Friday, October 31, 2008

What We're Voting Against

Racism is not exclusive to the Republican party, but this election has scratched the surface of many parts of the country and uncovered some really ignorant, dark stuff just below the surface. A vote for Obama is FOR so many things, but it is also a vote against this kind of ignorance.

Sarah Palin on the First Amendment

Good article by Glen Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, on salon.com today:

Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama. This is actually so dumb that it hurts:

In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Maureen Dowd recently made an equally stupid comment when she complained that her First Amendment rights were being violated by the McCain campaign's refusal to allow her on their campaign plane.

The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said.

If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.

This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.

According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?

Palin Contadicts McCain on Defense Spending

Who's running their campaign? What a mess!

Sad

Inside the Conservative Mind

The only nice thing I can think of to say about this guy, Bill Cunningham, a right-wing talk show host, is that he's honest enough to say what, I think, many conservatives really believe. Once you understand this mindset,it is easier to understand their resistance to any public assistance programs. It's not pretty, but it is probably worth a listen.

I wonder how we'll ever bridge this gap and learn to talk to each other.

Republican Programming

There was a great cartoon at the beginning of the first Bush term. An aide walks into the Oval Office and says, "Mr. President, hostile aliens have invaded our planet!" Bush says, "Looks like it's time for a tax cut."

That's what Republicans do - cut taxes and deregulate. They believe it is the solution to all problems. Now, Bush is trying to roll back more regulations in his last few months. In spite of the current economic crisis, which was caused in part by lack of regulations, he's still following his knee-jerk Republican programming.

"Mr. President, our economy is collapsing, we're in debt to the Chinese for trillions of dollars, the stock market is in a free fall, and millions of Americans are losing their savings." Bush says, "Looks like it's time to deregulate."

Here's the first paragraph of a Washington Post article today:

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The rest of the story:

Whatever You Do, Don't Look at Him . . . . Or Listen to Him

This is the latest thing to pop up this week. Obama is hypnotizing us. Here's a quote from Rush Limbaugh which would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that he has an audience of 30 million who proudly call themselves "ditto heads."

"I do remember reading that the highly educated are the most susceptible to being hypnotized, so that would put me in the risk group, ladies and gentlemen. And yet, I'm going to watch Obama tonight."

"If you do watch Obama tonight, here's the sign that I want you to make for your TV: 'Do not be hypnotized. You are listening to a socialist.'"

Watch Bill Kristol Choke on His Own Words

Bill Kristol has been wrong about everything from the Iraq War forward, yet he still maintains his position as the guiding light of the neocons. Just another indication of their contempt for facts and reality.

Rachel Maddow Interviews Barack Obama

Rachel Maddow is rising as fast as Barack Obama. They're both doing it on the strength of their intelligence. Here's her interview with Barack Obama from last night in case you missed it.



Where are the Men in Black When We Need Them?

Just when you think it can't get any crazier . . . . stuff like this pops up. These people are like the aliens in Men in Black. They're all over the place - on the highways - in the supermarkets - they're all around us. I'm going to get one of those big guns that Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones used in the movie.

Copied this article by Alex Koppleman right out of Salon.com this morning.

Brace yourselves, people: Barack Obama's real father isn't Barack Obama, Sr. His real father is -- wait for it -- Malcolm X.

No, I'm not being serious. But that is the claim being made on Atlas Shrugs, a pretty well-known right-wing blog. (How well-known? Its proprietor, Pamela Geller, has interviewed John Bolton, who served as, essentially, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations earlier in the Bush administration.)

So if you thought the paranoid theories about Obama couldn't get any crazier, clearly you were wrong. In fact, there are now so many floating around that no one can even seem to get their conspiracy theory straight. Andy Martin, the anti-Semite who was a source for one of Sean Hannity's specials about Obama, has retracted his earlier smear, when he said Obama was a Muslim; he now believes Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist, is Obama's real father. On the other hand, Jerome Corsi, the co-author of the book that launched the Swift Boat Vets, has a new article out at WorldNetDaily claiming that in fact Obama and his grandfather used to hang out with Davis at his hot dog stand in Hawaii, which was really just a front for selling cocaine and marijuana. (Corsi's "source" for this one apparently has an uncanny ability to remember in detail just how much cocaine he was buying 33 years ago, not to mention when he bought it and who he bought it from. Very believable.)

Also, Obama has apparently been using the power of hypnosis to brainwash people into voting for him. Here's a snippet from a recent post at the blog of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a right-wing group:

Is Barack Obama a brilliant orator, captivating millions through his eloquence? Or is he deliberately using the techniques of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), a covert form of hypnosis?

Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: “Sixteen months have passed (paused)…Thousands (pause) of miles…(pause)…Millions of voices….”


Obama actually said at one time: “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”

You will not choose to vote for Barack: you will “have to.” It is not a logical choice, but rather one directed by a mystical (subconscious) force.

What's Wrong With Spreading Wealth Around?

I will be so glad when November 5, gets here. Every time I start feeling good about the polls and start to envision a Obama presidency, I remember that this country voted for George Bush a second time after they had seen him, listened to him, and experienced the effects of his policies for four years. It could happen again, and I can't relax for another five days. Never underestimate the stupidity and shallowness of the American voter.

McCain's last ditch effort to label Obama a socialist and a marxist is an indication of the mental laziness of the audience to which they're appealing. After the bank bailouts, if you're going to label one person a socialist, then you must label us all socialists . . . if you have any kind of intellectual honesty. You can't condemn Obama for "spreading the wealth" after you know the facts about Palin's redistribution of wealth in Alaska. And what's wrong with spreading a little wealth around, if it means . . . .

-everyone can have decent health care . . .
-a college education is within reach of anyone who wants it . . .
-singe mothers have access to dependable child care so they can earn a living . . .
-more public funds are available for finding new sources of renewable energy . . .
-narrowing the gap between the highest and lowest paid people un companies by a few percentage points?
-getting this country out of the financial black hole that we're in.

That's a question that hasn't been asked.

How can the Republicans consistently get so many people to vote against their own economic self-interest? The people at McCain's and Palin's rallies are not wealthy, yet they boo on cue at the mention of "spreading the wealth." They cheer on cue at the mention of "creating wealth." I honestly believe that they don't have any idea of what those two concepts mean.

We need to have a good discussion on socialism, marxixm and capitalism. A place to start is the dictionary:

cap·i·tal·ism – an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

so·cial·ism – a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Marx·ism – the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

McCain is setting himself up as the defender of capitalism against socialism - a tired old Republican argument. One of his heroes, Teddy Roosevelt, described what Obama is doing - he said his main job was to defend capitalism against the capitalists.

Washington Post Condemens McCain's "As Hominem" Attacks

Friday, October 31, 2008; Page A18

WITH THE presidential campaign clock ticking down, Sen. John McCain has suddenly discovered a new boogeyman to link to Sen. Barack Obama: a sometimes controversial but widely respected Middle East scholar named Rashid Khalidi. In the past couple of days, Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have likened Mr. Khalidi, the director of a Middle East institute at Columbia University, to neo-Nazis; called him "a PLO spokesman"; and suggested that the Los Angeles Times is hiding something sinister by refusing to release a videotape of a 2003 dinner in honor of Mr. Khalidi at which Mr. Obama spoke. Mr. McCain even threw former Weatherman Bill Ayers into the mix, suggesting that the tape might reveal that Mr. Ayers -- a terrorist-turned-professor who also has been an Obama acquaintance -- was at the dinner.

For the record, Mr. Khalidi is an American born in New York who graduated from Yale a couple of years after George W. Bush. For much of his long academic career, he taught at the University of Chicago, where he and his wife became friends with Barack and Michelle Obama. In the early 1990s, he worked as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in Madrid and Washington sponsored by the first Bush administration. We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis -- or even to Mr. Ayers -- is a vile smear.



Perhaps unsurprising for a member of academia, Mr. Khalidi holds complex views. In an article published this year in the Nation magazine, he scathingly denounced Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and U.S. Middle East policy but also condemned Palestinians for failing to embrace a nonviolent strategy. He said that the two-state solution favored by the Bush administration (and Mr. Obama) was "deeply flawed" but conceded there were also "flaws in the alternatives." Listening to Mr. Khalidi can be challenging -- as Mr. Obama put it in the dinner toast recorded on the 2003 tape and reported by the Times in a detailed account of the event last April, he "offers constant reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

It's fair to question why Mr. Obama felt as comfortable as he apparently did during his Chicago days in the company of men whose views diverge sharply from what the presidential candidate espouses. Our sense is that Mr. Obama is a man of considerable intellectual curiosity who can hear out a smart, if militant, advocate for the Palestinians without compromising his own position. To suggest, as Mr. McCain has, that there is something reprehensible about associating with Mr. Khalidi is itself condemnable -- especially during a campaign in which Arab ancestry has been the subject of insults. To further argue that the Times, which obtained the tape from a source in exchange for a promise not to publicly release it, is trying to hide something is simply ludicrous, as Mr. McCain surely knows.

Which reminds us: We did ask Mr. Khalidi whether he wanted to respond to the campaign charges against him. He answered, via e-mail, that "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over." That's good advice for anyone still listening to the McCain campaign's increasingly reckless ad hominem attacks. Sadly, that wind is likely to keep blowing for four more days.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Maybe Joe the Plumber Will Go Away Forever

Poor old McCain. This is embarrassing.


Another Good Reason to Vote

My son, Patrick, sent me this little gem. It's subtle, with a powerful message hidden behind the humor.

Your neighbors are voting. You're not. That could be a problem. A video for North Carolina voters, by Dave Willis (Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Squidbillies) and Scott Jacobson (The Daily Show, SNL's "TV Funhouse").

Palin's Version of Socialism

In Alaska, residents pay no income tax or state sales tax. They receive a yearly dividend check from a $30 billion state investment account built largely from royalties on its oil. When home fuel and gas costs soared this year, Palin raised taxes on big oil and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Thus every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

She also suspended the 8-cent tax on gas.

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time.

Much as Obama explains his tax hike on the rich as a way to help people who are struggling, Palin's statement talked about the energy costs burdening Alaskans:

"While the unique fiscal circumstances the state finds itself in at the end of this fiscal year warrant a special one-time payment to share some of the state's wealth, the payment comes at a time when Alaskans are facing rising energy prices. High prices for oil are a double-edged sword for Alaskans. While public coffers fill, prices for heating fuel and gasoline have skyrocketed over the last six months and are now running into the $5- to $9-a-gallon range for heating fuel and gasoline across several areas of the state."

In an interview with The New Yorker last summer Palin explained that she would make demands of a new gas pipeline "to maximize benefits for Alaskans":

"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."

Obama's Letter to a Second-Grader

Thanks to my son, Patrick, for sending this along:

October 30 2008

WEST HARTFORD -- When Amy Mondschein dashed into Solomon Schechter Day School last Thursday, the head of the school and her son's teacher were waiting. The Enfield resident, whose son is a second-grader at the Jewish day school, was running late that day. Was she in trouble?

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-flatobama1030.artoct30,0,7881722.story

Obama's 30-minute Television Spot

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Ronald Reagan Campaigning for Obama

Obama Too Smart For F#@K Pig Strategy

Some think Karl Rove is the father of dirty politics, but it's been going on for a long time. Lyndon Johnson once instructed his campaign manager to run an ad saying that his opponent f#@ks pigs. The campaign manager objected, saying that nobody would ever believe that. Johnson said, "I know. I just want to see him deny it."

Obama's not getting sucked into denying the ridiculous slurs against him. He's just laughing them off. Good strategy. Don't give them the pleasure of watching him deny that he's a socialist, communist, muslim, or terrorist.

76 American Nobel Laureates Endorse Obama

From Salon.com - October 29, 2008

In a strongly worded letter, 76 of the most distinguished scientists in the country endorsed Barack Obama for President. While praising Obama's "emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness," the laureates' blasted the Bush administration for its disdain for science:

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government's scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

Among those signing the letter are all three of the Americans who won science prizes in 2008: Martin Chalfie of Columbia University and Roger Tsien of the University of California at San Diego who shared the prize in chemistry, and Yoichiro Nambu, of the University of Chicago, who won the prize in physics. Chalfie has recorded a YouTube video of his endorsement, as well.

While the letter that the Nobel laureates signed does not actually mention John McCain or Sarah Palin, the chemists, physicists and physiologists can't have been impressed by the GOP candidates' recent scoffing on the campaign trail at a major grizzly bear study and important fruit fly research.

Palin's Failin - Blame McCain

There's been lots of blame going around this week about Palin in preparation for McCain's assumed loss next week. McCain should be the one to take most of the blame, not Palin. Palin can be blamed for having the hubris to accept the offer, but once she was in the arena, she did the best she could. Most of us would fail under the harsh glow of that spotlight and wouldn't look nearly as good doing it. Palin is McCain's fault. He bears the responsibility for her failure. That one decision, more than anything else, should tell the voters that he's the one who's not ready to lead. It was an irresponsible choice, made for political gain without putting the country first. Anybody with a brain can see that. It's pathetic watching those poor souls, including McCain, desperately try to defend her.

Now, they're trying to blame her poor performance in her two interviews on a "hatchet job" by the elite media, and "gotcha" journalism. She was set up, they say. If she can be set up that easily by a hand-picked interviewer and Katie Couric, how in the world is she going to ride into Washington on a white moose and clean up the old boy network that's been running the place for years? If she can't handle those softball questions without preparation, how is she supposed to reform Washington? To hear them talk about it, everyone is going to run for cover when they come riding into town.

If you want to see a "set-up" go back and watch Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly, one of the meanest and rudest interviewers on television, and be impressed with Obama's intellect, poise and ability to think on his feet. O'Reilly was obviously out to get him. He interrupted him several times, raised his voice and tried to talk him into a corner. Obama never lost his cool and responded to his attacks in a reasonable intelligent manner. He was so good that O'Reilly grudgingly admitted afterward that he was impressive.

If Palin is going to take on the special interests and reform Washington, she's going to have to do it with more than a smile and a wink. If she had the intellectual horsepower to clean up Washington, she would have easily handled Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric.

McCain's Choice

This little ad says a lot in 30 seconds. Send it to your friends.

Sarah Palin's Socialism

It's so ridiculous now, Keith Olberman can't even get angry. He's just having fun with the absurdity of it all. But, here's a good talking point if you find yourself in a conversation with a brain washed Republican who goes off on a Socialist rant:

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Our Greatest Fear

Classy First Lady

Update From Palin Supporters

Sarah Palin's Fruit Flies

As you probably know, if you've been following the campaign, both McCain and Palin have ridiculed public expenditures for scientific research involving fruit flies and grizzly bears. Palin recently made a flippant response about research being done on fruit flies in Paris, France. These remarks are obviously aimed at people who are woefully ill-informed about the way things are. Here's the last paragraph of an excellent article by Christopher Hitchens about why this money is being spent on this research.

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

Read the rest of the article, and be prepared to counter stupid remarks about how are tax money is spent.

Monday, October 27, 2008

McCain Channels Chris Farley

Some people have way too much time on their hands, but this is funny:

Here it Is . . . . We Knew it Was Coming

Vote For Critical Thinking

Here's an excerpt from a recent Palin rant on the campaign trail. A video of this was previously posted. Obviously, she and her advisers believe that there isn't a shred of critical thinking left in the country. That may be true for her audiences who boo on cue, but I don't think it's true for the majority of the people in this country who must be insulted that a politician would resort to this kind of fear tactic.

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record... Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."

According to what she's saying, Obama has some kind of hidden agenda to turn the country toward socialism or communism. Actually, what she's describing here is closer to communism. Anyone who isn't going to let Palin hit their knee with her verbal hammer will quickly realize that Warren Buffet is one of Obama's key economic advisers. Why in the world would Warren Buffet sign on to a socialist or communist agenda?

Has everyone forgotten that one of her accomplishments that that McCain loves to talk about was increasing taxes on the big oil companies in Alaska? You know what she did with the revenue that was generated for Alaska? She gave everyone in the state $1,000. Sounds like socialism and "spreading the wealth around to me."

Then, there's this statement: "And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us." She would have the government make the most personal decision a woman would ever have to make. She would have the government force a woman to have a child against her will even if that pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

This devolution of our political dialogue has got to stop. Win one for critical thinking on November 4.

Chuck Hagel on the Dumbing Down of America

Chuck Hagel, in a New Yorker article, has some interesting thoughts on the dumbing down of our institutions.

For Hagel, almost as disturbing as Palin’s lack of experience is her willingness—in disparaging remarks about Joe Biden’s long Senate career, for example—to belittle the notion that experience is important. “There’s no question, she knows her market,” Hagel said. “She knows her audience, and she’s going right after them. And I’ll tell you why that’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because you don’t want to define down the standards in any institution, ever, in life. You want to always strive to define standards up. If you start defining standards down—‘Well, I don’t have a big education, I don’t have experience’—yes, there’s a point to be made that not all the smartest people come out of Yale or Harvard. But to intentionally define down in some kind of wild populism, that those things don’t count in a complicated, dangerous world—that’s dangerous in itself.

Financial Times Endorses Obama

October 26, 2008

US presidential elections involve a fabulous expense of time, effort and money. Doubtless it is all too much – but, by the end, nobody can complain that the candidates have been too little scrutinised. We have learnt a lot about Barack Obama and John McCain during this campaign. In our view, it is enough to be confident that Mr Obama is the right choice.

At the outset, we were not so confident. Mr Obama is inexperienced. His policies are a blend of good, not so good and downright bad. Since the election will strengthen Democratic control of Congress, a case can be made for returning a Republican to the White House: divided government has a better record in the United States than government united under either party.

Mr Obama fought a much better campaign. Campaigning is not the same as governing, and the presidency should not be a prize for giving the best speeches, devising the best television advertisements, shaking the most hands and kissing the most babies.

Nonetheless, a campaign is a test of leadership. Mr Obama ran his superbly; Mr McCain’s has often looked a shambles. After eight years of George W. Bush, the steady competence of the Obama operation commands respect.

Nor should one disdain Mr Obama’s way with a crowd. Good presidents engage the country’s attention; great ones inspire. Mr McCain, on form, is an adequate speaker but no more. Mr Obama, on form, is as fine a political orator as the country has heard in decades. Put to the right purposes, this is no mere decoration but a priceless asset.

Mr Obama’s purposes do seem mostly right, though in saying this we give him the benefit of the doubt. Above all, he prizes consensus and genuinely seeks to unite the country, something it wants. His call for change struck a mighty chord in a tired and demoralised nation – and who could promise real change more credibly than Mr Obama, a black man, whose very nomination was a historic advance in US politics?

We applaud his main domestic proposal: comprehensive health-care reform. This plan would achieve nearly universal insurance without the mandates of rival schemes: characteristically, it combines a far-sighted goal with moderation in the method. Mr McCain’s plan, based on extending tax relief beyond employer-provided insurance, also has merit – it would contain costs better – but is too timid and would widen coverage much less.

Mr Obama is most disappointing on trade. He pandered to protectionists during the primaries, and has not rowed back. He may be sincere, which is troubling. Should he win the election, a Democratic Congress will expect him to keep those trade-thumping promises. Mr McCain has been bravely and consistently pro-trade, much to his credit.

In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.

On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey.

He has offered risk-taking almost as his chief qualification, but gambles do not always pay off. His choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, is an obtrusive case in point. Rashness is not a virtue in a president. The cautious and deliberate Mr Obama is altogether a less alarming prospect.

Rest assured that, should he win, Mr Obama is bound to disappoint. How could he not? He is expected to heal the country’s racial divisions, reverse the trend of rising inequality, improve middle-class living standards, cut almost everybody’s taxes, transform the image of the United States abroad, end the losses in Iraq, deal with the mess in Afghanistan and much more besides.

Succeeding in those endeavours would require more than uplifting oratory and presidential deportment even if the economy were growing rapidly, which it will not be.

The challenges facing the next president will be extraordinary. We hesitate to wish it on anyone, but we hope that Mr Obama gets the job.

McCain's Strange Behavior

McCain does things that are just puzzling - things that no experienced, professional campaign manager would ever suggest. I'm the last one to bring up the age issue because I think it's not relevant unless he shows signs of diminished capacity. But, those signs are showing. He addressed his audience as "my fellow prisoners." He has started referring to Joe Biden as "Joe the Biden," and recently this comment was made in a speech:

"You know, the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words. We talk about offshore drilling and he said he would quote, consider, offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power, well it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah."

To dismiss Obama's environmental concerns regarding nuclear power with "blah, blah, blah" is troubling. The problem of nuclear waste is real, and it affects everyone. Both candidates should be concerned about it.

McCain also flippantly dismissed Obama's concern for the health of the mother in the abortion debate. He seemed to minimize it as a trivial point in the discussion.

Non-stop campaigning for over a year has to be a grueling experience even for a younger person. McCain's endurance is admirable, but I think he's showing some signs of fading. The long campaign is a test for the mental and physical endurance of the president who will undoubtedly encounter far greater stress for four years in the oval office. Obama has maintained his poise, equanimity and energy throughout this campaign. In spite of his "inexperience" he has shown that he's up to the job.

Obama is a Uniter

Here's how Obama ended his speech in Indianapolis this week. I think it is worth noting that in the middle of an extremely nasty and vicious campaign, he is still adhering to his core message of uniting the country. God knows, we'll need it after November 4.

"There are no real or fake parts of this country," he said, a reference to a Sarah Palin speech in North Carolina in which she said she was happy to be in "the real America" and praised "the pro-America areas of this great nation." Obama continued: "We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation—we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it, patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women from Indiana and all across America who serve on our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America—they have served the United States of America."

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama Draws 100,000 in Denver Today

Another Point of View on Diplomacy

Nicholas Burns - Burns was under secretary of state for political affairs, the highest-ranking American career diplomat, until his retirement in April. He is now a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.

Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?

During the five decades of the cold war, when Americans had a more Manichaean view of the world, we did, from time to time, cut off relations with particularly odious leaders such as North Korea's Kim Il Sung or Albania's bloodthirsty and maniacal strongman, Enver Hoxha. But for the most part even our most ardent cold-war presidents—Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive—decided that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America. They all talked to Soviet leaders—men vastly more threatening to America's survival than Ahmadinejad or Chávez are now. JFK negotiated a nuclear Test-Ban Treaty with his mortal adversary, Nikita Khrushchev, just one year after the two narrowly avoided a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps more dramatically, Nixon, the greatest anticommunist crusader of his time, went to China in 1972 to repair a more than 20-year rupture with Mao Zedong that he believed no longer worked for America.

All of these cold-war presidents embraced a foreign-policy maxim memorialized by one of the toughest and most experienced leaders of our time, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, who defended his discussions with Yasir Arafat by declaring, "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." Why should the United States approach the world any differently now? Especially now? As Americans learned all too dramatically on 9/11 and again during the financial crisis this autumn, we inhabit a rapidly integrating planet where dangers can strike at any time and from great distances. And when others—China, India, Brazil—are rising to share power in the world with us, America needs to spend more time, not less, talking and listening to friends and foes alike.

The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America's acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.

Talking to our adversaries is no one's idea of fun, and it is not a sure prescription for success in every crisis. But it is crude, simplistic and wrong to charge that negotiations reflect weakness or appeasement. More often than not, they are evidence of a strong and self-confident country. One of America's greatest but often neglected strengths is, in fact, our diplomatic power. Condoleezza Rice's visit to Libya in September—the first by a U.S. secretary of state in five decades—was the culmination of years of careful, deliberate diplomacy to maneuver the Libyan leadership to give up its weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism. She would not have achieved that victory had she refused to talk to the Libyans.

For sure, a successful diplomacy needs to be backed up by strong military and intelligence services to fight our wars and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. We should constantly remind our adversaries that we have other options, including the possible use of force, if talks fail. But we have put too many of the world's problems on the shoulders of our generals and intelligence officers when diplomacy—our ability to persuade, cajole or threaten an opponent—is sometimes the better and more effective way to proceed. We need to trust our ability to outmaneuver dangerous regimes at the negotiating table and in the high court of international public opinion.

Iran is a case in point. Its hard-line, theocratic government poses the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East today. It is funding and arming most of the region's terrorist groups shooting at us, Israel and our moderate Arab friends. It has complicated our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most alarming, Iran is seeking a nuclear-weapons capability that would change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Rather than default to the idea of using U.S. military force against Iran, wouldn't it make more sense for the next American president to offer to negotiate with the Iranian leadership? Here's the logic. If the talks end up succeeding, we will have prevented a third, and potentially catastrophic, war for the United States in the volatile area linking the Middle East and South Asia. If the talks fail, we will have a far better chance of persuading Russia and China to sign on to tougher sanctions against Iran. I think war with Iran would be unconscionable if we refuse even to try diplomacy first.

I'm not saying the next president should sit down immediately with Ahmadinejad. We should initiate contact at a lower level to investigate whether it's worth putting the president's prestige on the line. We should leave the threat of military action on the table to give us greater leverage as we talk to the Iranian government. And ultimately we'd want other countries with influence—like Russia and China—to sit on our side of the table in order to bring maximum pressure to bear against Tehran. But the United States hasn't had a meaningful set of talks with Iran on all the critical issues that separate us in 30 years, since the Khomeini revolution. To illustrate how far we have isolated ourselves, think about this: I served as the Bush administration's point person on Iran for three years but was never permitted to meet an Iranian. To her immense credit, Secretary Rice arranged for my successor to participate in a multilateral meeting with Iranian officials this past summer. That is a good first step, but the next American president should initiate a more sustained discussion with senior Iranians.

If we aren't willing to talk to Iran, we may leave ourselves with only one option—military action. The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks. Similarly, there will be no peace treaty between Syria and Israel if we don't support the talks underway between those countries.

In Afghanistan, the new president will face a very difficult set of choices roughly similar to those in Iraq before the surge. The brilliance of Gen. David Petraeus's strategy in Iraq was, in part, to build bridges to formerly bitter foes in the Sunni militias and to cajole and entice them to switch sides. Some are now suggesting that we should deploy a similar strategy with the Taliban rank and file.

While we should have absolutely no interest in sitting down with Qaeda fanatics or the Taliban leadership, does it make sense to try to persuade lower-ranking Taliban supporters to give up the armed struggle and commit to a democratic Afghanistan? While that's a seemingly logical goal, it would be highly problematic in the short term. We would be better served if we first built up a position of much greater military and political strength, and increased security for Afghan villagers. Talking to our adversaries is not always the answer to all our problems, especially in a highly complex environment such as Afghanistan. We have a long way to go before it might be part of a long-term solution there.

America faces a complex and difficult geopolitical landscape. The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650

More of the Same

Here's McCain's own people rebutting Biden's charge that McCain has not differed with Bush on any economic policy. Devastating response . . . . . . . . . . . for McCain.

Joe the Biden

In a campaign speech this morning, McCain had another senior moment when he referred to Joe Biden as Joe the Biden. He's been saying Joe the Plumber too much.

Joe Biden Explains VP Job to a Fifth Grader

Watch Joe Biden being interviewed by Damon Weaver, a fifth-grader in Florida. It's about 3 minutes in.

Who Are These People?

if it's really true that the election is in the hands of the "undecided" voter, our democracy is in trouble. How could a person still be undecided at this point? Who are these people? Is the fate of our country and the world really in the hands of the dumbest and least informed people in the country? Or, is the fate of our country and the world in the hands of a small group of people who take the time to gather all of the facts and make an informed decision? I fear the former, but I hope it's the latter.

Don't Write Off Palin

I was watching Sarah Palin's rally in Florida this morning. She was introduced by Elizabeth Hasselbeck of The View, who has given new meaning to the classic blonde joke. I think she might have rivaled Tina Fey for the best Palin impression. She even winked!

If Palin has really gone off on her own, as the media suggests, she is more effective in that mode. She's toned down her accent and cutesiness. I thought she did an excellent job of rebutting the wardrobe charges against her. I find her to be quite captivating even though I abhor her views. I don't think she's going to win, and she probably knows it, but I think she could be a force to reckon with in 2012 if she goes on a four-year crash course in government, economics and world affairs. A little Hillary Clinton gravitas combined with her beauty, charm and political skills could make her a formidable opponent for Obama in 2012 if Obama doesn't live up to expectations.

She's a great target for jokes right now, but I wouldn't write her off. She's been beaten down so much at this point that we run the risk of a "Rocky" backlash. We love to root for the underdog, and there's nothing more inspiring than watching someone pick themselves up and win the game. I think she's got what it takes for a comeback. Whether she can win or not is another question.

The Facts . . . If You're Interested.

It looks like McCain and Palin are relying on another fear tactic this week since the William Ayers strategy didn't work. Now it's taxes. Obama is a socialist. He's going to raise taxes on small business which will cut jobs and destroy America. I heard McCain this morning talk about "fines" for small businesses which Obama denied in the last debate. Remember McCain's "deer in the headlights" look when Obama denied it? If you want to take the time to get at the truth and the source, here's Obama's complete tax plan in black and white. Most people won't take the time to read this, which is unfortunate, but there are some interesting things here that you should know. We should also remember that a vote for either candidate is not a vote for an automatic implementation of any of their policies. They still have to get congressional approval.

Obama's Tax Plan

Waterloo

John McCain will be Tom Brokaw's only guest for the entire edition of Meet the Press this morning, and he chose to do it remote from . . . . . Waterloo, Iowa! Either McCain and his campaign managers are totally oblivious of symbolism or they're injecting some last minute humor into the campaign.

Here's a cute little tribute to McCain's Waterloo from Abba. Some people have way too much time on their hands, but lots of expertise in video editing.

Alaska's Largest Newspaper Endorses Obama

Anchorage Daily News - October 25, 2008

Alaska enters its 50th-anniversary year in the glow of an improbable and highly memorable event: the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. For the first time ever, an Alaskan is making a serious bid for national office, and in doing so she brings broad attention and recognition not only to herself, but also to the state she leads.

Alaska's founders were optimistic people, but even the most farsighted might have been stretched to imagine this scenario. No matter the outcome in November, this election will mark a signal moment in the history of the 49th state. Many Alaskans are proud to see their governor, and their state, so prominent on the national stage.

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it. It is easy to look at Sen. Obama and see a return to the smart, bipartisan economic policies of the last Democratic administration in Washington, which left the country with the momentum of growth and a budget surplus that President George Bush has squandered.

On the most important issue of the day, Sen. Obama is a clear choice.

Sen. McCain describes himself as a maverick, by which he seems to mean that he spent 25 years trying unsuccessfully to persuade his own party to follow his bipartisan, centrist lead. Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years.

It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington. You need look no further than the guilt-by-association lies and sound-bite distortions of the degenerating McCain campaign to see how readily he embraces the divisive, fear-mongering tactics of Karl Rove. And while Sen. McCain points to the fragile success of the troop surge in stabilizing conditions in Iraq, it is also plain that he was fundamentally wrong about the more crucial early decisions. Contrary to his assurances, we were not greeted as liberators; it was not a short, easy war; and Americans -- not Iraqi oil -- have had to pay for it. It was Sen. Obama who more clearly saw the danger ahead.

The unqualified endorsement of Sen. Obama by a seasoned, respected soldier and diplomat like Gen. Colin Powell, a Republican icon, should reassure all Americans that the Democratic candidate will pass muster as commander in chief.

On a matter of parochial interest, Sen. Obama opposes the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but so does Sen. McCain. We think both are wrong, and hope a President Obama can be convinced to support environmentally responsible development of that resource.

Gov. Palin has shown the country why she has been so successful in her young political career. Passionate, charismatic and indefatigable, she draws huge crowds and sows excitement in her wake. She has made it clear she's a force to be reckoned with, and you can be sure politicians and political professionals across the country have taken note. Her future, in Alaska and on the national stage, seems certain to be played out in the limelight.

Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Obama's Tax Plan Could Mean a Communist State

The news is that she's gone off the reservation and is doing her own thing on the campaign trail in defiance of her handlers. This stuff is so bizarre that it couldn't be coming from the campaign. She seems angry and desperate. Her cute accent is gone. I think she's nuts!

A Presidential Campaign Ad

Help is on The Way? Think Again!

From the New York Times - October 24, 2008

“Chase recently received $25 billion in federal funding. What effect will that have on the business side and will it change our strategic lending policy?”

It was Oct. 17, just four days after JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, agreed to take a $25 billion capital injection courtesy of the United States government, when a JPMorgan employee asked that question. It came toward the end of an employee-only conference call that had been largely devoted to meshing certain divisions of JPMorgan with its new acquisition, Washington Mutual.

Which, of course, it also got thanks to the federal government. Christmas came early at JPMorgan Chase.

The JPMorgan executive who was moderating the employee conference call didn’t hesitate to answer a question that was pretty politically sensitive given the events of the previous few weeks.

Given the way, that is, that Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had decided to use the first installment of the $700 billion bailout money to recapitalize banks instead of buying up their toxic securities, which he had then sold to Congress and the American people as the best and fastest way to get the banks to start making loans again, and help prevent this recession from getting much, much worse.

In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.

(He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)

“Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”

Read that answer as many times as you want — you are not going to find a single word in there about making loans to help the American economy. On the contrary: at another point in the conference call, the same executive (who I’m not naming because he didn’t know I would be listening in) explained that “loan dollars are down significantly.” He added, “We would think that loan volume will continue to go down as we continue to tighten credit to fully reflect the high cost of pricing on the loan side.” In other words JPMorgan has no intention of turning on the lending spigot.

It is starting to appear as if one of Treasury’s key rationales for the recapitalization program — namely, that it will cause banks to start lending again — is a fig leaf, Treasury’s version of the weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, Treasury wants banks to acquire each other and is using its power to inject capital to force a new and wrenching round of bank consolidation. As Mark Landler reported in The New York Times earlier this week, “the government wants not only to stabilize the industry, but also to reshape it.” Now they tell us.

Indeed, Mr. Landler’s story noted that Treasury would even funnel some of the bailout money to help banks buy other banks. And, in an almost unnoticed move, it recently put in place a new tax break, worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”

Friday delivered the first piece of evidence that this is, indeed, the plan. PNC announced that it was purchasing National City, an acquisition that will be greatly aided by the new tax break, which will allow it to immediately deduct any losses on National City’s books.

As part of the deal, it is also tapping the bailout fund for $7.7 billion, giving the government preferred stock in return. At least some of that $7.7 billion would have gone to NatCity if the government had deemed it worth saving. In other words, the government is giving PNC money that might otherwise have gone to NatCity as a reward for taking over NatCity.

I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to feel as if we’ve been sold a bill of goods.

Friday, October 24, 2008

What Planet is She On?

From the Sacramento Bee - October 24, 2008

Cindy McCain has accused Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama of running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."

In remarks reported Tuesday by The Tennessean, she said she initially did not want her husband John McCain to seek the Republican presidential nomination after a brutal primary struggle in 2000 against George W. Bush.

"The days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill are what we need to look to: a divided government but a government that needs to agree to disagree," Cindy McCain told reporters after visiting children at a Nashville hospital and prior to the presidential debate. "We're now seeing polarizing factions, people politicizing things that should be about what's best for America. Instead, they're doing what's best for themselves."

Whassup?

Remember this commerical?



Here's the new version:

Get the Facts

We've been hearing a lot about McCain's robocalls over the last few weeks. Here's a place to get the facts about the accusations and innuendos that are being made. Just go to this website and click on a state to hear the call and read the facts associated with it.

http://radar.barackobama.com/#factcheck

Ron Howard and a Little Nostalgia

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

McCain Adviser Endorses Obama

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

William Weld Endorses Obama

Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, a Republican, is endorsing Democrat Barack Obama for president, citing the senator's steady leadership, good judgment and ability to unify Democrats, Republicans and independents.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/10/24/former_mass_gov_william_weld_to_endorse_obama/

What The World Needs Now

Wonderful video from blog reader Mary Rauch. A brief glimpse of the world as it should be.

Good Ole Boy Newt Gingrich on the "Elite Media"

If you can't stomach 5 minutes of Newt Gingrich and Greta Van Sustren, let me summarize for you:

1. Sarah Palin's negative image is the fault of the "elite media."
2. The "elite media" in this country is the equivalent of Pravda.
3. The New York Times is the most dishonest newspaper in America.
4. The race is about dead even right now.

Ten minutes of "ain't it awful" and bashing the "elite media." Un %$@&* believable!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

More Palin/McCain Fun From SNL

New York Times Endorses Obama

Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.

The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.

As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.

Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.

In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.

Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.

Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities.

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

Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.

The Economy

The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution” — is still a believer.

Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.

Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.

Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.

Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.

National Security

The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.

While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still taking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.

Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan’s dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.

Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain’s long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.

Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America’s image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.

Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.

Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow’s bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians’ worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.

Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain’s willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.

The Constitution and the Rule of Law

Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.

Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of “black” programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.

Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush’s attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.

Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions, greatly increasing the risk to American troops.

The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women’s reproductive rights.

The Candidates

It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.

Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.

Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.

He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.

Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of “drill, baby, drill.”

Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.

Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans’ patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”

This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.

The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.

Scott McClellan Endorses Obama

Scott McClellan, President Bush's former press secretary, says he is backing Barack Obama for president.

McClellan made the endorsement during a taping of Comedian D.L. Hughley's new show that is premiering on CNN this weekend. The former Bush administration official said he wanted to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done.

He's the second former Bush administration figure this week to publicly back Obama, following former Secretary of State Colin Powell. McClellan caused bitterness among his former co-workers with a tell-all book that criticized Bush.

New Ad by MoveOn.org

Why Obama is Winning

This is an excellent article by Joe Klein in Time Magazine. It takes a very special person to stand up to someone like General Petraeus in a discussion about Iraq, and walk away on friendly terms. Just imagine yourself, with no military experience and just a few years in the Senate, engaging in this conversation. This article tells us more about Obama's intellect, his temperament, and his readiness to lead.

General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for "maximum flexibility" going forward.

Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.


Read the rest of the article.

The Eagle Endorses Obama

If some of your Aggie friends are grumpy this week, this might explain it. Another endorsement of Obama by the Bryan-College Station newspaper.

In the past 50 years, The Eagle has never recommended a Democrat for president. We made no recommendations in 1960 and 1964 -- when Texas' own Lyndon B. Johnson was on the Democratic ticket -- nor did we in 1968 -- although we did praise Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey's position on the Vietnam War. We did not in 1976 and 1980. In 1972, The Eagle recommended Richard Nixon, in 1984, Ronald Reagan. We recommended George H.W. Bush in 1988 and 1992 and his son in 2000. We recommended Bob Dole in 1996. Four years ago, the Editorial Board couldn't recommend George W. Bush for a second term, but we also couldn't recommend Sen. John Kerry either, so we made no choice.

This year is different, in large part because of the very difficult challenges facing this nation after eight years of a failed Bush administration. We are faced with a choice between Sen. John McCain, who claims to be an agent of change but promotes the policies of the past, and Sen. Barack Obama, who also wears the change mantle, but offers a vision for the future, even if he has yet to fully explain how he would carry out that vision if elected president in little more than two weeks.

Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.

Barack Obama is such a leader. He doesn't have all the answers, to be sure, but at least he is asking the right questions. While we would like more specificity on his plans as president, we are confident that he can lead us ever forward, casting aside the doubts and fears of recent years.

John McCain is a great American, no question. He served his country with honor in the Navy - enduring five years of hell in a North Vietnamese prison -- and he has represented Arizona and, indeed, the country well in the Senate. He has been a maverick at times, but his unbridled support for the Iraq War shows a lack of understanding at the weariness of the military and the country to remain much longer in a country unwilling or unable to govern itself.

Perhaps Obama won't be able to bring American men and women safely home from Iraq in the promised 16 months, but at least he is willing to make the effort.

Also of great concern is McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Like Obama, she has little experience in governing, but unlike the Illinois senator, she is a candidate of little intellectual curiosity who appears to be hopelessly unready to be president. The fact that people are confused by the difference between Palin and comedian Tina Fey's caustic impersonation is clear evidence that Palin should not be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the presidency.

We also are dismayed by the tenor of the McCain-Palin campaign. If their goal is to severely wound an Obama presidency should that come to pass, they are dangerously close to succeeding.

It is time for America to look to its future with hope and optimism. It is time to say we can be better. It is time to redefine who we will be as a leader of nations.

With hope in our hearts and confidence in our choice, The Eagle recommends a vote for Barack Obama for president.

Pit Bull and a Hockey Mom

What's the difference between a Pit Bull and a Hockey Mom?

You can feed a pit-bull for 483 years with 150 grand.

Please Take Government Seriously

I am sick and tired of people playing with government. Watching these people try to spin the Sarah Palin pick is pathetic. Is there no rational Republican left anywhere? Listen to Arnold Schwarzenegger say Palin's not ready now but will be ready by the time she's sworn in. What an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. She's going to get a cram course in government, intellect, history, judgement, civics 101 and suddenly be prepared to step into the most difficult and important job in the world.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

She Still Doesn't Get It

She's saying the same thing she was saying in the Katie Couric interview. Surely someone coached her on this, unless the whole McCain camp believes that you can solve a problem without finding the cause. According to what she said, it doesn't matter if the cause is man made or just the natural cycles of weather, we still need to do something about it. If it's caused by the natural cycles of nature, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

That being said, it is accepted scientific fact that global warming is caused by human activity. She couldn't name one cause of global warming. She's supposed to be an energy expert, yet she can't even comment on the role that increased carbon dioxide plays in global warming. She may have deserved a pass the first time, but she's been at it for a while now. If she really doesn't know, she should have found out. The only other explanation is that she is one of the extremists who does not believe the science, and she has no intention of lifting a finger to combat global warming because it would inhibit the activities of the oil companies.

McCainiacs

Just think of the possibilities at a Palin rally! Nah! She already has Joe Sixpack's vote.

Freud Would be Proud

We've all heard the story about McCain using a very baaaaaad word to describe his wife. Here's one for the Freudian textbooks.