"I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying"

More on the politics of the day (especially since lousy Kansas destroyed my bracket).  I know the GOP and Tea Partiers and rubbing their hands together getting ready for a huge gain in one or both chambers of our fair Congress.  But, 8 months is a long time.  Look at recent history, for example.  Don't forget, McCain was polling great against both potential Democratic presidential nominees, Obama and Clinton, in late March and early April of 2008 in key batteground states.  Let me be clear, I think the Dems will lose seats in the House for sure and maybe even the Senate.  However, it may not be as bad for Dems and good for GOP'ers.   

Things can and will change.  Voters attention will shift away from health insurance reform by Nov. 2010, trust me.  Surely Glenn Beck will come up with another political crisis at which he can point his fanatical Tea Party followers by Nov. 2010.  And don't forget that Tea Party candidates may run and split the GOP votes in some midterm elections.  Look at what happened in the upstate New York special election in 2008, a Dem won a seat that been held by the GOP since Reconstruction.  Financial regulation reform is the next political fight to be had and it should be a doozy.  Who knows what will be at the top of voters' lists as THE important issue when Nov. 2010 rolls around.  Memories fade.  It's only March 2010 not November 2010.  8 months till the midterm elections is a long, long, long time, especially in politics.  To quote a good friend of mine, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying."

On My Reading List: Game Change

The book Game Change by New York magazine's John Heilemann and Time Magazine's Mark Halperin is out. I have not read it. Yet. It's on my reading list though. And other's have read it. Below are just some of the reported revelations in Game Change:

- the most reported revelation: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid privately said that America was ready for Obama to be a presidential candidate because he was a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

- Regarding McCain's vetting of Palin: No one from the McCain campaign travelled to Alaska to interview Palin's husband or any of her political oppenents prior to McCain picking her as his VP running. I wonder if McCain wishes his campaign had vetted her just a little more. Remember, some things about Palin came to light after McCain picked her as his running mate. Matt Lauer asked McCain about his campaign's poor vetting of Palin on the Today show, it got kinda testy:


- On John Edwards: More than a couple people, including an at times distraught Mrs. Edwards, knew about John Edward's extra-marital affair early on during the primaries. I wonder if some of them knew before Iowa. If so, I wonder if Hillary wishes those that knew about the affair had said something before the Iowa caucuses.

- Regarding the Clintons and Teddy Kennedy: Bill Clinton, in trying to persuade Ted Kennedy to support Hillary, told Kennedy that a couple of years ago Obama would have been getting them coffee, angering Kennedy.

- About Palin: Palin didn't know why there is a North and South Korea.

- About Bill Clinton: Looks like Slick Willy had another affair in 2006. Hillary's campaign braced for the affair to come to light but, as we all know, it never did.

Man oh man, there's so much more. I can't wait to read the book. I'm not even being sarcastic, I really, really want to read the book.

Bristol Palin Opened Up a Public Relations Firm

I'm serious. I am not joking at all.

In case you didn't hear, Bristol Palin, daughter of ex-gov of Alaska and ex-GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin, opened up a PR firm. Bristol is currently an "ambassador" for the Candie's Foundation, a pro-abstinence group. That'd be like the organization the Partnership for a Drug Free America hiring Amy Winehouse as a spokesperson.

In other news that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, Meghan McCain opened up a gateway to an alternate universe where her father won the presidency and Liz Cheney opened up for the Rolling Stones.

Bristol working for a pro-abstinence group is like...[fill in the blank by adding a comment below].

About 1 Year Later: A Not So Subtle Reminder...

... of how far we've come and and the road left to travel.

I dare you to watch all the videos below. I double-dog dare you.

The below was posted here about a year ago by yours truly. I'm posting it again. I don't think that those persons featured below have changed their viewpoints, beliefs or convictions about what they believe is real/true. It's scary. It should be. Folks that hear this crap from friends or family should tell them they're morons or, at the very least wrong. Moreover, maybe, at the very least, we should be aware and worried about people like this, I know I am...

from the original post from about a year ago:
Mindy Green (featured in the first clip) is going to vote, does that scare anyone else besides me? It shouldn't matter if you are a Democrat or Republican or Independent, the type of ignorance displayed by some the people in the below clips should be combated at every turn by everyone.

- The Gift That Keeps on Giving

or alternate title, what more do "birthers" want, the above was issued by the State of Hawaii, and says that this document is evidence of birth in any court proceeding. Oh wait , I forgot, they can explain this away too, this document was obviously forged and planted by an Obama operative or operatives; or this conspiracy involves dozens of people dating back to the President's birth or; someone traveled back in time and altered the birth records to show he was born in the USA; or Hawaii wasn't really a state when he was born there because their admission into the Union was unconstitutional or; [insert any explanation other than the most simple].

First, I' m addressing this only because of the attention it's received from mainstream media. Moreover, for all those that say "the media" has a left bias I guess you don't include Fox News
 and CNN as "the media".

I don't have much of an opinion regarding the "birthers" quest to kill their own personal windmills other than it reminds me, as it reminds others, of other fairly recent conspiracy theories. Let's not forget about the 9/11 conspiracy theory that in some way the Bush administration ordered the attacks on the towers or the conspiracy theory that the Clintons somehow orchestrated the death of Vince Foster. Case in point, one of the original leaders of the "birthers" is attorney Philip J. Berg who filed lawsuits on behalf of 9/11 conspiracy folks.

For whatever reason it seems that usually the party out of power has to deal with a fringe movement that advances a theory that flies in the face of the evidence presented to date. And those in the fringe movement focus on that theory with a tunnel vision that stops them from reasonably evaluating any evidence that rebuts their beliefs. They cannot accept that sometimes the simple, straight forward explanation is in fact the true one.

Lastly, like many other recent red herrings for the GOP dating back to the campaign(Obama is Muslim, he's anti-American, he pals around with terrorists, Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, Obama is a socialist/communist) here's the GOP's problem: The GOP's numbers are dwindling so they have to try to appease this group because, let's face it, they don't have many "groups" left in their party right now.

So, here's another conspiracy theory for you from yours truly: The Dems are letting this "birther" conspiracy theory fester because they know the GOP has to deal with these wingnuts and the Dems don't. Why address a non-issue that's hurting your opposition's base and not yours?

Sidenote: Wanna go down the rabbit hole further? What if McCain had been elected, would there have been anti-McCain birthers(note, McCain was born in 1936 in what at the time of his birth was the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone on a military base)? I'd have to say, "you betcha!"

Side-sidenote: The National Review, one of the most, if not the most, conservative periodicals going today has even written that the "birthers" are wrong.

What Type of Person/Politican Is Palin?

Palin doesn't do interviews with the non-Fox-news-media, at least not since some not-so-great interviews she did during the campaign. Nevertheless, in a fascinating article about Palin from Vanity Fair, Todd S. Purdum takes a shot at giving us some insight into the Palin political playbook. To paraphrase from the article in part: she is polarizing, she takes things personally and can be vindictive, she seems to take pride in her own lack of experience and her own ignorance on certain topics and lastly, you are either with her or against her.

The article made me think of her this way: to some voters out there I'm sure she's the type of lady they'd want to have a beer with, maybe even go hunting with. Remind you of anyone, maybe a recent, former governor of Texas?

The Elephant in the Room EVERYONE Is Talking About

The elephant in the room everyone is talking about is torture.

I've gone back and forth regarding the previous administration's use of waterboarding in obtaining intelligence and Obama's actions and words on the issue. (Is waterboarding torture? Ask Christopher Hitchens. Or John McCain.)

First, a brief preface: For a campaign and administration that so closely monitored and monitors the focus of its message and talking points on most every other issue, the lack of clarity and focus of the message regarding torture is confusing. Perhaps the message has been unfocused precisely because it is such a difficult issue with which to deal.

Regarding how the Obama administration has handled the torture question let me begin by stating that I believe it was a mistake for the administration to release previously classified memos regarding torture written during the previous administration. To do so sets a dangerous precedent. What will the next administration release that's damaging to the current? Furthermore, what was to be gained by releasing the memos? If Obama truly does not want to prosecute those responsible then the release was a monumental miscalculation. The release of the memos has only fanned partisan flames on the left and right. And to what end? Does anyone really believe that those that authorized the use of waterboarding will be legally held accountable? What about those that wrote the memos that supported the decision to use waterboarding? Or those that actually waterboarded detainees?

Or if they do want to prosecute those responsible where do you start and end? Those that waterboarded detainees were just following orders but, that hasn't been a good defense in quite a while (however, there has been an attempt to grant immunity to those that used "aggressive interrogation techniques" before it was declared illegal). Those that put together the memos? Keep in mind that I'm guessing the lawyers that wrote these memos were probably told by someone much higher on the food chain to write something for the administration to hang its hat on if the legality of waterboarding or other "aggressive interrogation techniques"(a.k.a torture) was ever investigated. Plus, this is a lesson for future White House attorneys, anytime anyone wants you to write a memo to give legal creedence to what they're already doing or about to do, think twice. Would they want and/or need a memo if legality wasn't an issue? In other words, if you're a lawyer, don't put stuff in writing that could get you in trouble later. And what about prosecuting those that authorized waterboarding? Keep in mind that those that approved or at the very least knew of waterboarding included House and Senate Democrats, such as Pelosi, as far back as 2002. And what about people like Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld or even President Bush, are they some of the officials that requested the memos? All that said, it would be difficult, to say the least, to prosecute anyone in the previous administration.

The release of the memos and the insistence that waterboarding helped gain valuable intelligence by the previous administration (Cheney) may make future investigation inevitable. I wonder if Cheney calling out the Obama administration as weak on terror not even 100 days in had anything to do with the memos being released? The release of the memos perhaps was a way of demonstrating to the world what Cheney and the previous administration thought being strong on terror meant, being strong meant waterboarding detainees, some 183 times. Just speculation.

There are more finely acute questions that could be explored more closely. For example, if there was any question as to whether waterboarding is torture and/or illegal that question was presumably answered in 2006. In 2006 the Congress (and then the Supreme Court agreed) voted and said waterboarding is torture and illegal. Case closed, end of story right? Wrong. After Congress and the Supreme Court declared waterboarding torture and illegal the Bush administration declared that waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques could still be used (it's not clear if the coercive interrogation techniques were indeed used after the 2006 legislation, just that the administration thought they could be used). In doing so the Bush administration ignored the authority of Congress and the Supreme Court and flaunted its rogue, self declared expansion of executive powers. The Bush Administration, true to form, would decide what legislation to follow and how to interpret the law and it decided that the legislation didn't apply, ignoring the separation of powers.

I write "true to form" because the Bush administration had already decided, unilaterally and without authority from Congress or the Supreme Court, that it didn't need warrants to spy in the U.S. Previously the Bush Administration would seek a warrant from a special, secret court. That secret court had granted wiretap warrants for spying in the U.S. to the previous 5 administrations, including during the Cold War. This top secret court would even retroactively grant warrants, meaning that the Bush administration could start wiretapping and then seek a warrant. That wasn't good enough for the Bush administration. When the Bush administration's bypassing of the secret court came to light one of the judges of the court resigned in protest. To be clear, the Bush administration decided it didn't need warrants to spy in the United States. The courts eventually disagreed. But, I digress.

As horrid as the past administration's usage of "aggressive interrogation techniques" may have been, in my opinion, it's time to move forward. Why? I don't recall any previous administration's actions being the subject of prosecution or congressional review after that administration had left office. There's no precedent for it. Furthermore, this issue, in my opinion, is an old one to most. The populace is past it or at the very least wants to be past it. Moreover, prosecuting officials from the previous administration may be barred by laws passed as recently as 2006 and otherwise, prosecution would be extremely difficult. Lastly, there's another good reason to move forward. Because it may turn into a witch hunt and witch hunts don't end well. Innocents are usually accused and become victims. Witch hunts consume not only those accused but also the accusers.

But that's just my opinion and that's all it is, an opinion. Others have their own opinions. It's not my decision whether to prosecute or not, or if the U.S. is going to prosecute, who. President Obama will have well formulated reasons no matter which way he comes down on this decision. But it may be a no win situation/decision. If he chooses not to prosecute someone/anyone, some (the left), will say that he's not even attempting to seek justice. If he chooses to prosecute, some (the right), will say that he's doing so for political reasons and should be mindful because they have long memories and he'll eventually leave office or may not have both the House and Senate on his side. Obama says it's the Attorney General's decision but, last I checked the Attorney General serves the President, so I'd consider it still President Obama's decision, and I don't envy him it.

Lastly, and most problematic to me, is that the mantras after 9/11 emanating from the previous administration were, to paraphrase, that "we cannot let the terrorists win", that "the terrorists want to make us afraid" and that they "hate our freedom". How does the executive branch ignoring the other branches of government, unilaterally deciding what is and isn't the law and interpreting the law to its own liking "defeat the terrorists" or make us "unafraid" or preserve our freedom? The Bush administration ignored the rule of law. We should not forget that or let it happen again.

The United States is, or at least should strive to be, "a nation of laws not men". People throw that quote around all the time. What does that quote mean? It's supposed to mean that those in power are not to bend or break laws to serve or suit their desires or will, no matter how well intentioned that desire or will may be. The previous administration may have forgotten what type of nation we are, a nation of laws, not feeble, fallible, ordinary people.

Conservative Leader Blames "Moderates" For Loss

Or alternate title, would Reagan recognize this GOP?

Bizarrely, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and religious conservative Republican blamed the presidential and congressional losses on moderates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/index.html

Wow. This Republican is blaming moderates for not getting on board with social conservatives' agenda and wants to move the GOP farther right. Wow again.

Yes, some states passed amendments to ban same-sex marriage, or made English its official language or tried to ban affirmative action. Those types of issues are what Perkins is clinging to. Those issues work great for the GOP in state and local elections sometimes. And they help the GOP nationally when we're at peace and the economy is booming but not so much now or any time in the near future given our economic outlook and the fact that we're fighting two wars. The days of those "social" issues dominating the political landscape may be gone. The economy, taxes, foreign affairs, the issues that used to dominate elections, holds sway now.

For example, let's look at two of the religious conservative Republican's (I call them Pat Roberston Republicans, PRR's, as opposed to Barry Goldwater Republicans, BGR's) favorite red herrings in election years that they use to rally the base and scare the electorate generally, namely abortion and immigration. (see this blog post #22 for more on PRR's) Case in point, from 2000-2006 the GOP controlled the White House, and the Congress and arguably had a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court but couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the GOP arguably doesn't try very hard to address the red herring issues they campaign about. How many test cases did the GOP get in front of the Supreme Court from 2000-2006 to try to overturn Roe v. Wade? They scare folks about immigration, but again from 2000-2006 didn't pass anything to punish employers that employ illegal immigrants, instead they talked about building a fence. A fence along the entire USA/Mexican border! And most of the Republicans, especially the PRR's, eat up these red herring campaign issues hook, line and sinker!

The fact of the matter is that McCain did pander to the GOP base, scaring them as best he could, at the expense of moderates, moderates that can be described as Reagan Democrats or Clinton Republicans. Moderates that don't see combating immigrants, abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action, stem cell research ect., as the most important of the fights out there. I guess Perkins is frustrated that moderates weren't as easily scared as they were in 2004 by the bogeymen of a terrorist attack, the destruction of marriage, immigrants flooding across the boarder, ect, if a Democrat was elected. (Quick aside: does the state allowing same sex marriage mean that your individual church or faith has to allow it? No. Does it mean you have to attend every same sex wedding? No. Is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" semantics regarding a state providing a license for it? Yes.)

Perkins claims that he is attempting to go back to a Reagan-esque GOP. Really? Reagan advocated and passed the decriminalization of marijuana in California as governor. As president Reagan advocated and got passed the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poorest in our nation and amnesty to illegal immigrants in the USA who met certain criteria. I don't think Perkins really knows what Reagan stood for when it came to social issues. Reagan was arguably the most progressive on social issues of any president since LBJ, remember Clinton cut back on welfare when he "reformed" it. Reagan was actually consistent in advocating smaller government on economic issues as well as social issues. Reagan also balanced socially progressive stances by being a hawk.

So Perkins' solution to the GOP's poor performance in not only the presidential election but in congressional elections the last two cycles is to move farther to the right on social issues. Good luck with that. Dems, I'm sure, are quietly hoping the GOP follows Perkins' plan.

Sidenotes:

McCain versus Palin - McCain aides say that Palin, 1) didn't know what countries were parties to NAFTA, 2) didn't know Africa was a continent and not a country, 3) resisted coaching before the Couric interview.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-palin6-2008nov06,0,5597211.story

Palin wanted to address the crowd before McCain's concession speech, McCain aides said no.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/mccain.palin/index.html

A Terrible Campaign (for McCain)

Or, alternate title: Post Mortem

In 2000 I thought McCain was going to win the Republican nomination after New Hampshire. Then, McCain fell victim to Rove's, "dark arts," tactics (see this blog, post # 8) and lost the 2000 nomination to W. In 2008 he won the nomination and was leading in the polls immediately after his convention. But, after the economic crisis hit McCain and his camp never had an overall theme to his campaign or consistent talking points. Whereas, Senator Obama had his theme down, namely, "Change" and talking points such as "middle class tax cuts," "McCain equals Bush," "McCain is out of touch".

Why McCain lost can be summed up with the below talking points/attacks/missteps by McCain, Palin and Republicans generally, in no particular order. Keep in mind that all of these points/attacks/missteps were made after the Republican convention.

1)elite(s)

2) Ayers

3) Joe six-pack

4) Joe the Plumber

5) liberal

6) socialist

7) communist

8) inexperienced

9) we're for change

10) Bridge to Nowhere

11) Alaska Independence Party

12) reform

13) pork barrel spending

14) Barack Hussein Obama

15) country first

16) un-American

17) real America

18) Khalidi

19) national security

20) for the bailout

21) McCain got the first version of the bailout passed

22) the first version of the bailout is voted down

23) the bailout was a bad idea

24) maverick

25) fundamentals of the economy are strong

26) suspend the campaign

27) postpone the debate

28) economy in crisis

29) Obama will raise taxes

30) how many houses does McCain own

31) Palin/Couric interview

32) Gibson interview

33) Palin's clothes

34) the prank call

35) "that one"

36) air quotes regarding a mother's health

37) Reverend Wright

38) "my fellow prisoners"

40) at a rally McCain asks Joe the Plumber to stand up, Joe's not there

41) Palin is a "diva" (from a source in the McCain campaign)

42) Palin is a "whack job" (from a source in the McCain campaign)

43) Palin is going rouge

44) Palin 2012

45) Palin

46) Cheney endorsement the weekend before the election

That's alot. There are more but, that's all I could think of off the top of my head, please, let me know if you think of any others. A campaign cannot win with even a handful of the above much less all of them. Obama could essentially sit back and let McCain's campaign implode, each day was seemingly a different talking point/attack/misstep resulting in a disjointed, muddled and rudderless campaign.

Oh, and by the way, Obama ran an almost gaffe-less campaign after the Dem convention (with two big expceptions, Obama "spreading the wealth" and Biden's assurance of an "international crisis" to test Obama's mettle). And the economy (stupid) hurt McCain (especially the way he handled it) and helped Obama.

Sidenotes: Why didn't McCain learn from Hillary

How Hillary Clinton lost:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

And McCain didn't learn from Hillary

What if McCain had hit hard on Wright?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15191.html

McCain's pastors would have been talked about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/mccain-rejects-hagee-endo_n_103143.html

Obama Wins

Or alternate title, "It's Over, Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em"

McCain on War

Or, alternate title, USA, love it or leave it

McCain continues to speak of "winning" the war in Iraq. What "winning" means to McCain has not been explained by him or his campaign, he just says he knows how to "win" and he'll bring the troops home after we have "won" the Iraq war. I'm not even going to go into the whole, "Mission Accomplished" speech by W. years and years ago on the aircraft carrier which seemed to be a declaration of victory, or that W. and McCain predicted we'd go in, be greeted as liberators and then get out. Or that the case made for war, WMD's, was misrepresented to Congress and the American public. Let's just look at just some facets of McCain's views on war generally.

Read the below article for some insight into what McCain's idea of winning a war might mean.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/12/mccain/

The McCain idea of winning a war is outdated and inapplicable in Iraq, outdated because we have not employed such tactics as described by him since arguably Korea but definitely not since WWII and inapplicable because the current Republican administration is already in talks to withdraw from Iraq, a withdraw that is eerily similar to what Obama has been advocating for 20 months. So again, what does McCain mean when he says he is going to "win" the war in Iraq?

Lastly, McCain's disregard for dissent at home with U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the use of force abroad, is alarming to say the least. McCain seems to think that domestic disagreement with a war is "irresponsible," and no constraints should be placed on how the war is prosecuted. What is alarming is McCain's lack of respect for "irresponsible," disagreement at home. Domestic public discourse regarding the validity and execution of armed conflict being termed irresponsible is fundamentally contrary our rights of freedom of expression. McCain apparently would disagree.

Side note: Palin was prank called by two French-Canadian radio dj's, one of the dj's pretended to be French President Sarkozy. Who is running Palin's staff? This was not Palin's fault. But it's further proof that this campaign is not being run very smoothly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4aHL12vtEM

Palin's "Socialist" Alaska?

Or, alternate title: (Once Again)Why Throw Stones From a Glass House?

We've already established that if Obama is a socialist so is McCain because both advocate a progressive tax policy, just to varying degrees. (See this blog, post 20)

But what about Palin? Let's look at the following quote:

"And Alaska—we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ... It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." --Sarah Palin, explaining the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans share in the wealth generated by oil companies. New Yorker interview, Sept. 2008

Each citizen in Alaska opens their mail box and gets a check for over $3,000.00 from the government of Alaska, no questions asked, no work done by the Alaskan for the payment. Alaska gets that money from taxing oil companies. Whoops. I think that may be considered spreading the wealth around. Is it socialism? (See this blog, post 20 for a definition of 'socialism') Does it matter? Because if you asked Palin to define socialism she'd probably give a "Couric-type" answer. Lastly, this again demonstrates the erratic/maverick, different day, different attack, a campaign with no clear message or theme. And again, they're throwing stones from glass houses.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gourevitch?yrail

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

McCain, Money & Khalidi

Or, alternate title: Again, McCain Throws Stones From His 6 Glass Houses

McCain and his camp are continuing to make an issue of Obama's attendance at a going away party for Prof. Khalidi when he was leaving the University of Chicago to take a position at Columbia. Obama has eaten meals with Khalidi and his family. Obama spoke at his going away party. Why is this a big deal? Because McCain is trying to scare people again. Now he's trying to scare the Jewish community specifically and the public generally.

But, McCain has a problem with bringing up Khalidi. The International Republican Institute, when McCain was chairman (that means in charge), gave almost half a million dollars to Center for Palestine Research and Studies when Khalidi was on the board of trustees. In essence, McCain helped fund Khalidi's organization.

So, why would McCain bring this up when he's funding Khalidi's organization?

Again, the erratic/maverick McCain campaign at work, a different day a different attack, trying to scare the electorate. But once again, McCain is attacking from a glass house.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/the-khalidi-gam.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/29/mccain-pushes-obama-connection-to-khalidi/

Senator Franken?

Or, alternate title, Al Franken hates these puppies.

Al Franken campaign ad:

This is the funniest campaign ad I have ever seen. And it is a real campaign ad in the Senate race between AlFanken and incumbent Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman declared that he was going to stop running his negative campaign ads against Franken. Whether that has indeed occured is up for debate.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/mn-senate_coleman_kyboshes_neg.html

Now it's a dead heat according to fivethirtyeight.com.

Side note: Palin's top ten quotes:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm

Are they funny or scary?

Side side note: Joe the plumber (who actually isn't a plumber) stood up McCain at a campaign rally. McCain didn't know it and it's an awkward moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wci0qrI_DlI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeqoQmp9RtU

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/30/politics/fromtheroad/entry4558363.shtml

And don't forget McCain "agreeing" with Murtha's comments about rural Pennsylvania:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLVSURlFoQs

It's gaffe after gaffe for McCain. Seriously, who's running McCain's campaign, the Three Stooges?

Don't Call It a Comeback

Or, alternate title, McCain's Hail Mary Pass?

I'm not one of those that thinks it's in the bag for Obama. I remember all the folks that went to sleep in 2000 on election night thinking Gore had won only to awaken to W. for 8 years. I, of course, stayed up almost all night watching that train wreck and continued watching for weeks until it was "sorted" out. However, many, many pundits, Dems and Repubs, are all but calling the election for Obama barring some type of game changing event. Again, it's not just Obama supporters. McCain's campaign infighting coupled with all the Republican writers and politicians that have endorsed Obama seem to indicate that at least some Republicans think Obama is going to win or at the very least is the better candidate. (see here blog post 27-side note and blog posts 23 & 22 respectively). As if that's not enough, the National Republican Senatorial Commission has come out with another campaign commercial assuming a Democratic victory in the presidential election.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/NRSC_assumes_McCain_loss__again.html#comments

But I digress, even if just two of the east coast/Midwest swing states (Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Virgina - the "swing states" for the purposes of this post) go for Obama it could be a short lived contest on election night. Why? Because given the way the electoral college map stands today McCain would absolutely need to win all the remaining swing states except for either Indiana or Missouri if Obama wins Colorado and Nevada. Play with the electoral college map yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.270towin.com/

Even if McCain flips either or both Colorado and Nevada, he would still need all but one or two of the east coast/Midwest swing states.

Again, I certainly do not take a win in any state, much less a swing state, for granted because the (over?) confidence of some Obama supporters and the doubt of some McCain supporters could could seriously affect voter turnout.

That confidence/doubt could do three things, the last two being mutually exclusive. First (#1), over confidence could cause Obama supporters and Independents leaning Obama to stay home because they think their candidate is going to cruise to victory. Secondly (#2), that confidence could galvanize the Republican base and Republican leaning Independents, getting them to turn out in higher percentages. Or, thirdly (#3) and mutually exclusive with the previous (#2) possibility, the Republican doubt of a win could make some Republicans and Republican leaning Independents stay home.

What is more likely to happen and if it happened how would it determine the race? To find out what will happen we'll have to wait until election day and hope the poll numbers stay relatively consistent between now and then.

But, what would the impact be on the race if any of the above happened we can explore right now. If #1 alone or coupled with #2 happens then it could be an extremely close electoral college race. Especially key, it could turn the tide in Virgina and Pennsylvania where Obama's leads in the polls are statistically significant but not insurmountable. If #3 alone or #3 and #1 happen together then it could be a landslide for Obama.

A key factor to keep in mind: only about 27% of Americans consider themselves or identify with the Republican party versus about 36% that consider themselves or identify with the Democratic party, depending on which poll you trust.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

So even if all the self described Republicans turn out, they still may need a sizable amount of Dems to stay home to hope to achieve a victory in the swing states. So, if Pennsylvania and any of the other east coast swing states go for Obama it will likely be a long night for McCain. If McCain can flip Pennsylvania and win all other the other swing states except for either Indiana or Missouri then, McCain will have achieved a remarkable comeback.

Lastly, here's another hail Mary scenario for a McCain win that I saw in a comment to an article that was way too confident of an Obama victory. And it doesn't involve looking too much at polls and the electoral college:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/10/27/signs-it-s-over-oct-27.aspx

Essentially, the hail Mary would involve:

1) Sen. Stevens steps aside as a candidate and resigns immediately.

2) Gov. Palin appoints herself to the open Senate seat.

3) Now Sen. Palin simultaneously takes her name off the ballot for VP and accepts the Republican nomination for Senator from Alaska.

4) McCain puts Tom Ridge (former Gov. of Pennsylvania) on the ballot for VP.

Then, McCain could pull out a victory in Pennsylvania and maybe even Virgina and Florida making it a really interesting finale. It's a long shot but you never know, McCain is a maverick and apparently so is Palin.

Obama's Reversal of Fortune Or McCain's Missteps??

Or, why is McCain the underdog now?

Why is McCain now the underdog? It is true, Obama's reversal of fortunes coincides with the economic crisis becoming the dominant issue of the election. But, the economic crisis alone does not account for all of Obama's lead in the polls. To be sure, Obama helped himself immensely during the early part of the economic crisis. Equally and perhaps more important was McCain's monumental misreading and mishandling of that same crisis and the nine lost days McCain and his campaign wishes they had back.

This analysis is based on the Gallup poll only. Some folks don't like to look at poll numbers. Others do. I can tell you the candidates and their campaigns sure do. There are other polls but for the reasons laid out below, I focused on the Gallup poll.

Let's begin by looking at where the candidates were in the Gallup poll before the economic crisis really took hold of America's attention. Keep in mind that the AIG bailout announced on Sept 16 marked the approximate beginning of the public's focus on the United States' financial crisis. (Bear Stearns' bailout was in March but for some reason did not capture the American public's attention, perhaps because the loan to Bear Stearns was "only" 29 billion versus 84 billion for AIG and Bear Stearns quickly merged with JP Morgan Chase.) U.S.Gallup's polling is not an exact barometer for the outcome of a presidential election but for the most part has been accurate with 2-3 points. The exception was in 1992 but, much of that can be attributed to the factor Perot played in the election. And regardless it still predicted the winner.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/Election-Polls-Accuracy-Record-Presidential-Elections.aspx

This year's Gallup polling of the presidential election is shown in the link below:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107674/Gallup-Daily-Election-2008.aspx

The poll numbers for the presidential election from Sept. 12-14 had McCain leading 47%-45% over Obama, still within the margin of error but at the very least in a dead heat if not showing McCain slightly ahead. Then, McCain issued one of the worst proclamations in the history of presidential campaigns. On Sept. 15 McCain said, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/15/mccain_fundamentals_of_economy.html

First, McCain tried to explain the comment as a reference to the American worker. Furthermore, McCain was likely attempting to reassure and calm those that would listen. However, the line taken alone was a gift wrapped present to Obama. Now Obama could talk about McCain being, "out of touch," because McCain refused to accept that the economy was suffering. That coupled with McCain's lack of knowledge regarding how many houses he owned worked well in pushing the talking point of McCain being out of touch with ordinary Americans.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2229072120080822

McCain's camp is then in limbo for about nine days and watches as McCain's poll numbers begin to slide. Then, on Sept. 24 McCain "suspends" his campaign to address what he now calls a, "historic crisis."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVHUzxok5-YPHERoB3cSHubMFqDg

It is arguable that first, it was too little too late. But secondly, it came off as a political stunt, especially when he didn't rush back to Washington. Ask David Letterman about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html

Then the polling numbers' slide finally bottoms out for McCain and quickly. By the time the Gallup polling numbers came out for Sept. 25-27, the time period immediately after he "suspended" his campaign, McCain now trailed Obama by 8 points, 42%-50%. That difference is astonishing especially in the context of the earlier poll numbers. It was effectively a 10 point swing in Obama's favor.

And still, after the McCain campaign's initial mishandling of the economic crisis, McCain's surrogates continued to give Obama ammunition to use against McCain.

For example, his surrogates on Sept. 28 and 29 gave McCain credit for getting a bailout bill passed that did not end up passing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14088.html

On Oct. 3 a McCain surrogate talked of, "turning the page," on the economy and getting back to issues favorable to McCain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738_pf.html

Then again on Oct. 5 a McCain surrogate stated that if the conversation stayed focused on the economy McCain would lose

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/10/05/2008-10-05_insults_fly_as_barack_obama__john_mccain.html?print=1&page=all

Both statements on Oct. 3 & 5 may very well have been honest and true but, why would you say such things to a reporter? Why didn't McCain do what he had done on Obama's "need for change" talking point/issue. Specifically, why didn't he immediately try to usurp the mantle of being "strong on the economy" from Obama?McCain had arguably succeeded in softening Obama's theme of being the "change" candidate when McCain began the talking point of being the "maverick". But, McCain didn't do the same with the economy. Instead, he waited about 9 long days then tried to tackle the economic problems facing the nation by "suspending" his campaign, which again came off looking like a political stunt.

Lastly, remember that the now infamous Palin/Couric interview began to run nightly on CBS beginning on Sept. 24 and ran nightly for what must have seemed like an eternity to the McCain campaign. Why the McCain campaign agreed to an interview with CBS that could be shown on multiple nights is a question McCain's camp will be asking itself for a long while.

It was misstep after misstep and quite frankly, it was difficult to watch at times. And since then Obama has maintained a statistically significant lead in the Gallup poll. So now McCain is the underdog. But, of course it's just a poll and you can trust it or not. We'll see how accurate or inaccurate it is on election day.

Side note: Here's another perspective on the "socialism" attack/talking point that the McCain/Palin campaign has been attempting to use, without much success, against Obama. Two of the article's points are, 1) the difference between McCain's and Obama's tax plans are 4.4% for the top bracket (both plans tax the top brackets more than the lower brackets thus, both are progressive tax plans) and somehow that makes Obama a socialist and 2) Palin's state of Alaska taxes oil companies and spreads those taxes around. Each citizen of Alaska gets a check to the tune of $3,269.00.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg