Election Eve

GO OUT AND VOTE !!!! Honor Mrs. Dunham and elect her grandson.

On the eve of this election I can't help but feel that this will be a historic event. For the 1st time, we have an African-American who not only is leading in the polls, but is leading with an outright majority nationwide. There is far more at stake, however. Here in California, there's Prop. 8 (please vote NO), which I will turn out large numbers of evangelicals. The LDS church is joining with evangelicals to fund the 'yes on 8' campaign. They have delved into politics, not something everyone in the LDS church agrees with, for what it's worth. There's Prop. 4 (please vote NO again), which chips away at a woman's right to privacy by eliminating that right for those under the age of 18. It doesn't outlaw abortion, but rather attacks the fundamental right which is the basis of Roe v. Wade. Since when are constitutional rights magically determined by age?
Sneaking in under the radar on what has been a massive presidential campaign, these Propositions are being funded by right-wing and right-to-life PACs from outside of California. In any other election year, there would be a large outcry.

Obama's rally tonight in Manassas, Virginia drew 90,000 people in a county where George Bush won with 69,000 votes in 2004. But that's just the dot on the I. He's been campaigning in states that were 'Red' and turning out record crowds. St. Louis 100,000, 3 rallies in western states that turned out 250,000. It's been that way all across the country, and been that way for weeks. It is the Obama Phenomena. Curious what a crowd of 90,000 looks like in the middle of the night? Here's a picture of part of the crowd posted by a blogger. As far as the eye can see and beyond.



Meanwhile, McCain and Palin are hitting midnight rallies in Nevada and Arizona tonight to crowds of hundreds. Crowds that fit into a high school gym. In Tampa, McCain started the day with a crowd of 1,000 when 10,000 were expected.

The Obama Phenomena is changing the Electoral map. States that haven't been in play for decades, are now 'toss up' or leaning Obama. Not only does that provide a multitude of ways for Obama to get to the needed 270, it's had a dramatic impact on the down-ticket races for Senate and Congressional seats. No one was thinking that we might get to 60 Democratic Senate seats even 6 weeks ago. If you believe the polls, that possibility is very real. Although still not likely, most pollsters get to that number by including "Independents" like Lieberman (what a jerk).

You've probably noticed that I've not been blogging on the polls lately. It's not that I'm not following them. On the contrary.. I watch these sites and read all the data I can.
RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight are two sites run by wonks that crunch numbers to excess. You can watch the campaign maps of CNN and MSNBC. You can look at Intrade Prediction Markets which would have you trade on the predictions like the stock market.

Here's my take on the polls. They show a steady Obama lead nationwide. The variance day-to-day of the tracking polls are all within the margins of error. There hasn't been any indication of a change in trend. Has it tightened up? Maybe. Not significantly. The national polls tend to not include votes for Nader and Barr.. some say that will be 2-3 %. Interestingly enough, most polls show that Nader and Barr overall will hurt McCain more than Obama. More important are the State-by-State numbers. This election is won State-by-State; something we don't have to tell Al Gore. In all of the toss-up states except perhaps North Carolina, Obama holds some kind of lead. Even there and Missouri, McCain's "lead" is less than 1 %. On the other hand, Georgia, North Dakota, Montana, and Arizona are now 'toss-up'; being within the margins of error.

Here's my problem with the polls. They don't reflect those tens of (or hundreds) of thousands of people that are showing up at the Obama rallies. Either voter turnout from these energized individuals will be the lowest in history or the polls are just not paying attention. The polls have their methods and they stick to them. I think they will learn a new lesson this year about how the dynamics of this election are not being reflected in their numbers.

Here's an example:
In GEORGIA- for all pollsters a 'red' state. Latest polls show McCain's lead down at about the margin of error, in some cases down to 1 point. However here's news that the pollsters didn't pick up. We see this reported at FiveThirtyEight.com today. They don't poll, they run simulations based on other people's polling data.

1,994,990 people voted early in Georgia. 3,301,875 total voted in Georgia's presidential race in 2004. That, with insanely long lines for early voters.

On the Road: Atlanta, Georgia details the 550, 000 new voters registered, the 33 offices, 175 staging areas, at least one in every county, and a highly organized and active volunteer organization.

Indeed, Obama is doing better with white voters in Georgia than either Kerry or Gore. In early voting, African-American voting was 35%. 25% is the historic level. As for totals after election day comes and goes, Adelman said, "anything over 30% and we're gonna win."

The other problem I have with the polls is the early voting movement. No one knows how to account for the early voters, especially in the battleground states. It will be interesting to see if they are more influenced by the GOTV from the campaigns than the electorate in general. Many of these voters are VERY motivated; standing in line for hours. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps it is from the fear of being disenfranchised as happened in some areas in 2004.
In any case, far more people are voting early - 1/3 of all voters in Virginia voted early. So much for the last 72 hour 'push' by the campaigns.

I'm sure there will be plenty of analysis to listen to tomorrow.
I think there is going to be a big surprise. Obama is going to get results that the polls just don't measure.

In the mean time, there is this: Washington lost this weekend. Some say that means a Democratic win (football fans!).

Then there is this - Dixville Notch, NH polls opened at midnight and closed shortly thereafter. Obama wins 15 to 6 (votes!). It's the 1st result of the night, and not necessarily a good bell weather, however they haven't voted for a Democrat since Humphrey in 1968.

Find me blogging the news tomorrow. !!!

Keeping Up

Ok, so I missed a day... so let's get to it! I've been busy following this, stirring the pot and commenting and emailing wherever I can.

In a previous post Beyond Repudiation, I discussed the smear campaign in Pennsylvania targeting the Jewish vote with an email linking a vote to Obama to the Holocaust. I filed an action request with the Anti-Defamation League and got a direct email response. I hope I was one of thousands that asked for action. In any case, their response was appreciated. The Press Release has helped raise some additional media attention. Sadly, it seems that CNN has not seen fit to PRINT a single word on this whole mess. NOTHING!! I sent the tip to them, suggested the story to them, then sent a message to AC360's Keeping Them Honest, blasting their producers for ignoring it. Since, I've heard Lou Dobbs mention it, and one other reference to liberal bloggers, but no call beyond my own for action on the part of the McCain campaign to repudiate it's signatory, who is still on his national staff. I guess it would be too much to expect of the McCain campaign anyway. At least there is this:

Dear Mr. Ben-Yehuda, We released a statement to the press and published it on our web site. You can see the statement by following this link. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5379_52.htm
If you have any other questions, please contact me at the number below.
Best
Kevin O’Grady
Kevin O'Grady, Ed.D.
Regional Director
Anti-Defamation League
Orange County/Long Beach Regional Office
kogrady@adl.org
714-979-4733 FAX: 714-979-4138
http://www.adl.org/

And then there is this story that went out on the AP: Ex-PA judge - Sorry

It's getting picked up by AP affiliates all over...
CNN - they had their chance. I think they've lost their edge.

Just Say No

Dozens Of Call Center Workers In Indiana Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama.

"We were asked to read something saying [Obama and Democrats] were against protecting children from danger," this worker said. "I wouldn't do it. A lot of people left. They thought it was disgusting."

The campaign coincided with a robo-slime call running in other states. Robocalling is illegal in Indiana, which is why it was being read by call center workers.

McCain Aides Comment on Palin

Dana Bash travels with the McCain campaign and reports on CNN some pretty damaging stuff.

Quoting sources within the campaign:

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," this McCain adviser said. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

A Palin associate defended her, saying that she is "not good at process questions" and that her comments on Michigan and the robocalls were answers to process questions.

The Politico reported Saturday on Palin's frustration, specifically with McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt. They helped decide to limit Palin's initial media contact to high-profile interviews with Charlie Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, which all McCain sources admit were highly damaging.

In response, Wallace e-mailed CNN the same quote she gave the Politico: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honorable thing to do is to lie there."

But two sources, one Palin associate and one McCain adviser, defended the decision to keep her media interaction limited after she was picked, both saying flatly that she was not ready and that the missteps could have been a lot worse. They insisted that she needed time to be briefed on national and international issues and on McCain's record.

"Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic," said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the "hardest" to get her "up to speed than any candidate in history."

I'm thinking that Wallace and Schmidt wish they'd had another month to prepare her for those interviews. Her lack of "fundamental understanding" is still dramatic.

CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ed Rollins said Palin was "mishandled" during the earlier part of the campaign, and as a result, "she's become a target of a lot of ridicule."

But, he said, "She definitely is going to be the most popular Republican in this country when this thing is over."

I disagree with Rollins assessment that she was "mishandled". Wallace and Schmidt weren't given much to work with and did not have enough time to get the job done. I lay the blame on McCain's late decision, not on Wallace and Schmidt for this one.

To say she is the "most popular Republican" with polls showing Palin's unfavorables outweighing her favorables, is a pretty sad comment on the state of the Republican party.

McCain in 2000 - There's Nothing Wrong with the Wealthy Paying More

There is nothing better than showing how John McCain has flip-flopped on his primary tax issue that he's trying to hammer Obama with. In 2000, John McCain was preaching Obama's tax plan - wealthy pay a little more, tax cuts for the middle class. Now he's preaching the opposite. Where's the honor?

Here you go.. in his own words.

McCain Blasts Bush -- Shoots Self Again

John McCain lashed out at George Bush and the entire Republican party in an interview with Washington Times reporters Joseph Curl and Stephen Dinan. He's desperately trying to separate himself from the rest of the party and Bush's record, but the problem is that he's voted with Bush 90% of the time. When he criticizes them, he criticizes himself. It's inescapable.

"We just let things get completely out of hand," he said of his own party's rule in the past eight years.

"Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously," Mr. McCain said in an interview with The Washington Times. "Those are just some of them," he said with a laugh

In addition to the long list of failures he attributed to Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain blamed the president for supporting the Medicare prescription-drug bill, saying, "They didn't pay for it."

I'm sure he's not making any friends with his congressional collegues over this, being that they have enough problems getting re-elected without getting blasted from their own party's candidate. We have Palin campaigning to energize the right side of the republican party, most of whom support Bush, and now McCain is doing the opposite.

It's tough to make headway when rowing in the opposite direction from your shipmate.

Taking Back the VP Bet

1st off - Let's not forget to say a prayer for Barry's grandma. She did a great job raising her grandson. I hope she makes it to see him inaugurated January 20th


Ok.. Now this is great..
While Barack Obama is in Hawaii visiting his gravely ill grandmother, Sarah and Todd Palin are taking a day off to greet a visitor in St. Louis. They are meeting a special prosecutor from the state of Alaska to give depositions in the ongoing investigation of abuse of power, ethics violations, and mis-use of government funds/property by Sarah Palin as governor.




Hope this helps raise a smile on another bad day on Wall St.

Palin Denies Accepting $150K In Designer Clothes

Excuse this drift into the minutia. When you iconize your campaign with images such as 'Joe the Plumber', this Icon becomes relevant.

If you thought that McCain's been living in a bubble when it comes to Sarah Palin it's nothing compared to the bubble surrounding Sarah Palin herself.

ORMOND BEACH, FLA. (AP) - Sarah Palin is blaming gender bias for the controversy over $150,000 worth of designer clothes, hairstyling and accessories the Republican Party provided for her, a newspaper reported Thursday.

Palin, who is John McCain's vice presidential running mate, said the clothes were not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention. (What, does she think we can't add up the numbers reported by the RNC?).

Most of the clothes have never left the campaign plane, she told the newspaper. (what a waste- more clothes then she can even wear)

"It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported," Palin said.

"That whole thing is just, bad!" she said. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are."(Frugal? - emphasis added- Yes, tell us again how frugal $23,500 for the convention speech outfit is)

McCain was asked several questions on Thursday about the shopping spree _ and he answered each one more or less the same way: Palin needed clothes and they'll be donated to charity.

"She needed clothes at the time. They'll be donated at end of this campaign. They'll be donated to charity," McCain told reporters on his campaign bus between Florida rallies.

Asked for details on how they'll be donated, McCain said, "It works by her getting some clothes when she was made the nominee of the party and it will be donated back to charity."

Asked if he was surprised at the amount spent, McCain said, "It works that the clothes will be donated to charity. Nothing surprises me."

I guess this means that if McCain and Palin win the election, all those clothes are going to be donated, and she'll have to start all over again. Maybe McCain subconsciously admitted that they're not going to win?

I'm left wondering. Are those $5000 blazers and $1500 pumps are going to show up at a Salvation Army or Goodwill Industries store somewhere? Perhaps they'll have an auction, so that the party faithful can clamor over their spoils; donating the proceeds to the needy or homeless. Oh.. sorry.. that would turn Palin into a 'celebrity' - a 'dirty word' McCain used to attack Obama.

Well, maybe it's best we just leave the question unanswered too.
In any case, $150k at Neiman Marcus, Saks and Macy's is raising eyebrows, and questions.

Also on Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a private watchdog group in Washington, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Palin, the Republican National Committee and several political operatives alleging that the purchase of clothing for Palin and her family violates Federal Election Campaign Act.

It raises another question for me. Who is paying for all those kids traveling around the country with Palin - and shouldn't they be in school? I don't recall McCain selecting the Palin FAMILY for the VP position. Is Palin paying their hotel and food costs (we know the clothes were paid for by the RNC)?

McCain's Latest Twist

Joe Biden opened a door at a Sunday fundraiser, stating:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. ... We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Now, not withstanding the fact that an international crisis has tested every recent new president within 6 months, John McCain jumped all over the comment as an opportunity to invoke the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 to incite fear and uncertainty about Obama's readiness to lead. He handled it like everything else he does that hasn't been carefully scripted in advance by his campaign team: He blew it. He said:

“We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,”

Then, McCain veered off script to expound:

“Sen. Biden referred to how Jack Kennedy was tested in the Cuban Missile Crisis. My friends, I had a little personal experience in that,” McCain said. “I was on board the USS Enterprise. I sat in the cockpit of a flight deck on the USS Enterprise off of Cuba. I had a target. My friends, do you know how close we came to nuclear war? America will not have a president who needs to be tested. I’ve been tested my friends.”

McCain was tested by sitting in a cockpit on an aircraft carrier? President Kennedy sure didn't call him on the radio to ask his advice on how to resolve the situation. Maybe if he was close enough to see Cuba on the horizon, he can claim, Palin style, that he's an expert on Cuban affairs.

What does any of it have to do with being tested? However brave his military exploits, it was all about following orders, not making international policy decisions or negotiating solutions. Thank you John for reminding us all that your military service does not equate to crisis decision making or foreign policy readiness. Thanks also for reminding us just how old you are.

If anything, this confirms how erratic McCain's campaign is. It's pulled him off onto a new tangent. I have to wonder if Biden's comments were intended to do just that.

McCain and the Decline of the Republican Party

McCain spends his time at the rallies lately bashing Obama's tax cuts, carefully choosing to quote 'Joe the Plumber' when calling it 'socialism'. At the same time he proposes a 30% tax cut for corporations - from 35% to 25%. On the campaign trail, he tries to separate himself from GW Bush saying he wants to take America in a new direction, but doesn't say what that direction is. It's simply rhetoric, with nothing to back it up.

The reality is that his own plan for the economy is basically the same as the disaster that GW Bush has had for the last 8 years. Remove regulation and provide huge tax breaks for the large corporations and the generosity will 'trickle down' to the rest of us who work for a paycheck. The problem with that approach is that it assumes corporations are socially benevolent organizations. In practice, the last 8 years especially have shown that the CEOs, executives and shareholders will line their pockets with profits while continuing to cut operating expenses by shipping jobs overseas. He wants to do the same thing to health care, but we have already seen that absent regulation, health care corporations will deny services, and insurance companies will deny claims.

In the past, McCain came out against the Bush tax cuts, calling them 'irresponsible' while the country was at war. Now he wants to cut taxes on corporations even more, while continuing to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan with a cost of over $10 BILLION a MONTH. Who is going to pay for this tax cut? All the rest of us. What has ruined our economy? People cannot continue to 'spend' money they don't have to support an economy while it is being sucked dry by military spending. The credit has been used up, the well is dry. We need to stop spending that money overseas on bullets, and instead spend it here at home on our veterans and on our infrastructure and in ways that produce positive economic results at home.

Obama's tax plan isn't 'socialism'. Taxes - all taxes- are always about 'redistributing the wealth' in one form or another. Our country has come to expect certain services from our government. To suggest that the lower and middle class have been paying too much of the cost, and that the wealthy can afford to pay a little more is what I call 'fairness', not 'socialist'.

The ideals of the Reagan era Republican Party are gone. They have been replaced with greed, power brokering, nation building, corruption and the worst kind of whisper campaigns that use fear mongering, racial prejudice and McCarthyism. Code words like 'terrorist', 'muslim', 'arab' and 'associates with' have no business in a political campaign. It's disgusting, narrow minded and reminds me of the tactics that GW Bush, Carl Rove, and Dick Cheney used to invoke the eras of McCarthy and Wallace in whipping up sentiment to support their hidden agenda of war with Iraq while suppressing their detractors.

This is a dangerous ploy that has to stop. It will divide our country and set us back 50 years. We must not allow candidates to use these tactics and simply deny the obvious truth. They must be held accountable for stoking the embers of extremism in this country. We can stop it with our voices in the press, and we MUST stop it with our votes at the polls.

Debate number 3 - Monitoring the Independents

The CNN Independent focus group twists the dials for Barack Obama again for debate number 3.
The snap polls taken after the debate

McCain started the debate with 'angry angry angry' and looked that way. The split screen told the tale, looking old, angry, and at times contemptuous. None of those win votes, especially with Independent or undecided voters. Dial responses were muted.

On the other hand, Obama was 'cool and collected', and although a bit tense at the open, seemed to get more comfortable and more focused as the debate wore on. It might have seemed 'boring' to some, but the 'even hand on the tiller' of steady leadership can look that way. Net result - similar muted responses.

In contrast, it makes McCain look even more erratic and disjointed when unsuccessfully trying one attack angle after another to get Obama off course. McCain just seemed to get more angry, more frustrated, and at the end, tired. It seemed the focus group ended the same way; positive responses dropped off while McCain was still dragging out his responses.

McCain sounded hollow when complaining about the Obama's negative ads. It's an unbelievable charge. He's not in a position to whine while he's running 100% negative ads and Palin is stoking the hate mongers on the fringe. No one will believe that Obama is spending the most on negative ads, because he's only about 30% negative compared to the 100% negative of McCain. Every time someone sees an positive issue ad by Obama, they are now going to think ' Gee, McCain was wrong about Obama spending so much on negative ads'. This is definitely going to blow back on McCain, especially if he continues to run negative. Needless to say, you don't win votes with this line.

Obama missed the talking point on Ayers that he was voted Chicago Citizen of the Year in 1987, but responded well about the relationship. He told the story, explained the board, who else was on it, and who funded it - Ronald Reagan's friends the Annenburgs. - McCain hurt himself with outbursts. The diallers show they really aren't that interested. McCain follows up saying that he's not that interested in an old former terrorist, but it's about Obama's being forthcoming about the information. The problem was he said that after Obama just got done with a detailed explanation.

McCain is not believable about 'repudiating' all negative personal attacks. How can he say that when his running mate is busy making negative personal attacks? The dial shows people are not particularly impressed.

McCain has some problems with his arguments lately. When asked about Sarah Palin, he can no longer say 'reformer' without people thinking 'troopergate - abuse of power'. Flat Independent response from women until he touched on 'special needs kids'.. Men seemed to like that 'feisty' part of the 'reformer' word.

As the subjects turned to energy, Obama blew McCain out of the water. Especially when he talked about making high efficiency cars here in the US, not overseas, and working on new energy sources creating jobs in the US. McCain's drill-drill-drill just didn't resonate. The focus group is from Ohio. Job news is hurting this part of the country. McCain ties jobs to energy, but doesn't say how. Bringing up nuclear powered navy ships seems SO detached, McCain's just not relating to the focus group.

Moving on to Health Care, Obama got the twist to full + both with men and women. McCain's $5000 plan got Neg marks with women.. period! Men also dropped down to only slightly +.
McCain's mocking 'zero' response to Obama's statement about fines to small businesses didn't come off. It made him look like he didn't know Obama's plan. Obama continued with a strong response, detailing McCain's plan and it's faults. McCain is clearly out of it on this one. He didn't explain or counter Obama's arguments - he went back to Joe Plumber.. what? He goes off track then veers back. McCain then goes on to explain that his plan would give people $5000, but then would be taxed .. but the kicker is then he says the average health plan costs $5800.. hmm that seems like a $800 loss, and you then have to go out and find coverage for yourself... Good Luck... needless to say he got flat lined by the diallers on that. His arguments were not coherent at all. Obama's explanation of the McCain plan was far more understandable than McCain's attempt at explaining his own position. Probably convinced more than a few that they're better off without McCain's plan.

On the Supreme court issue - McCain came out and said he's for overturning Roe v. Wade. Called himself a Federalist - (stole that one from Palin!) He then got incoherent again.. no litmus test, but someone who's record supports Roe v. Wade would not be qualified .. huh? Talking out of both sides of his mouth. Obama refers back to supporting the Right to Privacy.. gets a strong uptick. Obama gives a strong empathy position - not 'Pro-Abortion'; support providing alternative solutions. Empathy was apparent; give women the choice, but encourage alternatives and prevent pregnancies to begin with. Very Centrist- and probably acceptable to some who lean pro-life, but are not hard line. Common ground approach mentioning sacred sexuality hits TOP marks, men and women! This line provides a way for people to support Obama from both sides of this issue and is reflected in the focus group response.

Obama hits again with Education. Teacher pay is very good point with the dialer twisters, but college hits the mark 100% + especially with women, but also with men. He does it again when he talks about better parenting -- 100% both men and women. Clear win on this one.
McCain harps on Vouchers.. his only answer. Troops returning to work as teachers without credentials gets a strong neg twist from women. Don't blame them... it's a STUPID idea. What qualifies a veteran to be able to teach without appropriate training? Makes NO sense. The visual of that ex-marine standing in front of a bunch of elementary school kids is pretty stark.
Obama comes out and blasts McCain's lack of help for college education, and uses his campaign's flippant response of not being able to accommodate a 'special interest'

Closing speeches were a mis-match. McCain starts, and gets only small responses. He doesn't have much to say. If anything, this should have been his shining moment. He should have been prepared to espouse all his strong points, but doesn't. He basically just asked for people to trust him. That's pretty tough with the sentiment running so negative these days, and some of his erratic answers. No big positives in response. Obama reviews his policy positions and relates them to the people. He gets a fairly strong positive response on the dials, and closes asking for peoples votes. (Don't forget to ask for their votes!!).

McCain set himself up as the angry attack underdog, but that set up a very negative tone. Response was muted. This is a very dangerous mode to go during a debate. If you are successful with the attacks, throwing your opponent off or getting them to change their game plan, and do it in a way that doesn't set a negative tone on your own message, you can win big. It's the kind of tactic that McCain needs because he needs to make a global shift in the campaign. Unfortunately for McCain, his tactic didn't work. He came across with a negative tone, did not throw Obama off his game plan, and didn't deliver a message of his own.

He ended up attacking Obama, but doing it on Obama's turf. That gives Obama control of the response and the debate. In order to work, he needed to attack Obama from his own turf. From his own strengths, he could have attacked without setting a negative tone on his own message.
The problem is that his own strengths aren't very strong. They don't bear critical analysis. They are also in areas that are not as important as they once were to the voters.

UPDATE - CNN snap poll data shows:
By 23 points, those polled said Obama was the stronger leader during the debate. By 48 points, they said Obama was more likeable. Independents went 57% to 31% for Obama as winning the debate. [Those are blow-away numbers. Clearly McCain's attack underdog persona hurt him]
CNN's Electoral College map now is at 277 Obama - more shifts, and some strong red states are now only 'lean McCain'. Interesting to see it change.

I expect a bounce for Obama in the battleground states out of this. I'm also waiting for the press to bring forward the William Timmons lobbyist issue, which mainstream news organizations haven't delivered on yet. Perhaps they were all waiting for the debates to be over. Obama doesn't need to raise this issue, but the press should still let people know about Timmons. He's an example of the worst of Washington insider politics.

McCain Transition Chief Lobbied for Saddam

There is a lot more to this breaking story if you follow the link to the full report.
So much for being a 'reformer' and bringing 'outside-of-washington' type changes. McCain hiring a lobbyist to head his transition team is bad enough, but this guy isn't just any lobbiest. He was in the middle of the Iraq 'food for oil' corruption disaster. I'm surprised he didn't end up in jail like his cohorts.


Murry Wass reports:

William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Vincent, an Iraqi-born American citizen with whom Timmons worked most closely, pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges in January 2005 that he had acted as an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein's regime. Tongsun Park, the second lobbyist who Timmons worked closely with, was convicted by a federal jury in July 2006 on charges that he too violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

Timmons testified that he first introduced Vincent to Tongsun Park and encouraged him to hire Park to work on the deal.

At the time Timmons introduced the two men, Park's notorious background was well known:

In the 1970s, Park had admitted to making hundreds of thousands in payments and illegal campaign contributions to U.S. congressmen on behalf of the South Korean government. Park was indicted on 36 counts by a federal grand jury, but fled to South Korea before he could face trial. All of the charges were later dismissed in exchange for Park providing information about which public officials received funds from the South Korean government.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not long after Timmons suggested that Vincent hire Park to assist their influence, lobbying, and back-channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, much of that effort became increasingly bizarre, corrupt, and - on occasion - illegal.

Latest Q-Polls

These surveys of likely voters in Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan were conducted by Quinnipiac University in partnership with washingtonpost.com and The Wall Street Journal.

The polls reflect data collected Oct 8-12 (post debate)
Full survey results are available here

Key Findings Among Likely Voters
Presidential Preference
If the election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Barack Obama the Democrat and John McCain the Republican, for whom would you vote?
Colorado
McCain (R) 43%
Obama (D) 52%
Michigan
McCain (R) 38%
Obama (D) 54%
Minnesota
McCain (R) 40%
Obama (D) 51%
Wisconsin
McCain (R) 37%
Obama (D) 54%

McCain's Housing proposal - really Frank-Dodd?

I never thought I'd be quoting a NR article, much less agreeing with it. Either McCain is actually proposing the Frank-Dodd bill that is already law and trying to take credit for it while exaggerating on the numbers of homeowners that will benefit, or he's gone completely beyond it with a complete lender bailout with no hope of the taxpayers recovering any of the money spent. Either way, 'his' idea is NOT new. If the latter, it is simply Frank-Dodd with all the restraint and lender responsibility aspects removed. This is exactly what the public at large and house Republicans are so strongly against and what McCain supposedly suspended his campaign to help resolve. He's either out-of-touch with the legislation, or this is a huge flip-flop of $300B proportions.

The editors of the National Review weigh in against McCain's latest proposal in an article titled Frank-Dodd 2008!

Here is what is wrong with McCain’s new housing proposal: It can’t improve on current law without rewarding an unacceptable amount of bad behavior.

Under the Frank-Dodd housing bill that was signed into law last summer, borrowers qualify for a federally subsidized workout only if they meet the following criteria:

1) The borrower must live in his house — no investment properties.
2) The borrower must show that he has been spending at least a third of his income on mortgage payments since March of this year.
3) He must also show that he can afford to make lower payments if his lender agrees to a write-down.

This is obviously a narrow slice of borrowers — around 400,000, according to most estimates. It excludes people who borrowed to buy investment properties in order to flip them for a profit. It excludes people who are hopelessly in over their heads and simply cannot afford the homes they’re in. And it excludes people who could afford to pay their mortgages if they wanted to but have instead decided to mail the keys to the bank rather than continue making payments on a house that is worth less today than when they bought it.

McCain’s campaign says his plan would help “millions” of borrowers stay in their homes without authorizing any new spending. But he has not said how he plans to accomplish this without lowering the standards set forth in the Frank-Dodd bill. And if he does lower the standards — by, for example, letting people who can afford their current payments get a write-down just because their property value has fallen — then he would be offering taxpayer assistance to “ruthless borrowers,” which is an industry term for borrowers who default on their obligations not because they can’t pay but because they’ve decided it’s not in their interest to pay.

McCain’s plan would also be a gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom years. Under the Frank-Dodd bill, lenders must agree to “take a haircut” — slang for writing down the value of a mortgage — in order to qualify for federal insurance on a distressed mortgage. The lender bears an initial loss but is protected if the borrower eventually defaults. McCain would transfer that initial loss to the taxpayers. Under his plan, the government would buy mortgage loans at face value and then reduce the principal and interest on these loans to accommodate distressed borrowers. Taxpayers would take so many haircuts we would all look like Britney Spears after a three-day bender.

Defenders of McCain’s plan argue that the lenders are already getting a bailout through the Treasury Department’s purchase of mortgage-backed assets from banks and other financial firms. They argue that McCain’s plan actually saves taxpayers money by preventing foreclosures and preserving the value of the assets the Treasury Department is about to buy.

There is a big difference between Treasury’s plan to buy mortgage-backed assets through a reverse auction and McCain’s plan to buy the mortgages themselves at face value. It gets complicated, but here’s the bottom line: There must be a limit to the level of reckless behavior we are prepared to reward in a given bailout, especially if we are only improving on previous bailouts in a marginal way.

The Frank-Dodd housing bill has only been in effect since Oct. 1. It gives lenders who own mortgages ample incentive to work out deals with distressed borrowers and avoid costly foreclosures. It also provides liability protection for loan originators who sold their mortgages to Wall Street. These lenders are authorized to work out deals on behalf of investors in mortgage-backed securities (of which the U.S. government is soon to be the biggest). Most important, Frank-Dodd sets reasonable limits on what kinds of borrowers will be eligible for taxpayer assistance.

We never thought we would defend the Frank-Dodd legislation, which we bitterly opposed last summer. But it looks downright prudent compared to what McCain has proposed. McCain’s plan is a full bailout for lenders, and it cannot do much more than the Frank-Dodd bill without letting “ruthless borrowers” and other reckless types off the hook. It is time to acknowledge that the government has gone as far as it can without creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable. Give Frank-Dodd — and the Paulson plan — time to work.

No Press Conference for Palin before the election

In what is clear disdain for the press and the concepts of accountability and transparency, the McCain campaign announced there would be no press conference with Sarah Palin before the election. Similar to the hard line they used during Palin's interviews at the UN, the press should boycot the McCain campaign until they agree to set press conferences with Palin on a regular interval. Their campaign needs coverage, and we need to hear the candidates answer questions and follow-ups.
Here's Andrew Sullivan's reaction:

It seems to me that in the absence of a real press conference, the networks and cable news networks should simply cease broadcasting her speeches live and demand of every Republican guest that they explain this descent into anti-democratic territory. Bush and Cheney despise the press and despise the constitutional balances that restrict their dictatorial impulses. They don't recognize the rule of law as an impediment to the exercise of their power and they don't acknowledge any democratic input, apart from a single "accountability moment" every four years. And now they want to prevent the public's ability through the press to ask the toughest questions and toughest follow-ups even during that one "accountability moment".

This is how Putin behaves. It is anti-American. It has never been tried in modern times before. It is a chilling attack on an open society and the accountability of its leaders to the people they serve. The press has a duty to stand up against it - and to care more about the process than its own precious reputation in the mouths of Hannity, Steyn, Palin and the rest of them.

McCain's Hero Petraeus: "I Do Think You Have To Talk To Enemies"

Did I say there was a lot of news today?
Greg Sargent reports on TPM Thursday:

So General Petraeus agrees with Barack Obama -- and not John McCain -- on the question of whether we should meet with hostile enemies?

In a case of comically awful timing, Petraeus yesterday gave a talk at the Heritage Foundation in which he more or less echoed Barack Obama's views on negotiating with hostile foreign leaders -- views that McCain has repeatedly subjected to criticism and ridicule.

Asked by a questioner specifically about the disagreement on this topic that McCain and Obama had at Tuesday night's debate, Petraeus demurred a bit, but said: "I do think you have to talk to enemies."

What Petraeus said isn't a perfect endorsement of Obama's views -- he didn't specifically discuss Iran, and the question of "no preconditions" didn't come up -- but it's pretty darn close.

That's because it's as clear as day that the context specifically was the debate between Obama and McCain on this topic on Tuesday night. During that exchange, the candidates clashed on whether to meet with the leaders of Iran, and the questioner at Heritage posed the subject about talking to enemies specifically in that light.

Listen for yourself - it's a short video - and completely clear on the subject. It mirrors Obama's approach exactly, one that McCain ridicules as 'dangerous'. McCain's argument blown by his biggest hero the day after the debate. How sad. McCain has nothing to campaign with anymore.

McCain in a Bear Market

George F. Will, our conservative stalwart comes out with another blast against the McCain campaign in his latest article. He opens with

Time was, the Baltimore Orioles' manager was Earl Weaver, a short, irascible, Napoleonic figure who, when cranky, as he frequently was, would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign.

In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican. Before Tuesday night's uneventful event, gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person.

He goes on, calling Sarah Palin McCain's "Sancho Panza" and describes the McCain/Palin attempts to distract voters by focusing on Barack Obama associations as "like being savaged by a dead sheep"

It's clear that George Will has written off John McCain's campaign.
He's not the only one - the other end of the Republican Party (the populist, Rush Limbaugh side) is angry with him too. What remains is only whether he will take down the rest of the republican party with him.

Quote of the Day -

John McCain gives his opinion on Negative Attack Ads

"I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
John McCain,[The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 2/21/2000]


Video of this quote is being used in a DNC ad released a few days ago.

Global Economic Crisis Overshadows Debate

Americans woke up this morning thinking about last night's debate, but the news headlines are all about the global crisis in the stock markets. Yesterday, the Dow dropped 500 points as an introduction to the debate. The Nikki is down 9.38% overnight in a post debate curtain-call. All the other Asian markets are down as well. The British now have their version of a bank bailout plan worth $87 Billion that will partially nationalize British banks. The Fed cut their rate 1/2 point this morning in a coordinated effort with international central banks to stop the losses - trillions of dollars in the past few days alone.

Congress voted, passing legislation, but that isn't the same as implementing it. You can't unwind years of mis-management in a couple of weeks. The world markets voted today with a no confidence vote on the US economy. This ripple effect isn't unexpected, just feared.

What we have to do November 4th is clear. We need to elect the brightest, best educated candidate we can in Barack Obama and make real changes to our financial market regulatory practices to restore investor confidence. The recovery from this crisis will be rooted in fundamentals. Americans are not going to be able to 'shop' their way out of this. That card has already been played, and now we are all having to pay for it.

Debate take 2 - What's New, and What's Not

If anything should be the headliner coming from this debate it's this new statement from McCain. Unfortunately for McCain it's a negative headline.

In regard to Social Security, McCain said “we are not going to be able to provide present day workers with the same benefits as present day retirees get today.” That means that he intends on CUTTING Social Security benefits for the middle ‘working’ class.

McCain tried to claim something new when he talked about the treasury buying out ‘bad’ mortgages. THAT ISN’T NEW - it’s authorized by the bailout package voted on last week. McCain never read the 3 page proposal from Paulson; now it seems he hasn’t read the legislation he just voted for. What is new is the way he suggests that the treasury implement this; direct with homeowners like a giant mortgage company. He would effectively nationalize the mortgage industry. That's an approach most Republicans would scream over. He clearly got off his talking points and campaign positions on this one, so I expect the spin from the campaign to be revising this tomorrow.

McCain suggested the former CEO of Ebay, Meg Whitman for heading up the Federal Reserve. What she knows about money policy or economics comes from business; not on the banking side which is what the Fed deals with. She is a quite capable CEO, but without a banking background I'm not convinced.

McCain seemed on edge and uncomfortable for most of the debate. Particularly while throwing his barbs at Obama he seemed very contrived. I have to say that his "That One" snipe was well beyond just disrespecting Obama; to me is smacked of a racial cast. Remember, that's SENATOR OBAMA you are referring to. He only looked at Obama briefly, never mentioned 'middle class'. There was a strange attitude coming from McCain all night affecting the entire tone of the debate. Perhaps it was because Obama got off to a great start, scoring points early. To me, McCain came across as a mix of desperate, condescending and petty. Not likable at all, and certainly not Presidential.

Clearly Obama made a strategic choice to not contest, nor argue these types of attacks, although clearly he could have, especially since they've all been contested and responded to in the press, in ads and on the campaign trail. Most of McCain's attacks have been proven to be either untrue or misleading by independent organizations. Obama didn't play into McCain's sleaze, taking and maintaining control of the debate by choosing his attacks on McCain on his own terms. When Obama did strike, it clearly set McCain back on his heels; particularly when he reminded McCain about his 'Bomb Bomb Iran', Bagdad's next, and obliterate North Korea statements. You could visibly see the reaction on McCain's face.

There wasn't much new on Health Care or Foreign Policy. The Health care issue question 'is Health Care a Privilege, Responsibility, or a Right?' put an interesting twist in the discussion. McCain feels it's a responsibility; Obama a Right. Clearly that fits with the Obama plan's goal to cover Everyone. McCain's plan leaves it up to individual families to set their priority in the context of food, housing, and other necessities, without setting a goal of providing health care for anyone. They spent the usual time on McCain's $5000 tax credit, or dividend, or whatever he wants to call it today. At least McCain didn't try to call it 'budget-neutral' like his running mate. I call it the largest windfall for insurance companies in history. Obama missed the opportunity again to call McCain's tax on employer paid health care benefits a new tax on the middle class. Every time McCain talks about Obama taxing the middle class, Obama should be striking back with what would be a huge new payroll tax that would hit the lower and middle class workers hardest of all. Those with the best health care plans through their employers or union would get hit the hardest on McCain's plan.

The ‘other’ news is the McCains left moments after the debate ended. The Obamas hung around for more than 20 minutes, shaking hands, signing autographs, posing for pictures, talking and greeting everyone personally. Big win for Obama on that; it was noted on the news coverage as well. It was a contrast from the 1st debate, when McCain tried to act victorious at the end. Clearly, McCain must have known that he didn't do what he needed to do, that he didn't win the debate or do anything to turn the tide of the election. There was no celebration. On a modicum of hand shaking, a few akward moments with Cindy clearly being uncomfortable, and a couple of waves - McCain was gone. So are his chances November 4th.