A reader writes:
I'm 18 years old. My politics are still amorphous, shaped largely by my parents' prejudices (both are liberals). I'm pro-life. I come from a prosperous background; I'm suspicious of big government and increasingly likely to support tax cuts. I'm becoming more viscerally opposed to the 'nanny state' as I study law; the rhetoric of many liberals on personal responsibility is becoming increasingly objectionable to me. And yet, I can not, within the reasonable future, support the Republican Party. Why? Torture. I still haven't come to grips with the idea that American soldiers, those who our culture is brought up to value and respect, could commit acts of torture, on the orders of an American administration. The internet is a libertarian place.
I'm 18 years old. My politics are still amorphous, shaped largely by my parents' prejudices (both are liberals). I'm pro-life. I come from a prosperous background; I'm suspicious of big government and increasingly likely to support tax cuts. I'm becoming more viscerally opposed to the 'nanny state' as I study law; the rhetoric of many liberals on personal responsibility is becoming increasingly objectionable to me.
And yet, I can not, within the reasonable future, support the Republican Party. Why?
Torture.
I still haven't come to grips with the idea that American soldiers, those who our culture is brought up to value and respect, could commit acts of torture, on the orders of an American administration. The internet is a libertarian place.
Young people are growing up more suspicious of government, more interested in increasing personal control over their lives, more prepared to challenge government bureaucracy. The rEVOLution (which I did not support) captured this perfectly. This could have been a Republican generation -- brought under the big tent under a low-tax, socially moderate, fiscally conservative platform. An earlier John McCain may have been just the man to do this, as he was in 2000. But I cannot imagine how anyone else of my age can look at these reports, look at these pictures -- and then vote for the GOP in the foreseeable future. It's beyond my understanding.
Mine too. Until the GOP purges itself of these fascistic, sadistic elements, lovers of freedom should stay away.
Be happy, dear hearts, and allow yourselves a few more weeks of quietry exultation. It isn't gloating; it's satisfaction at a job well done. He was a superb candidate, serious, professorial but with a flashing grin and a buoyancy that comes from working out in the gym every morning. He spoke in a genuine voice, not senatorial at all. He relished campaigning. He accepted adulation gracefully. He brandished his sword against his opponents without mocking or belittling them. He was elegant, unaffected, utterly American, and now (Wow) suddenly America is cool. Chicago is cool. Chicago!!! We threw the dice and we won the jackpot and elected a black guy with a Harvard degree, the middle name Hussein and a sense of humor he said, "I've got relatives who look like Bernie Mac, and I've got relatives who look like Margaret Thatcher." The French junior minister for human rights said, "On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes." When was the last time you heard someone from France say they wanted to be American and take a bite of something of ours? Ponder that for a moment. The world expects us to elect pompous yahoos, and instead we have us a 47-year-old prince from the prairie who cheerfully ran the race, and when his opponents threw sand at him, he just smiled back. He'll be the first president in history to look really good making a jump shot. He loves his classy wife and his sweet little daughters. At the same time, he knows pop music, American lit and constitutional law. I just can't imagine anybody cooler. It feels good to be cool, and all of us can share in that, even sour old right-wingers and embittered blottoheads. Next time you fly to Heathrow and hand your passport to the man with the badge, he's going to see “United States of America" and look up and grin. Even if you worship in the church of Fox, everyone you meet overseas is going to ask you about Obama, and you may as well say you voted for him because, my friends, he is your line of credit over there. No need anymore to try to look Canadian.
All Things Considered, December 2, 2008
Nearly a month after Election Day, it's still not clear what happens to the campaign organization built by President-elect Barack Obama.
The organization has two crown jewels. One is a database with 13 million e-mail addresses. While some of them are bogus or came from nonsupporters (such as journalists covering the campaign), probably 10 million or more came from supporters — those who helped build the campaign's historic war chest, who organized in counties and precincts, or who simply attended a rally or bought a T-shirt. The other jewel is the "net roots" style network that turned out voters for Obama in the primaries and that helped him carry traditionally Republican states in November.
The depth and breadth of these elements appear to be unprecedented in presidential politics. Candidate Obama talked about the future last April, at a small gathering in Indianapolis, saying: "One of the things I'm really proud of about this campaign is I think we've built a structure that can sustain itself after the campaign."
In Washington, the burning question now is where that trove of information might go.
"I think there will be choices. I don't think there's going to be only one place," says Simon Rosenberg, founder of the center-left think tank NDN and a big proponent of the Internet-savvy politicking used by the Obama campaign.
Rosenberg says Obama could do what other presidents have traditionally done: turn over his lists of supporters to the national party committee. But people joined the Obama campaign for all sorts of reasons. Some unknown percentage of them want to remain politically active, but not as Democrats.
"There are some people who'll want to [get involved] in a more partisan way and feel comfortable with that," Rosenberg says. "There are others who're going to want to do it just as a citizen, regardless of their political party, who'll want to help potentially on a single issue."
So a second alternative is to take the list into the White House. Then the president could ask supporters to pressure Congress on important bills, a strategy that most likely wouldn't benefit the administration in its relations with lawmakers. There's also an ownership question. Legally, the database belongs to the president-elect and his campaign. Using it in the White House would very likely make it government property.
"I think the president-elect's legal advisers are going to have to confront some practical as well as legal considerations in how they're going to use the campaign resources," says Jan Baran, a veteran campaign finance lawyer for Republicans.
As a third alternative, Obama could keep his campaign committee going, something no president has ever done. Or he could create a new political action committee. That's never happened before, either; in the closest comparison, Ronald Reagan turned over his grass-roots organization to a new PAC in 1976 after losing his first presidential bid.
Alternative No. 4 would be a tax-exempt entity, using the database to promote Obama's issues. Once again, though, no president has ever done such a thing. And the tax code sets too many limits to make it a comfortable option.
Really, Washington is speculating so much about the database because that's what the politicos know. But with the Obama organization, it's just the beginning.
"Anyone who imagines that all power is in who controls the lists misunderstands that we are no longer in the age of lists, we are in the age of networks," says Micah Sifry, executive editor of the Web site www.PersonalDemocracyForum.com. "This has never happened before. We've never had a president get elected with the backing of something that looks like a social movement."
Just as a social movement depends on grass-roots networks, the Obama campaign nurtured its networks on the Web site my.BarackObama.com. Back in April, Obama said of his volunteer organizers: "They know each other and they're communicating to each other through the Internet, and there are all kinds of different groups. And so what I want to do is continue that after the election."
But Sifry says that since the election, volunteers in some states have moved on: "For example, the folks in Connecticut are trying to keep something going. They've created a site for themselves where they have more control of their own information than if they stayed on my.BarackObama.com."
Now the Obama transition team is dabbling in network-building. Late last month, the transition team's Web site, www.change.gov, posed a question: "What worries you most about the health care system in our country?"
The Web presentation included a video featuring Dr. Dora Hughes of the Obama health care policy task force. "Indeed," she said, "a critical part of our health reform efforts is making sure that every American voice is heard."
A spirited debate ensued, involving health care professionals, scholars and consumers. It's still going on; by this afternoon, more than 3,600 comments had been posted.
But if President-elect Obama wants to use the Internet this way in the Oval Office, the government will need newer computers. And he'll need to change the law. The Paperwork Reduction Act forbids this sort of quick, informal idea-gathering.
The act dates from 1995. So it's a lifetime behind what's possible with modern communications technologies — as are many other things that Obama will find in Washington.
by Peter Overby
If you are interested in joining the discussion on healthcare, the Transition Team is taking input NOW:
http://change.gov/page/content/discusshealthcare
No registration is required. Please get involved, especially if you have healthcare expertise. If not, you very likely still have a healthcare story, good or bad. Contribute to the discussion.
Thank you!
I'm as struck as Mark McKinnon by the sudden, if tempered, swooning of the center-right for Obama. even Fred Barnes has had an epiphany of sorts. They are responding to his obviously sensible and accomplished picks for the economy and foreign affairs as if they have realized for the first time who "that one" actually is. He is not now and never has been a leftist ideologue. That was a paranoid fantasy that helped kill the GOP this year. He is a pragmatic, sane, reasoned centrist liberal. He doesn't want to surrender to terror or abolish capitalism - he wants to hone our fight against the Islamists to better effect and to save capitalism from itself. And the core meaning of his candidacy - an end to the polarizing culture war battles of the post-Vietnam era - is not just hype. It's real:
It appears the political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and -- dare we say it -- in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can’t afford politics as usual. And for once, politicians seem to get it. We all wish President-elect Obama success. Because there’s a good chance that if he fails, we all go down together. Way down. And let's give credit where it's due. The spirit of good will is being significantly leveraged by Obama, who has had made a series of very smart, practical, pragmatic and non-ideological picks for his cabinet. Eight years ago, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Well, a recount crippled that idea before it got out of the crib. It simply wasn't the right time for the message or the messenger.
It appears the political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and -- dare we say it -- in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can’t afford politics as usual. And for once, politicians seem to get it. We all wish President-elect Obama success. Because there’s a good chance that if he fails, we all go down together. Way down.
And let's give credit where it's due. The spirit of good will is being significantly leveraged by Obama, who has had made a series of very smart, practical, pragmatic and non-ideological picks for his cabinet.
Eight years ago, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Well, a recount crippled that idea before it got out of the crib. It simply wasn't the right time for the message or the messenger.
And Bush was never that serious about it. Obama is.
(Thanks to Andrew Sullivan. Especially today, World AIDS Day.)
And bashes McCain. From Marc Ambinder:
The omniscient voice pronounces from across the pond:"....the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as "agents of intolerance" now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
Meanwhile his temperament, always perhaps his weak spot, has been found wanting. Sometimes the seat-of-the-pants method still works: his gut reaction over Georgia--to warn Russia off immediately--was the right one. Yet on the great issue of the campaign, the financial crisis, he has seemed all at sea, emitting panic and indecision. Mr McCain has never been particularly interested in economics, but, unlike Mr Obama, he has made little effort to catch up or to bring in good advisers (Doug Holtz-Eakin being the impressive exception).
The choice of Sarah Palin epitomised the sloppiness. It is not just that she is an unconvincing stand-in, nor even that she seems to have been chosen partly for her views on divisive social issues, notably abortion. Mr McCain made his most important appointment having met her just twice.
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
From Andrew Sullivan:
10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America. 9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice. 8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s. 7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them. 6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially cmopared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain. 5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially cmopared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive. 3. Two words: President Palin. 2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons. 1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excresence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality. Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
3. Two words: President Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excresence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-top-ten-rea.html
“I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact,” - Alan Greenspan, testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/quote-for-th-25.html
He's got holes in the bottom of both his shoes from walking so much on the campaign trail. And as the caption explains, he's already resoled them once.
"Senator Obama was doing press interviews by telephone in a holding room between events. Sometime later as he was getting ready to begin his event, he asked me if I was photographing his shoes. When I said yes, he told me that he had already had them resoled once since he entered the race a year earlier. Providence, R.I., 3/1/2008."
So... who's more in touch with the average American again?
Thanks, enamore22 at Daily Kos
David Sedaris thinks out loud:
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. "Can I interest you in the chicken?" she asks. "Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?"
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/undecided-voter.html
Lol. That's my reminder to get Sedaris's latest book.
A bear cub was found shot at Western Carolina University. It wore an Obama sign:
http://www.wlos.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/wlos_vid_1532.shtml
It's one of McCain's last, and easily his best, in my opinion. Ken Silverstein gets an email from Burke Wood, who makes ads for the GOP:
McCain’s last hope is that his divided government argument sticks in people’s minds and that swing voters get buyers remorse—since Obama has already won in a lot of people’s minds. That may be why McCain is closing in some polls. The moderate Republicans I talk to liked McCain 8 years ago, but not anymore — and they can’t stand Palin.
Silverstein also talked to Tom Edmonds, a GOP media consultant, who doesn't think the youth vote will show:
The other big thing is the youth vote. There’s been a lot of hype about it, but it’s not going to materialize on Election Day. Roughly 33 million people voted in the 2004 primaries, and 58 million people voted in this year’s primaries. The youth vote was up, but not nearly as much as voting by middle-aged people and old fogies. The polls are capturing the enthusiasm for Obama, but college students are not going to turn out.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/mccains-best-sh.html#more
If you have read Obama's memoir, you will immediately understand why he would suspend a national campaign for the most powerful job on earth to be with his grandmother right now. One gets the impression from Robert Gibbs and from this decision that this might indeed be one of the last chances he gets. "Toot" was a formative figure - she brought him up with her husband during some critical years. Her death would be the death of his last parent. Reading about her again tonight, you can see where Obama's personal social conservatism comes from. There's a lot more Kansas in Obama than most people on the right seem to think.
Prayers for her, her family and the man who now has to deal with this emotional burden at this exposed and intense time. They are all still human, you know. It never hurts to remember that. And we all forget it sometimes.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/his-last-parent.html
http://obamaendorsements.blogspot.com/
Great site--thanks, Kiku!
Acorn is a nonprofit group that advocates for low- and moderate-income people and has mounted a major voter-registration drive this year. Acorn says that it has paid more than 8,000 canvassers who have registered about 1.3 million new voters, many of them poor people and members of racial minorities.
In recent weeks, the McCain campaign has accused the group of perpetrating voter fraud by intentionally submitting invalid registration forms, including some with fictional names like Mickey Mouse and others for voters who are already registered.
Based on the information that has come to light so far, the charges appear to be wildly overblown — and intended to hobble Acorn’s efforts.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1858953394 Obama ad about McCain's plan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html Wall Street Journal
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimates that the McCain healthcare plan would cost the government $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The McCain plan would allow "as many as" 5 million more people to have insurance, it estimates.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that Senator Obama’s plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and cover 34 million more people.
Furthermore, McCain will pay for his plan with “major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid.”
The credit crisis has left businesses large and small unable to get loans, which means they can't buy new equipment, or hire new workers, or even make payroll for the workers they have. You've got auto plants right here in Ohio that have been around for decades closing their doors and laying off workers who've never known another job in their entire life.
760,000 workers have lost their jobs this year. Unemployment here in Ohio is up 85% over the last eight years, which is the highest it's been in sixteen years. You've lost one of every four manufacturing jobs, the typical Ohio family has seen their income fall $2,500, and it's getting harder and harder to make the mortgage, or fill up your gas tank, or even keep the electricity on at the end of the month. At this rate, the question isn't just "are you better off than you were four years ago?", it's "are you better off than you were four weeks ago?"
In recent presidential debates, Senator John McCain has said things like, "I know the veterans. I know them well. And, I know that they know that I'll take care of them."
However, Senator McCain gets consistently low ratings from veterans groups. Below is a full list of votes, statements, and positions of Senator McCain's, which shows that Senator McCain has consistently bailed on troops and veterans.
It's a long, but comprehensive list compiled by VoteVets.org. An even more robust list, complete with video, can be found at VetVoice.com.
Senator John McCain’s Record on Troop and Veterans’ Issues
Voting Against Veterans
· Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen. McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans’ issues. Similarly, the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D" grade for his poor voting record on veterans’ issues, including McCain’s votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.
· McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans’ Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
· McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans’ Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against ensuring important benefits for America’s veterans, including providing adequate healthcare. (2006 Senate Vote #7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes #55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes #40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes #74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote #328; 1998 Senate Vote #175; 1997 Senate Vote #168; 1996 Senate Votes #115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes #76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote #306; 1992 Senate Vote #194; 1991 Senate Vote #259)
In light of this morning's announcement about Paul Krugman, it's worth re-reading these two op-eds by the NYT op-ed writer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/opinion/29krugman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06krugman.html
Krugman uses words like “frightening” and “terrified” to describe his assessment of McCain’s economic sense and advisors as well as his health care plan.
His weekness in economics is why McCain would rather talk about William Ayers! Less to study up on before a town hall meeting...
