taxes like Sammy Davis Jr. Theres a lot wrong with this statement. First of all, why choose Sammy Davis Jr? He must have been referring to... well decide for yourself. Whether he was referencing Obama's dancing skills or ratpack mentality, Joe might not be the best supporter for McCain to flaunt.

More importantly, though, Think Progress linked a video to the actual conversation between Obama and Joe the Plumber. They talk for about five minutes and you can tell from their conversation that Obama certainly does not dance around the issue. Joe, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't given.

Debate Extravaganza!

There are some pretty good pre-debate analyses flying around on the web. Here are some links.

NYT Blog - The Caucus

Politico.com

Huffington Post

Slate.com

Slate’s article highlights McCain’s central problem: “He can’t win the debate if he goes negative. He can’t win if he doesn’t.”

Despite his position in the polls, I don’t think that McCain is ready to give up. He is going to give the debate everything he’s got. But that doesn’t mean going negative. We have learned from the past few weeks that negative campaigning has only hurt McCain. Moreover, in the lead-up to the past two presidential debates, McCain’s campaign has raised expectations that he would go negative. I think this was done so that McCain would seem like more of a statesman when he did not, in fact, go off the deep end.

I’d bet that McCain will revert to the message and temperament he had when people actually liked him. Either that, or he goes even more negative than anyone expects in a last ditch effort to shake things up. He is, after all, a maverick. But that wouldn't work. As I've said before, people are looking for a leader in a debate, not a win-at-all-costs warrior.

As for Obama, he just needs to look presidential. That is how he won the first two debates. He has a huge advantage because voters consider him a better choice on issues dealing with the economy. He should remain consistent and avoid any risky moves or tangential spats with McCain. In other words, Obama should not jump on the character assault band wagon if McCain brings up Ayres or Wright.

Over all, I think it will probably be another boring debate. But I would love to be wrong.

Yes to Peace, No to Violence

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic connects the anti-Obama mob mentality at McCain rallies to similar hateful demonstrations in the weeks before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995. It would be a terrible tragedy if the same were to happen to Obama because such hateful statements were not condemned properly.

One of the most emotional parts of my trip to Israel this summer was when we visited the place that Rabin was shot. Each of the ten Israelis – pro and anti-Rabin – broke down while we listened to the news commentary from the day in 1995 when he was killed. Click here for a brief bio of Rabin. As Prime Minister at that time, Rabin is remembered as the last legitimate hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He orchestrated the Oslo Peace Agreement with the Palestinians and Jordan. In 1994, Rabin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Yasser Arafat for their roles in the Oslo Agreement.

Rabin was shot on November 4, 1995 at a peace rally in Tel Aviv, thirteen years before we had a chance to vote for Obama.

People are afraid of Obama and Rabin for similar reasons. They both represent the unknown. How will this (African American) candidate with very little experience govern? We don’t know. What would the Middle East look like today if leaders like Rabin had achieved peace? We still don’t know.

Let’s hope that the latent fear about an Obama Presidency does not prove as salient as the fear surrounding Peace in the Middle East in 1995.



A grafiti mural at the spot that Yitzhak Rabin was shot in 1995.


Sean reading Rabin's speech in front of the Rabin memorial in Tel Aviv.

Christopher Buckley and Modern Conservatism

As you might have heard, Christopher Buckley has left the conservative magazine The National Review. Buckley's father, William F. Buckley founded the magazine in 1955 and is still known as one of history's most prolific conservative icons. Poppa Buchwalter just sent me this article about his resignation from the National Review, which was the result of his endorsement of Barack Obama for President.

Buckley's resignation, which was accepted "rather briskly!", says a lot about the modern conservative approach to politics. Buckley describes his father as someone who liked to take unpredictable stances and constantly challenge the standards of the Republican party and entire political system. I guess there is no room for such maverick behavior in conservative writing today. David Brooks is a great example of a conservative who is willing to challenge his party. Brooks started as a journalist for the National Review under William F. Buckley. Directly after Brooks' famous statement calling Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party" for her disdain for intellectualism, Brooks said of Buckley:

He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas and celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that.

Even if Christopher Buckley is shunned by the ultra-conservative Right, I think that his dad probably would have been very proud of his son for taking such a stand.

From Buckley's article:

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

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

Ready to Lead

I posted earlier today that Obama is so far ahead in the polls because he has appeared more Presidential than McCain in the past few weeks. Jay Cost of Realclearpolitics.com writes that this is the case because it is easy for Obama to appear calm and collected when the economy, an issue he dominates, is front and center. On that issue, polls show that Obama is seen as more ready to lead on day 1.

From the article:

McCain's job over the next three weeks is to change this perception. If he is to have any chance of victory in an anti-Republican year like this, he needs to be seen as the one "ready to lead" and Obama "unready." Generally speaking, there are three ways to do this. First, he can make himself look more presidential; second, he can make Obama look less so; third, he can employ a combination of the two.

The third way is ideal, and has been done in the past. Bill Clinton did it in 1992 and 1996; George W. Bush did it in 2004. However, despite its many attempts over the last few weeks, the McCain campaign has not hit upon a strategy that does this.

Invest in Dems

The New York Times, known for its lack of bias, has just proven that Democrats are better for your wallet than Republicans.

The photo below represents the appreciation of $10,000 only invested in the S&P Stock Market Index under Democratic and Republican administrations respectively since 1929 (both parties have controled the White House for 40 years). Under Democratic presidents, that $10,000 would today be more than $300,000. Under Republican presidents, that total would be almost $12,000 ($50,000 excluding Hoover).

Note, though, that most Republican regimes (Bush I, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan) fare better than Dems (Truman, Johnson, Roosevelt etc...), with Clinton blowing them all out of the water, single handedly making the average under Dems higher than under the GOP. He is helped, of course, by the negative impact of Nixon and Bush II.

The Two Hitchens...es

In the past month or so, Christopher Hitchens of Slate.com has written two interesting aricles about Barack Obama. See below:

Barack Obama is a spineless nitwit.

John McCain is a spaz. Vote for Obama.

These say a lot about the flock of independent voters to Obama in the past month. I have become convinced that the number one deciding issue facing Americans this year is which candidate appears more presidential. Voters are just as attracted to Obama's temperment as they are to his message of change. Surely, the economy has made a lot of people move to the Obama column. But in reality, most voters do not know much about his economic stimulus plan or tax policies or regulation ethos. They are drawn to his mild-mannered approach to the economic collapse in constrast to McCain's whirlwind freak out.

This is also why Obama (and Biden, for that matter) has preformed so well in the debates. He has always seemed thoughtful, forward-looking, and most of all, Presidential. Here are some notes for McCain and Palin: avoiding eye contact with your enemy is not Presidential; winking is not Presidential; being a jerk about time limits in a town-hall debate is not Presidential. Finally, reckless negative campaigning is not Presidential.

So tomorrow night is the only remaining game changing opportunity for McCain. I think Leigh put his predicament well: he has to change his strategy, but has no good way of doing it. The negative campaign failed miserably, he simply is not an agent of change due to 26 years in Washington, he has a history of economic de-regulation, and barely excites the conservative base. McCain has got to try something drastic to overcome his place in the polls.

Obama would do well by not taking the bait and remaining Presidential becuase it has worked in the past three debates for the dems.

Obama Bin Respectful

The difference in the level of discourse between the two campaigns is staggering. Images like the one above and choruses of hateful rhetoric against Obama continue to plague McCain rallies while the Republican candidate for President offers a frail, belated denunciation. Obama, on the other hand, enjoying his position in the polls, continues to treat McCain with respect. In Ohio today:

Mr. Obama reprimanded his audience when people started jeering at the mention of Mr. McCain’s name, declaring: “We don’t need that. We just need to vote.”

Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal to waive the rules that penalize retiree withdrawals from 401(k)’s, saying: “I want to give credit where credit is due.”

Of course, Obama can be more respectful because he maintains large leads in most polls, even in some traditionally red states like North Carolina, Indiana, and North Dakota. But I genuinely believe that Obama would not stoop as low as the McCain campaign has even if he were behind at this point. Let's hope that I don't get a chance to be proven right.

Be Afraid... Be Very Afraid

In reference to the last post about how much can change before the election, I just saw this link on TPM from fivethirtyeight.com about McCain's Stunt Alert Level System.

It reminds me of a Slate article about McCain's potential "maverick" moves in the next twenty-or-so days.

Watch Your Back! (or McCain will win)

Adam Nagourney of the NYT has a sobering article about how much could change before election day. I have been pretty unapologetically optimistic about the fact that Obama is going to win more than 300 electoral votes and 55% of the vote. But Nagourney is right; so much can happen. We could still, you know, learn that Obama is a terrorist, or the message that he has shady associations could catch on. Hopefully, though, the American people are not stupid enough for that.

Columbus Day!

These idiots couldn't even draw America. Can you believe we give them a whole holiday?

Really, this is an amazing map. Click to see larger.

$11 Trillion National Debt... Priceless

Daily Kos questions the meaning of "fiscal conservative."

When Jimmy Carter entered the White House, the national debt was $660 Billion.

Added during Carter's four years: $337 billion.
Added during Ronald Reagan's eight years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during George H. W. Bush's four years: $1.6 trillion.
Added during Bill Clinton's eight years: $1.5 trillion.
Added during George W. Bush's seven years, nine months: $4.5 trillion.

Portion of the $9.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 31 years and seven months that came during Republican presidencies: $7.7 trillion.

Percentage of that $7.7 trillion added during George W. Bush's two terms: 58%.

Could somebody explain again what "fiscal conservative" means?

Krugman Wins Nobel

The New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman has won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Considering that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, it is clear that, despite the past eight years of terrible leadership, the international community still reveres the United States and looks to us for leadership on multiple fronts. This serves as more evidence that we could slow down the negative Bush-mentum with a Democratic president and the liberal ethos of people like Al Gore and Paul Kurgman.

I don't know much because I am young. Have conservative ideologues consistently won international recognition in the past? Even if they have, it certainly isn't happening now. I don't want to sound like an elitist, but if the United States wants to preserve its status as a global leader economically and politically, then needs to start listening to the global community. And international praise in the form of Nobel Prizes is an isolated but clear example of where the international community stands.

Note: Krugman received an honorary degree from Haverford College in 2004.

Chris Matthews Starting PA Senate Bid?

Politico reports that the MSNBC host Chris Matthews toured the Philadelphia region with Barack Obama this Saturday. Is he starting the anticipated 2010 bid for US Senate?

As you might remember, Matthews feels "thrill going up his leg" when he hears Obama speak. Maybe he hopes to inspire similar admiration in a few years.




It could be a difficult run for Matthews, as Arlen Specter (R) has a 59-29 approval rating according to Quinnipiac University. And Pennsylvania voters prefer Specter to Matthews 41-36 percent. But that is before Matthews has even announced his Senate bid, let alone started campaigning. Considering that, a five point lead for Specter could be easy for Matthews, an already well-known television personality, to overcome.

America Doesn't Have to be Rome

There are a few articles today in The New York Times about whether the recent economic crisis is the first indication in a doomsday procession that marks the end of American political and economic strength. One Week In Review article connects the American example to the British Empire that dwindled by the end of the nineteenth century. Maureen Dowd writes a predictably annoying article arguing that the American decline has already begun.

American dominance could certainly decline if our national hubris does not change for the better. As I see it, that change can come about in two important ways. First, as the Week in Review article points out (and the economic meltdown proves) Wall Street needs more regulation. Fortunately, that process has already started.

The economy looks to be heading into a period of more regulated, but still American-style, capitalism, more along the lines of how it operated in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s. Those three decades happen to have produced the biggest and most widely shared economic gains since World War II.

From that standpoint, the economy could thrive as it did in the 1990s under Clinton style regulation.

Second, the United States needs to become a leader in something aside from quasi-imperialist military strength. Considering the threat of climate change, we have an opportunity to become a leader in green technologies to decrease our reliance on oil. As Barack Obama frequently says, no one knew much about flying to the moon when John F. Kennedy announced that NASA would visit within 10 years. But we got there in fewer than nine.

Similarly, If the scientific and automobile communities focus on making effective green alternatives to oil, and more efficient vehicles to save what energy we do use, then energy - not military - could become our greatest import and global legacy and help make our Rome last a few decades longer.

Obama in West Philly

The New Republic has provided a must read article about Barack Obama's visit to West Philadelphia this Saturday that perfectly captures my feeling of the event. When I arrived at 9:45 (3.5 hours before Obama was scheduled to show up), there were already a few thousand people lining 52nd Street adorned in Obama T-shirts, buttons and cheer. A very round man paced up and down the excited line - which spanned three blocks on both sidewalks - muttering "obama-obama-obam-o-o" into a megaphone.

I was there alone, and I quickly started a conversation with a pharmaceutical representative and a construction worker and his wife who were next to me in line. The pharmaceutical rep spoke of how Obama's policies would hurt his business but he supports him because in the broader scope of the country's economic woes, Obama's plan is significantly better than McCain's. The construction worker spoke about a good-natured spat that he has with his boss - a small business owner - about which candidate would be best for the economy. I was reminded of Obama's refrain of asking small business owners, "How's business these days... and who has been in charge these past eight years?"

I was surprised by how understanding people seemed to be about McCain's political situation. One man said that it was unfortunate to see McCain - who he generally respected - transform into this partisan, neo-conservative replica in order to get elected. After all, he said, McCain has to get elected to implement his plans to improve this country. He generally felt that McCain wanted to do that.

Of course, there were some partisan Democratic sentiments. "Palin is an idiot." "We can't risk Palin if McCain dies" "McCain just doesn't understand black people." "McCain just doesn't understand anything." "McCain is freaking old." But everyone's excitement to see Obama drowned out most of these partisan standards.

The event was a "whos who" of Philadelphia Politics. Congressman Chaka Fattah, Mayor Michael Nutter, Governor Ed Rendell, and US Senator Bob Casey. None of the speakers said anything new or interesting, but Michael Nutter saved the day by noticing that half the crowd could not hear due to a bad speaker connection. He ran off stage, and two minutes later reappeared right in time to be introduced, the speakers fixed. He has my vote for life.

Mostly, people were happy that Obama was finally visiting his base. In this case, that is the democratic base, but also the black base. Another man I spoke to thought that Obama could have won Pennsylvania if he has paid any attention to places like West and North Philadelphia, areas where he has nearly 100% support. (I doubt that he could have won, considering that he lost by 10 percentage points to Hillary Clinton, but it could not have hurt). Instead, Obama focused on the affluent suburban communities surrounding Philadelphia. His base was marginalized and many did not show up to the polls.

My friend Katia was sitting outside of the event next to an old man who said that this was the best political event that he had witnessed since he marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Washington DC in 1963. I think that the 23,000 people within hearing distance of Obama would have agreed. A local preacher echoed these sentiments when he welcomed the crowd to the intersection of 52nd street and Locust Street.

(paraphrase)

"We have seen too many suns rise and set on the American dream. It's time for Barack Obama to pick up Dr. King's message and deliver the American equality that is so long overdue"

Philly Inquirer article about Obama throughout Philadelphia Saturday.

Philly says "Not in My House"

Philadelphia Flyers fans boo Palin even after she is introduced as "the best-known hockey mom in the United States"

McCain's Newest Doublespeak

On Friday, McCain tried to raise the discourse of the campaign by addressing the angry mobs yelling out words like "terrorist" and "traitor" in reference to Barack Obama.



On Saturday Morning, the McCain campaign decided that politics was more important than decency and released this statement about the Obama campaign's criticism of such outbursts. As MSNBC reports:

In response, McCain senior adviser Nicolle Wallace released this statement, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports. "Barack Obama's assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising. These are the same people obama called 'bitter' and attacked for 'clinging to guns' and faith. He fails to understand that people are angry at corrupt practices in Washington and Wall Street and he fails to understand that America's working families are not 'clinging' to anything other than the sincere hope that Washington will be reformed from top to bottom."

"Attacking our supporters is a new low for the campaign that's run more millions of dollars of negative ads than any other in history."

I cannot believe that the McCain is deliberately misinterpreting Obama's statements against the angry mobs at McCain rallies. They trying to make this another "bitter" comment from Obama when in reality McCain should have been much more reproachful when the hateful comments began. Even if he claims that he could not hear it, his campaign certainly read about the comments through the Media. They contributed to that hate by not making any statements against them.

I was truly encouraged by McCain's statements last night in defense of Obama. (I would have preferred stronger language, but at least it was something). But following that up with a claim that Obama is anti-"joe six-pack" is absurd and perpetuates hate and class warfare.

McCain is trying to have it both ways. He wants people to continue a hateful campaign against the candidate that is considered dangerously anti-American. But he wants to swoop in from time to time with a weak comment against the Obama bashing as if he were morally superior the whole time. That is a spineless, offensive excuse for leadership. If McCain has let his campaign get this out of control, how can the American people have any confidence whatsoever that he will be a unifying Commander in Chief? Even if he plays that role for a few years, he would revert back to this faux patriotic, anti-elitist rhetoric when it is time for the old codger to get reelected.

In playing the role of the perfect American against the "dangerous" Obama who "regular" people cannot trust, McCain has launched an all out offensive against true American patriotism and the goal of bringing people together to make this country great again.

UPDATE

From NYT:

“I think there have been quite a few reporters recently,” said Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, Mark Salter, “who have sort of implied, or made more than implications, that somehow we’re responsible for the occasional nut who shows up and yells something about Barack Obama.”