Turn off the set

I've already expressed my concerns about Barack Obama's half hour on a bunch of networks tonight. So why does Barack Obama need to buy that time? Perhaps it has to do with the free half hour McCain got with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press on Sunday, and the free hour he's getting on Larry King tonight.

UPDATE: OK, it was a very good production. I have this habit of seeing what Barack does through the lens of the failures of our prior candidates. He's not those guys, though. It's a large part of what drew me in so early in this campaign and why my support for Obama has never waivered. I need to keep that in mind.

Cartoons and Candy

Happy Halloween.



(OK, this isn't the one I was trying to embed. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if you go to the link, above, you'll get the right one.)

Might just put you on TV

I don't understand why Barack Obama is doing the half hour prime time show on multiple networks on Wednesday.

This doesn't seem to me to fit in with the Obama campaign's strategy. The Obama campaign is very disciplined and seems to make the right choices, but this one appears to be taking a great risk of backlash against Obama spending, not to mention too much intrusion into people's relaxation time toward the end of a campaign that has become too intrusive already.

Not sure I would want to go there.

Crawlin' where the sun don't show

We've been out of town since Thursday, but apparently while we were away local Orlando news found something to talk about other than Caylee. (Hat tip: Andy Sullivan, pointing to The Anonymous Liberal) Apparently, Orlando news has found a new low.



Presumably, Barbara West is proud of herself.

UPDATE: Confronted with the disturbing fact that his "Redistributor" argument wasn't swaying me, a conservative I know just concluded his argument by pointing out that Barbara West lives in his neighborhood. Is there something in the water?

It's a long race

Not the race for the White House.

I just read a story about the Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco, where it turns out that the woman who ran the fastest time - by a significant 11 minute margin - was not declared the winner, because she didn't start with the "Elite" group.

It makes sense. The lead runners, who started 20 minutes earlier, didn't know there was someone "beating" them - they ran to beat the runners that they thought they were in the race with, and we all know from watching the Olympics this summer that even Michael Phelps swims differently depending on where his competition is. If you know someone can finish later than you and still beat you, you run differently than if all of your competition starts along with you. And rules are rules.

But it isn't fair, either, now is it?

It's sort of like winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college.

So perhaps I am actually thinking about the elections again.

But this isn't 8 years ago.

Who knows, you might like it

Via Andy:

Getting bagels

I basically grew up at the Deli Den in Hollywood, Florida. I don't think a weekend went by without breakfast at Deli Den, more often than not the Deluxe Extra Thick Challah French Toast. We'd complain - "Not Deli Den again!" And then, when we were old enough to ride our bikes ourselves, where did we go? Yeah, that's right.

Then there was dinner at Deli Den, too. A basket of rolls, metal containers of pickles and creamy cole slaw. Chicken in a pot (yes, another covered metal container), which was half soup, half chicken dinner, or the tenderloin steak, or southern fried chicken (Jewish-deli style). And potato pancakes. All on tan-colored melamine resin plates, with drinks in brown plastic glasses.

Of course, we couldn't leave without take-out from the bakery and deli counters. A dozen bagels (the favorites were the egg bagels and the real pumpernickel, not the fake rye so-called pumpernickel that the new places try to pass-off on you), along with the obligatory lox, carp (no head, please!), and some sliced deli meats for dad, wrapped in the white butcher paper pulled off the giant paper roll. Checking out up front, talking to Carmine at the register.

Deli Den has a new owner, I hear, and the location moved to Stirling Road on the other side of Emerald Hills, the neighborhood where I grew up, after a fire burned the original location on Sheridan Street. You no longer get a bucket of pickles and cole slaw at your table - the health code makes them serve it in single servings these days. And the new location lacks the grimy, cramped, comfortable charm of the original. Moreover, when I was last there a few years back, the French toast was squared off. But still, it's the Deli Den, and sadly among the last of a dying breed (with the losses of Wolfies, Pumpernicks and the Rascal House).

And the point of all of all of this, other than making me hungry despite the fact that I would no longer eat most of those things (since they are not terribly vegetarian), is that earlier today, Barack Obama stopped in at the Deli Den for lunch.

According to reports, Senator Obama had a bagel with cream cheese and lox, whitefish salad, and potato pancakes. Apparently, nobody told him about the chocolate log cake, which is, when served cold, the greatest desert in the universe. Really.

Just saying.

Here's some lousy helicopter video shot through the trees.

We're headed down to South Florida on Thursday to see Bruce perform at the University of Miami. I think we may need to make time to stop by the Deli Den.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tonight at the Amway Arena in downtown Orlando.

"If you'll stand with me, if you'll work with me, if you'll organize with me, if you go vote tomorrow and the next day… then I promise you we won't just win Florida. We'll win this election," he told rally-goers, "You and I are going to change this country and change the world."

The boss (no, not Springsteen; my wife) was there.

Nobody There

Yet another disaster in the morning on the Today show. Why have I been watching this hackery lately?

First, we have Tom Brokaw telling us how terrible the influence of money is in politics, in light of Barack Obama raising $150 million in September. The logic, apparently, is that millions of small donations, averaging under $100 and capping out at $2300 per person, would make him responsive to the crazy ideas of the public at large, rather than being beholden to the small number of interest groups that provide almost limitless funds to the RNC (and, sometimes, the DNC, for that matter), which is funding the McCain campaign's (uncoordinated!) advertising.

Of course, Tom's comment does makes sense when you realize from where he gets his information. "I’m saying that history shows us where unlimited amounts of money are in political campaigns, it leads to scandal." That, of course, was John McCain, commenting yesterday on Obama's record fundraising. When logic fails, at least Tom has John's memos to guide him.

Then there's Anne Curry telling us about "Federal Chairman Ben Bernanke". Does that make him sidekick to Emperor Paulson? (Anne, it's either "Fed Chairman" or "Federal Reserve Chairman".)

Next the Today show forced us to watch Sarah Palin over and over again in her dreadfully pointless SNL "performance". Was it even funny? I've seen the clips about 5 times already - because they're on constantly - and I haven't really been entertained by it yet. That's as much an SNL critique as a Palin critique. And here's the Palin critique that we're not supposed to make because she picked on it herself in the show - specifically, that she can find the time to go on SNL, but cannot find the time to do an actual press conference. It's pretty sad that the media can revel in this nonsense and not express any frustration with the disrespect shown to them and the voters through Palin's refusal to submit to the most basic of interviews and press conferences, and lays to bare the dishonesty of her campaign's treatment of the public's right to know anything and the media's complicity in that failure.

Finally, there was a half-decent, if not that informative, interview of Barack Obama by Matt Lauer.

But, the balance of the first half hour was complete nonsense.

Again.

A man playing G.I. Joe

Joe the General, a/k/a Colin Powell. Because even the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State is a regular Joe.

Powell today endorsed Barack Obama in very strong terms. The strength of the endorsement and its moral foundations and thorough reasoning are stunning. Colin Powell has his flaws - he was a dupe of the Bush Administration in pushing for the Iraq war (which itself may lend some credulity to his reasoning), and has not been willing to stand behind his true views for far too long (sometimes explained by him being a "good soldier"). But this is an incredible moment.

Jokes made

I cannot wait for the election to be over so that I can start adding some more humor back in here.

Fire on the cross

Andy Sullivan today:

My view is that McCain will win Ohio. He will win all of Appalachia. There was only one reason white Appalachian Democrats suddenly discovered Hillary Clinton was their idol, having despised her for years. It's the same reason McCain will win Ohio. It has nothing to do with Clinton or McCain.

I keep telling myself that these folks were never really Democrats in the first place, that they didn't vote for Kerry or Gore anyway, so they're just something to overcome by mobilizing the rest of our voters. I hope that is right.

ELECTION DAY UPDATE:  Andy was wrong about the result.  Barack Obama won much of Appalachia, including Ohio.  He may have been right about why white Appalachian Democrats discovered their love for Hillary Clinton, but he didn't realize that Obama could and would transcend that, whether due to the dignity of his personality, the financial events of the past two months, or the ridiculousness of McCain and Palin.  But this reflects why I backed Obama - only he had had the ability to change the map and to turn away from the politics of the past.  This is a tremendous, exceptional day for America.

Scandal ridden pol

Tim Mahoney is the "Democrat" who barely scraped by with a victory over the stand-in for Mark Foley following his disgraced exit from Congress two years ago. The Herald-Tribune has the story about how the DCCC bailed on the true Democrat during the primaries to support this former Republican, based largely on the fact of his tremendous wealth. If you're not already aware, Mahoney is now under investigation for using campaign funds as hush money for his mistress.

When you play with dirtbags, you get dirty.

And now, the Democrats will be handing this seat back to the Republicans.

Good job, Rahm.

Update: As soon as I posted this, I looked over to the sidebar and I see that Josh has a post up on Mahoney, who apparently in response to a question about how many affairs he has had, responded "You're asking me over a lifetime? I'm just saying I've been unfaithful and I'm sorry for that."

Please drop out of the race now. The party cannot hesitate to toss this guy out in the street. Show more backbone than we have with Lieberman. Please.

A couple of men talking

Not so sure whether I am going to liveblog tonight's debate - I'd almost rather not watch at this point. But I do need an opportunity to use the headine above for this post, and this is the last debate and the format that is supposed to allow for a conversational exchange - the phony, collegial sit down at a table format, just Bob "Wes is Mean" Schieffer, the Original Maverick, and That One.

With respect to the prior debates, I spent a good amount of time criticizing the moderators after the debate. This time, I expect that Bob Schieffer will go into this debate believing that it is his opportunity to give McCain the chance to get back into the race. Everything tonight will be about that. He's already said that tonight's debate will have a clear winner. Given that Obama's strategy is to run out the clock on McCain, that must mean that Schieffer is going to give McCain a huge assist and the opportunity to bloody Barack Obama, or Schieffer is going to use his questions to do it himself. Here's my call on one question: "Senator Obama, why do you continue to claim that the Surge is a failure when all objective observers think it is wildly successful?"

We shall see. Soon.

And before I forget, since the debate is at Hofstra, and I won't probably ever get the opportunity again, and even though he's not there anymore -- here's a shout-out to Ross!

OK, I'll liveblog it! All times are PM!

9:01. It's all domestic, so my predicted question is wrong.

9:04. Freddy Mae? And McCain is still stuck on his stupid mortgage purchase plan. He never learns, does he? And on the broader topic of his argument that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (and CRA) are responsible for this mess, two points: (a) if they were, he has nothing resembling clean hands, given his campaign manager Rick Davis' status on the lobbying payroll of FNMA, and (b) the argument is also just complete bunk [link added] - "Fannie" and "Freddy" didn't cause this mess, it's just an excuse to blame Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and the Democrats. Fannie and Freddy aren't perfect, for sure. But the argument is complete BS. IndyMac was one of the first banks to collapse, and it was created because Fannie's and Freddy's standards were too tough. Explain that one, Mr. McCain.

9:07. Gosh, this is boring. Obama running out the clock. Now, McCain is working on his attack - No, I don't want to ask Senator Obama a question. What?! That's cause he cannot look him in the eye. He says "you" about Barack, but doesn't look at him. Joe who?

9:09. That's cause Joe is watching Senator McCain's ads. Ouch! And now Obama is shredding him on the fact that Obama is a better tax cutter. Awesome.

9:11. McCain is incoherent, and makes absolutely no sense. He argues his talking point despite the fact that it bears no relation to anything. Barack is taking him to school very mechanically here.

9:13. McCain keeps tossing out the same nonsene. It's so apparent at this point. He's a weakling. And what's wrong with spreading the wealth? What the heck does he mean? (I know, it's his subtle "Obama's a communist" spiel, but wouldn't most people now like a bit of the wealth?)

9:14. Schieffer back with the line from both previous debates that you guys need to agree that we are going to cut back programs. That's so foolish. Obama is responding as he has to - I believe in pay-as-you-go, but I won't agree to a blanket statement, and a focus on the need to invest in America and how it will save us in the future. Exactly. "We are going to have to embrace a culture of responsibility."

9:17. McCain. Huh? Let me get in some talking points. Blah, blah, blah. "I know how to blah blah." He's so full of it.

9:19. Like I said already, just an old time technical schooling of McCain by Senator Obama. He's a bore, yes, but he's letting McCain make a fool of himself while Obama just looks cool, collected and competent.

9:20. I'm now on hold with the debate because all of the women in my house are fighting. This is a lot more exciting than the debate, but I don't think screaming and tears would go over well in the debate. Times will likely be a bit off for the duration, but I'll try to adjust on the fly...

9:22. I'm not President Bush. That was McCain's big shot there. Pretty flat, I think, although the press is sure to make a big deal about it. If handled right, it's the perfect setup for a devastating Obama ad tomorrow.

9:23. "Even Fox News disputes it." "On the core issues ... you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush." But don't give him credit on torture - he doesn't deserve it, McCain's been a hypocrite on that issue, his votes and deeds not matching his words.

9:25. Schieffer screws the whole moral equivalence thing. Just as bad as my post from the other day. Now we get McCain's crocodile tears on the negative tone of the campaign. And it's all the fault of John Lewis. McCain's a baby, a schmuck and a liar. McCain can prove that Obama hit McCain hard on issues - those negative ads - so his accusing Obama of being a terrorist and teacher of sex to little kids is all ok. He's really playing the victim here? Can he possibly even come off as credible on this?

9:29. America isn't interested in our hurt feelings. Obama pointing out that McCain is a baby, and he's an adult.

9:31. Joe the Plumber again? And he's trying to force Obama to condemn and repudiate John Lewis? Isn't Lewis the guy McCain said is one of the 3 people he'd look to for advice at the Saddleback Forum?

9:32. Good, Obama takes it right back to McCain on why Lewis said what he said. (Should have mentioned Saddleback, though.) Again, Obama looks like the grownup, and McCain is a whining baby.

9:34. McCain is proud of those people at his rallies? He knows what is going on, and he's pretending that everyone is a great patriot. "I'm not going to stand for it...!" Geez, how long can McCain play this victim card? Obama keeps trying to get this to issues, and McCain keeps whining. And he's not the one who has a justified right to whine. What a joke.

9:36. Ayers. ACORN. They're destroying the fabric of America!

9:39. Obama listing the people that he trusts. And this says more about you than it says about me.

9:40. McCain won't give up his stories. He's not interested in Ayers, but he won't stop talking about it. He's an angry old man. Obama is reduced to laughing at McCain.

9:42. Tried to check in on TPM during this description of Joe Biden. Snore. But I can't get TPM to open up. Help me!

9:43. McCain on Palin as a reformer. Did I mention that McCain lacks any credibility? He's so proud of her. And Todd, too!

9:45. How does Obama thread the needle on being polite about Palin and succeed, yet McCain lacks the ability to even try to be nice about Biden. McCain is so incredibly tone deaf.

9:47. Can you give us a specific number on how much you can reduce foreign oil dependence? What kind of question is this? And what does McCain mean by implying that only extreme environmentalists want nuclear power to be safe? Did I hear that right?

9:52. McCain to condescend about Obama's eloquence. He's a nasty man. He's been coached to have a nasty hit in every sentence ("Senator Obama, who's never traveled south of our border"). Who told this guy that he needs to be consistently rude? Does anyone want that in a president?

9:56. Obama cannot help but laugh at what a schmuck John McCain has become.

9:58. What's with the freaky blinking thing McCain is doing. The bitterness is screwing up his physiology. I cannot pay attention to anything he says because he's giving me the creeps with that blinking. JOE THE PLUMBER IS BACK!!!

10:01. Barack talks to Joe now!

10:04. Joe, Joe, Joe! Joe the Plumber, Yes We Can!

10:05. Will Obama's health plan provide McCain with some hearing aids so he can actually respond to what is said?

10:06. It's all bad because the Democrats have been in control of Congress!

10:07. That includes you, Joe!

10:08. McCain won't apply a litmus test! He doesn't need to pander to the right any more 'cause Palin can hand him the right wing? Oh, I see, no litmus test, but someone who supports Roe cannot be qualified! McCain once again tries to have it both ways. What tortured logic. (Like how I got the issue of torture into the conversation about having it both ways?)

10:10. Joe the Plumber for Chief Justice!

10:12. Obama's a baby killer!

10:14. Am not. Stop lying about me. Obama is just destroying McCain on every issue that McCain thinks he can win on.

10:16. Don't listen to Obama. He's eloquent.

10:18. Something about teachers. I don't know. Talking, talking, what's he saying? Snore.

10:21. No tests for teachers!?! That's change we can believe in! I'm just completely baffled by McCain. What planet is he from? He really couldn't have meant that. Could he?

10:23. All I can think is that, when faced with a crisis, McCain will blink. And blink. Blink, blink. Aargh. Please stop blinking!

10:27. Thank you, we're nearing the end! Closing statements!!!

10:29. My dad and my granddad were admirals, dammit! Make me president!

10:30. McCain isn't wearing a flag pin, Obama is. Conclusion: Obama isn't patriotic!

10:31. Schieffer wasn't horrendous; by far the best moderator so far, although the debate was pretty boring. I still don't forgive the Wes Clark thing, but Schieffer was respectable here as someone who didn't make himself the center of the debate and was able to get some sort of exchange between the candidates.

Postscript: On CNN, Bob Bennett just said McCain was dignified. Republicans see the world differently, don't they? And on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell-Greenspan is spinning the debate for McCain.

They just want to keep this as a race, but it should be over. It wasn't really close; McCain was nasty and malicious, Obama was level headed and smart. The talking heads keep saying this was McCain's best debate, but it wasn't, it was possibly his worst. His demeanor was awful, and I'm confident that people who watched the whole thing are going to agree. It's not about how many times you jab at your opponent, it's about what it shows about the knowledge and character and discipline and honesty of the candidates, and on that front, Obama blew McCain out of the water.

Tomorrow, once the polling on the debate comes in, just watch all of the talking heads change their minds and tell us how McCain lost because of his nasty demeanor.

UPDATE: Told you so.

Put it in drive

After holding out against the video game revolution for years, I finally bought a PlayStation 3 about a month ago. Picking the PS3 was a tough decision once I decided to get a system - it wasn't designed strictly for younger children, like the Wii, and it had more, um, violent titles than the other systems. But the guys at the store pointed out the incredible leap in sophistication of the system over the XBox360 and the Wii, and suggested that I get Burnout Paradise as my first game, since the kids would enjoy it, there are no guns, no real violence other than car wrecks, no complicated strategy, and just a heck of a lot of fun. And they were right. It's graphically amazing and the scenery is beautiful to look at, with an unbelievable level of realism to it. And it doesn't even use the full HD capabilities of the PS3. And it just cracks the girls up, too.

And now I'm even happier that I picked Burnout Paradise. I've got to take a drive and try to find some billboards. I wonder, do I need to wait for October 20, when early voting begins in Florida, to see the billboards here, or has early voting has already started in Paradise City?

It's on we roll

Wow! Among other things, although this is only a small part of the swing in favor of Obama, Senator Obama has been helped by the fact that elderly Jewish women would rather side with Sarah Silverman and, as pointed out by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post today, against Sarah Palin.

To top it off, polls continue to show Obama widening his lead in other battleground states, like Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota. And it is important to recognize that Florida is so diverse that it is really hard for any single poll to capture everything that is going on.

Eggs, hatch, count, and only then chickens, and always in that order. Lots can happen in the next few weeks. But this is really good news.

They've got the game rigged

I have been trying to understand how the McCain campaign and the RNC can be running joint commercials against Barack Obama. I have understood that there were prohibitions against coordination between a campaign and the party committee. Otherwise, wouldn't the contribution limits that the campaign must adhere to be pointless, to the extent that McCain (or any other candidate) could use the much more significant funds contributed by the same people to the RNC?

Has something changed? (Did McCain write a loophole into McCain-Feingold that exempts himself from coverage?)

This is a serious question. And it turns out that those prohibitions on coordination between the campaign and the party are pretty flimsy.

Advertising Age recently had this to say:

The McCain camp will get $85 million in federal financing, and typically the party would only be able to spend $19 million on any effort it coordinates with the McCain campaign. By not coordinating messages with either the McCain campaign or the Republican National Committee itself, the GOP independent-expenditure unit can raise and spend money that will come in handy to a McCain camp hemmed in by federal financing rules.

By reading that technical description of the rules by Advertising Age, however, one may get a bit too favorable an impression as to the structure of fundraising and spending limitations in the campaign finance laws.

But one (but not "That One", who actually gets it) would be wrong to believe that those rules work in a way to prevent unethical campaign financing behavior, rather than reward manipulation of rules that look like they were designed expressly for manipulation. As described in this article in Bloomberg by Jonathan D. Salant, entitled "McCain, Obama Avoid Spending Limits, Undermine Public Financing":

The RNC is allowed to spend $19 million of its money in coordination with McCain's campaign. On top of that, McCain's campaign and the Republican Party can split the cost of so-called hybrid ads promoting both the presidential ticket and the party. There's no limit on how much party organizations can spend on efforts that aren't coordinated with the presidential campaign committee.

"It's fully understood that all this money is being raised to be spent on behalf of McCain's campaign," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington-based advocacy group that supports stronger campaign finance laws. "That entirely defeats the public financing and the spending limits."

So there is some coordinated advertising permitted. But even worse, this makes clear what we already know - that the entire campaign financing system is broken. Barack Obama stepped outside of the system so that he could compete, and John McCain feels no compunction about avoiding the intent of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance statute that bears his name, even through raising funds for the RNC on his campaign website, which funds will be used in "uncoordinated" attacks on Senator Obama. On the one hand I want to point out that, as with torture, gay marriage, environmental protection and numerous other issues, campaign finance reform provides another example where McCain's purported convictions on an issue (and his sponsorship of statutes) seem to bear little relevance to his actual deeds. But this isn't just a McCain problem, it's an institutional one.

It's clear that if a campaign and the party committee are coordinating on the spending of $19 million, they will be using the opportunity to coordinate more broadly to enable the independent-expenditure unit to go off and spend on its own in a way that ties in precisely with the candidate's campaign needs.

The campaign finance laws are a sham. Like we didn't know that already.

A man of confused and sad nature

General Petraeus is also an appeaser (based on the Palin/McCain rules).

Pete and Manny

Despite the current polling that puts Florida slightly pro-Obama, Amendment 2 is the one factor that can still enable McCain to win in Florida, by mobilizing the radical right vote (to the extent that Palin fails to do so).  

Proposed Amendment 2 provides:

"In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." 

Beyond the impact on the presidential election, Amendment 2 is a disgrace, a horrible attempt to constitutionalize discrimination. Defeat it.

Keepin' up my solid citizen front when I'm really just bought and sold

As Steve Benen points out, we now have the first presidential ticket where both running mates have been found to have violated ethics standards before a national election.

Congratulations, McCain/Palin. That's leadership you can count on.

Mavericks.

Some live life with eyes that don't see

As the McCain campaign continues its inexorable descent into incitement of hatred and violence, fear mongering, lying and character assassination, and projection of all of their failings onto Barack Obama, the chorus of complaints that the campaign has turned too nasty and negative continues to rise. However, much of that charge relies on a foolish false equivalence in order to pretend that the problem is on both sides.

Thus, for example, a charge by the Obama campaign that McCain's proposals are a dangerous continuation of failed Bush policies are deemed to constitute equally negative charges when compared to the McCain campaign's encouragement of views that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim terrorist supporter.

Glenn Greenwald did an excellent job of pointing out the ridiculousness of this false equivalence in connection with the media's distorted quest for "balance" in their reporting.

Unfortunately, I've seen this distorted conception of false equivalence too often in recent years from members of various interest groups that, for one reason or another have conservative leanings, as far ranging as the medical community, business owners, and our local rabbis. Following Katrina, in particular, we heard non-stop talk radio and TV talking heads - and even sermons - bemoaning the so-called "blame game," and particularly comparing that Democrats' demands for accountability from the Bush Administration as a result of the Administration's Kartina inaction, with the genuinely nasty, vile charges by Edward Klein about Hillary Clinton in The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President.

Common sense tells us that these are not the same - one is a complaint about a demonstrable failure and a demand for action in the face of a disaster, the other is a specious bit of politically motivated character assassination with no basis in reality.

Similarly, the last few weeks have given us ongoing complaints that the current elections have taken on a nasty tone on both sides, regardless of the fact that Barack Obama is criticizing John McCain's policy proposals whereas John McCain and his surrogates (for whom he is responsible, no matter how he would like to pretend he is not) are attacking Barack Obama's patriotism and his religious views while also explicitly lying about Obama's legislative history.

It's an embarrassing attitude from people who should know better. But, of course, in my community these groups voted for Bush based on selfish economic interests - we're not allowed to say that - couched in a professed (and sometimes genuine, despite being wrong) belief that the war in Iraq was good for Israel's security (certainly tort reform has nothing to do with the right wing views in the medical and business communities, right?) - despite the fact that it has been nothing of the sort - and are inclined to vote for McCain this year because of an obsession with the Iranian threat and a desire for an aggressive posture toward Iran. Remarkably, they are able to get beyond the false equivalencies when, for instance, the issue of the Palestinians comes up. In fact, these same people equating political criticism by Barack Obama with character assasination by John McCain, condemn anyone who falls for the false equivalence of comparing Israeli actions, which are always in self defense and accordingly are always properly measured and balanced, and Palestinian actions, which are always based purely on hatred and a desire to eradicate Israel from the map. Only a fool, or an extreme liberal Democrat (what's the difference, right?), would buy into the argument that there's any equivalence here, right?

The charge of equivalence at the end of the day is just a defense in order to avoid facing up to the fact people are backing a contemptible candidate running a hateful campaign, to get off the hook since "both candidates are doing it."

But, of course, they're not both doing it.

Like a bumbling clown

Ann Curry just now on the Today show, to Chuck Todd: only John McCain is presenting new plans to save the economy.

Ann Curry is making a habit of this nonsense of implying that McCain is working on solutions while Obama is doing nothing. Apparently for our media overlords, reckless action is more valuable than considered, stable behavior.

She doesn't have a clue.

Cynicism

Hilzoy has a good post over at The Washington Monthly debunking McCain's claim that Senator Obama has never taken on the leaders of the Democratic party. Among other things, Obama voted against Democratic leadership when the Democratic leadership opposed a Republican amendment that would strengthen an ethics bill dealing with earmarks. The result: a stronger ethics bill that expanded the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules.

And speaking of earmarks, McCain's charge in the debates that Obama pushed a $3 million earmark for an overhead projector was equally nonsense. The funding request was to help rebuild Chicago's Adler Planetarium, the oldest planetarium in the U.S., and the "overhead projector" is the thing that runs the whole planetarium.

At this point, you must assume that nothing that McCain or Palin say is true.

Hooray for Tom, up there for all to see

As I mentioned a couple of times already, Tom Brokaw was just awful in his performance as debate moderator Tuesday night. He was, as I so artfully and politely said, pissy. But beyond that, his questioning showed a level of presumptuousness and condescension that barely covered up the cluelessness behind his questioning.

So, he insisted on a commitment to solve the social security and medicare problems within two years, with no understanding that there is no institutional problem with social security other than the fact that the current administration has been robbing the social security fund in order to support the government's overspending elsewhere, or that if a comprehensive health care solution is created by an Obama Administration, the medicare problem would be resolved in concert with that.

Even worse, he continued the foolishness from the first debate of insisting that the candidates tell what programs they would cut as a result of hard economic times, showing a complete lack of understanding that economic hard times are the absolute worst time to cancel or cut back on essential, progressive programs.

But Tom Brokaw is revered and must be right because he is serious.

Buy a big house

I'm just trying to make sure I understand this.

John McCain's pander, um, plan (plander?) - as McCain pointed out, it's not That One's plan or George Bush's plan - to save the economy that he snidely introduced at the second debate is to spend an additional $300 billion dollars to buy out mortgages and issue new, lower mortgages with lower principal amounts to people who cannot afford their existing mortgage.

So, in short, he's encouraging people to buy too much house that they cannot afford, because if they cannot, the government will step in and pay off enough so that the home is affordable. He would hand taxpayer money (or print new money and create inflationary pressure) over to irresponsible borrowers and reckless, incompetent or corrupt bankers. If Barack Obama suggested anything like this, he would get pilloried. But I guess you have to play to your base, don't you?

Is there anything McCain will not say to try to win this election, and does he ever think before he says anything?

I also note that the Ann Curry interrupted Joe Biden this morning on the Today show to talk about McCain's silly proposal, and claimed that Senator Obama didn't have a counterproposal - as if he should have a prepared counterproposal to a completely idiotic proposal - showing how she understands issues as poorly as Tom Brokaw. Here's the clip:

(To be clear, other than the fact that it involves an attempt to address problem mortgages, McCain's plan bears no relation to what I reluctantly proposed a couple of weeks ago as a preferable option to the bailout proposal that was on the table - I never suggested forgiving the obligations of home buyers who couldn't afford their mortgages; instead, the government would have been buying the paper and foreclosing on those mortgages so that the government owned the property, then creating an opportunity for the home owner to rent and possibly buy back in when the market made sense economically to do so. My plan required responsibility and spread pain, created incentives for the free market to take the place of the government, and did not reward bad behavior of either the banks or the borrowers. McCain's plan fails miserably on all of those points. But, as McCain would have told you in the past, he really does not understand economics.)

Update: We find ourselves in remarkable times when the National Review and I are in almost complete agreement.

Preaching the word of prosperity

I referred to this last night in my post on the second presidential debate, but I wanted to talk a bit more about how Barack Obama was given a gift with the question on saving social security, and how he failed to take advantage of that opportunity and slam the door on McCain.

First, to Tom Brokaw's question:

"Instead of having a discussion, let me ask you as a coda to that. Would you give Congress a date certain to reform Social Security and Medicare within two years after you take office? Because in a bipartisan way, everyone agrees, that's a big ticking time bomb that will eat us up maybe even more than the mortgage crisis."

In my mind, this was far and away the worst question of the night. It was presumptuous and based on a false premise, and not even a town hall question. It's where I gave up on Brokaw; up until then I had been willing to give him a bit of slack with his pissy attitude about sticking to the allotted time and following the debate rules.

But the real problem on this question was that Obama bailed on the issue and used his time to cycle back about tax policy; that is, he got so caught up on correcting McCain's falsehoods on Obama's tax proposals - and mangled his response so badly anyway - that he failed to score points on McCain on a crucial issue, specifically social security privatization. Obama should have used the opportunity to point out that the purpose of social security is to provide a safety net that is, as the name says, secure, as in not at risk. Point out that John McCain's answer to "fixing" social security is to destroy it by forcing privatization and the investment of retirement funds in the stock market, and then point out the obvious consequence of McCain's privatization plan, the bloodbath that those "private accounts" would have taken for most Americans after these last couple of weeks.  If we had adopted the Bush/McCain social security privatization plan, the retirement accounts of people approaching or in retirement would be effectively wiped out.  This is where the rubber hits the road for working class Americans with respect to the current economic crisis. It would have been devastating to McCain.

Instead, Senator Obama let John McCain off the hook, and instead of having to try to defend his defenseless policy, McCain was able to babble about knowing how to solve the problem and (making the point that he is either really experienced or really old, or just incapable of coming up with an example less than 20 years old) getting Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill in a room together to work out the issues, without having to address any substance whatsoever, not in the least the substance of McCain's completely asinine policy of privatization of social security. To top it off, McCain's claim to a unique ability to work with both sides (actually, what he said was that he was capable of angering both sides - he brings consensus on the issue of believing McCain is a jerk!) belies the fact that he shows nothing but contempt and disrespect for his opponent. Work with your opponents? Being contrarian does not make you capable of working with people you disagree with, it just makes you capable of disagreeing with people that most other people don't expect you to disagree with.

Social security is a critical issue, particularly in Florida. Senator Obama needs to be making a big issue about this. McCain is not interested in "solving" the "problems" with social security, and his policies would destroy income security for retirees. Florida may be leaning toward Obama now, but Obama needs every vote he can muster here if he has a shot at winning the state. The Lieberman factor is still in play, and lots of Jewish votes are still going to go to McCain. The gay marriage amendment in Florida is going to mobilize the fundamentalist right in a way that I have to believe is being underestimated by the polling. Social security is an issue that can put Obama over the top, but Obama has to be willing to take this issue on.

Across the great divide

As my wife just pointed out, McCain talks about how he has such great experience reaching across the aisle. But he cannot even treat Barack Obama with respect in the debates.

"That one," indeed.

Talk of the Town

Not too much live blogging. But a couple of points.

First, Obama is much more presidential. Yes, I'm biased, but I think that is an honest assessment.

Second, Obama blew a golden opportunity on Brokaw's ridiculously presumptive social security question ("will you commit to reforming social security within 2 years?"). Obama focused on tax policy. He should have drilled into the fact that McCain's social security policy would be to privatize it, and encourage or force people into "private accounts" invested in the stock market. No way McCain could have dug out of that ditch given the last week in the stock market.

Third, McCain has a remarkable ability to assert that Obama said the opposite of what he just said moments before. Is this even credible?

Fourth. I was critical of Gwen Ifill for being useless. But, I would take that over Brokaw's attitude any day ("Senator Obama, stop talking please;" but silence on Senator McCain going over on time - and yes, I could see the red lights). On the other hand, "Not you, Tom"? What was that comment by McCain all about?

Fifth, when McCain speaks of how he acted responsibly during his military career, I would recommend the article on that in the current Rolling Stone. Gives you a bit of perspective on the honor with which McCain conducted himself in his military career.

And sixth, "That one"? Really?

UPDATE:

A special trip here

The Great Schlep.

Mr. B.M.O.C.

I have mixed feelings about tonight's debate.

My first instict a half hour into this debate was that Joe Biden was coming across as horribly as I imagined. He seemed politically calculating and cowardly. He fudged his way around his vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill, and - unbelievably - he appeared to agree with Sarah Palin by opposing gay marriage.

As a related aside, worthy of a post all its own, Gwen Ifill was just horrendous in her permissiveness, allowing Palin to present herself as much more accepting on the gay 

marriage, and broader gay rights, question, than Palin's actual policies and views actually make her. Ifill's permissiveness and failure to follow up was characteristic of the debate as a whole. I'm not sure if the failure was Ifill or the debate rules, but if her performance was a reflection of the rules for the debate, then who needs a moderator? Might as well just put up a screen on the wall with optional questions to answer, and do away with a live, breathing person. Ifill was, at best, Captain Dunsel.

But back to Biden. For the first half, Biden seemed content to play on Palin's turf, and tried then to win points by speaking in statistics. It was not, I thought, a terribly strong tactic, emphasizing for people that Biden was detached and a Washington insider, and I was, frankly, troubled that Biden was undermining Barack Obama's big bounce over the last several weeks.

But I may have been too critical, because the second half of the debate was a great contrast, either because Biden got on more comfortable ground when talking about foreign policy, because Biden's strategy was to just keep moving straight ahead until Palin destroyed herself, or because the key was to just be accurate and not lose, to be steady, rather than try to win.

And coming into the foreign policy portion, Palin completely collapsed into nonsense babble and ignorance. From a factual standpoing, she was - is - a complete disaster, and Biden is authoritative. I don't know how will this play with the audience. But Joe came off as confident and competent, while Palin attacked (while wearing a perky smile) and dropped into folksy nonsense. We get it, Sarah: you're from Wasilla, and John is a maverick. And so are you. So mavericky, one of the world's original mavericks, in fact. The mavericks that mavericks look to in order to devine maverickness.

Yet it was just that, her constant refrain on being a maveric, that led, finally, to the moment when Biden kicked her legs out from under her, burying under a career of evidence the idea of John McCain as a maverick on the issues where it really mattered.

I believe Biden clearly won this debate.

Unfortunately, he still hasn't completely won me over. (Not that it matters so much.) As I said, he was cowardly on some issues where I would have liked to see courage. He's going to be our next Vice President, and I will very happy about that. But he never quite lives up to what I would like to see from him.

But maybe it's just me.

Witty and eloquent

Another reason why I have become a fan of bluegrass. Thank you, Ralph Stanley.

Might not have a full palette to use

Apparently, given the recent past and now that McCain appears to also be urging Bush to veto the pork-laden bailout bill that McCain voted for last night, the McCain campaign has decided that complete incoherence is a viable campaign strategy.

In the past, I've just thought that McCain was dishonest, a hypocrite and unstable, but I now think the reality is that they just don't have a clue - they're not being dishonest on all of their about faces or when they say one thing and do the other, or attack Barack Obama for a failing best exhibited by John McCain. Instead, they are just to clueless to even see the connection. And remarkably about 40% or more of the country will nevertheless buy in to the argument.