BarAK

Gallup "Drills Down" To Younger Voters; A Generational Shift

Elstun — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:54:56 EDT

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- America's youngest voters are mindful of history and the impact on their own lives as they prepare to cast ballots on Nov. 4. Among 18- to 29-year-old registered voters surveyed for a USA Today/MTV/Gallup poll, 61% support the Obama-Biden ticket, versus 32% who prefer the McCain-Palin ticket, with Obama's voters being far more likely to be certain about their vote than McCain's.

Obama's strong appeal to younger voters is apparent in that he outperforms McCain by double digits on every single character dimension tested in the poll of more than 900 18-29 year olds nationwide, conducted by Gallup for USA Today and MTV Sept. 18-28, 2008. The 47-year-old Obama swamps 72-year-old McCain, 71% to 12%, on understanding the "problems of people your age" and even wins on what is a McCain strength among the broader electorate, being a "strong and decisive leader," 46% to 36%.

While only a minority (37%) of young adults have qualms about McCain's age, a majority (55%) do have concerns about his running mate Sarah Palin's qualifications to step in as president if necessary. In contrast, a majority are satisfied with both Obama's experience and running mate Joe Biden's qualifications. (The poll was conducted before the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate.)

Obama also beats McCain on several lighter dimensions tested in the poll. A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds would choose Obama over McCain as a teacher, boss, drinking buddy, or advisor. McCain's only appeal on this level with young adults appears to be his personal life story as young adults are more likely to be interested in reading McCain's private diary than Obama's. While such items may seem trivial, basic likeability can be a key indicator of a presidential candidate's ability to win votes.

When asked in an open-ended fashion to name the single most important issue affecting their vote for president this year, 18- to 29-year-old registered voters most often cite the economy (30%), followed by the war in Iraq (13%), healthcare (5%), energy and gas prices (4%), and international issues (4%). These issues are, in a broad sense, little different from those listed by all voters, regardless of age. Asked which candidate they think would do a better job on their top-priority issue, 58% say Obama versus 27% who say McCain, again echoing their basic candidate choice.

On the Outcome

The poll results make it clear that young Americans perceive that the outcome of the election really does matter, both to the country and to their own lives. Nearly-two thirds (64%) of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed say they have already given the election a lot of thought. Nearly half (44%) consider this election to be the most important of the last 50 years, and another 37% consider it more important than other elections.

When asked about the consequences of the two possible election outcomes, 84% say an Obama victory would have a great deal (47%) or moderate amount (37%) of impact on their lives and 72% say the same about McCain (36% great deal, 36% moderate amount).

Going a step further, the survey asked those who said an Obama or McCain victory would impact them "a great deal" or "not at all" to explain in their own words why they feel that way. In Obama's case, nearly one in four (24%) volunteered that good or positive changes would take place, while in McCain's case, the most common responses were negative or pertained to the War in Iraq.

Asked in a separate question how a McCain administration might compare to the Bush administration, 55% said they would view a McCain victory as "four more years of the Bush administration" versus 37% who said they would view it as "real change from the Bush administration."

The two tickets this year also carry the distinction of the first major party black nominee in U.S. history, and only the second major party female vice presidential nominee. In the eyes of young voters, victory for the Obama-Biden ticket would be much more of an historical event than victory for the McCain-Palin ticket. A majority (53%) agree that if Barack Obama is elected president, it would be one of the most important advances in racial equality over the past 100 years. By contrast, only one-third (32%) agree that if Sarah Palin becomes vice president, it will be one of the most important advances in gender equality in the past 100 years.

Bottom Line

A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds are registered to vote in this election and have given it a lot of thought. They prefer Barack Obama, both as an alternative to John McCain, but also as the candidate who is the most likely to understand their problems and to bring positive change to their own lives. Casting a ballot for Obama also carries the excitement of making history. Nearly 8 in 10 consider this election to be more important than other elections, if not the most important in the past 50 years. What remains to be seen is how many of this highly sought-after demographic will in fact turn out and vote on Election Day, and thus help to determine the winner.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted September 18-28, 2008, with 903 U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 29, 633 respondents of whom were randomly selected from a national sample of landline and cellular telephone numbers, and 270 respondents of whom had participated in earlier national Gallup polls and agreed to be re-interviewed for a future poll. For results based on the total sample, which is weighted for demographic information to be representative of 18- to 29-year-olds nationwide, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. For results based on the sample of 742 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

First Gallup 3-Day Running Average Incorporating Palin Attacks: Obama Up By 9!

Elstun — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:21:54 EDT

>Note. This 3 day running average goes back to the start of Sarah Palin's "heels on, gloves off" campaign. While it appeals to the 18% of the electorate that constitute her die-hard base, it appears to be turning off the independents. This is the first time any candidate has gotten a 51% posting on the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking poll shows registered voters preferring Barack Obama to John McCain for president by 51% to 42%.

The nine percentage point lead in Oct. 4-6 tracking matches Obama's highest to date for the campaign, and the highest for either candidate. Obama led McCain by 49% to 40% near the tail end of his international trip in late July. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)

Obama has now held a statistically significant lead since Sept. 24-26 polling and has not trailed McCain since Sept. 13-15, roughly coinciding with the intensification of the financial crisis.

McCain has an opportunity to try to reverse Obama's momentum at tonight's town hall style debate in Nashville. -- Jeff Jones

Fox News Delivers For McCain-Palin's Scorched Earth Politcs

Elstun — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:13:57 EDT

Fox news has launched its all out assault on Barack Obama, just in time (Probably in close coordination with) the RNC and an army of 527 groups.

I got a sample of it over the last couple of days of watching Fox.

My first peek came on Fox and Friends with anti-Obama hatchetman Stanley Kurtz, from a right-wing opnion-factory named The Ethics and Public Policy Center. Kurtz was given several minutes of free air time to paint a picture of Barack Obama and William Ayers' relationship implying two things: that they were frequently in the same room together, along with scores of other people, and that Barack Obama "funneled" (Kurtz's term) money to one of Ayers' project. Obama was, in fact, on a board that recieved grants and Ayers' project was one of the grant recipients. That is what Kurtz meant by 'funneling' money. Kurtz is obviously confused. "Funneling Money" is what happens when Right-Wing millionaires want to discredit Barack Obama and they make a donation to a 501 (c)(3) called...oh, I don't know, say...The Ethics and Public Policy Center so a slack-jawed bottom-feeder like Stanley Kurtz can provide 'unbiased' information to its viewers. Anyway...By the end of the piece, if one was an uncritical viewer of Fox and Friends, one would certainly have the impression that the so-called "Main Stream Media" was trying to 'cover up' something.

Comes now Sean Hannity. A special entitled "Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" was launched today. In this so-called documentary, Hannity spends several minutes created dark sounds about Saul Alinsky, a widely read and much beloved community organizer of the 1950s and 1960s. By the end of the Alinsky discussion, he is characterized as a communist who launched the 'community organizing' movement as a means to manipulate well-meaning people; whatever that means. And Fox News certainly knows something about manipulation. Hannity then draws a line connecting a horrible patch-up inlcuding grainy newsreels of radical islamists leading to Barack Obama and an extreme subculture of Chicago.The racist subtext is undeniable, inspersing images of Jerimiah Wright and Malcolm X and other black nationalists and Barack Obama, they are saying in essence--this guy is black, folks and so are these radicals.

Then Fox has also dredged up one of the police officers wounded by the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was all of 8 years old and we can expect to see his recollections of pain to be used by Fox to attack Obama.

Expect the worst kind of McCarthyesque attacks and distortions that have EVER been seen in an American election over the next 30 days. The decision by the RNC-Fox-McCain camp is a political scorched earth policy. If they can't win this election, they will so poison the well of American Opinion so as to make it ungovernable.

Thank God McCain-Palin Were Not In Charge of Social Security!

Elstun — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:10:24 EDT

> note, we can all be grateful that McCain's 'private accounts/private management' scheme for Social Security was not in place before this latest tanking on Wall Street. Point THIS out to McCain-leaning Seniors when you have an opportunity to do so....

John Neffinger

Hello? If McCain Had His Way, That'd Be Our Social Security Money Wall Street is Losing

What do we democrats have to say about the mess on Wall Street?

Today Obama said it proves that the Republican economic philosophy has failed, and I heard him mock McCain for calling for a commission because "we know how we got into this mess." Now some people think about things like "economic philosophy" a lot, and many have at least a general notion of how we got into this mess. But even though everybody cares about how much money ends up in their pockets, most people are understandably a little fuzzy about all the policies and philosophies and market forces behind our very complex economy.

And to further confuse the issue, McCain is also saying something about reform, and taking on "fat cats," and accusing Obama of being just as cozy with these Wall Streeters as anyone else. The upshot so far is that slightly more voters trust John McCain to handle the economy than trust Barack Obama.

As it happens, though, not that long ago we had a rare political moment in this country, a moment where the public sat up and took notice of economic policy -- and spoke out and made its voice heard too. When George W. Bush made it to term #2, he decided to try to privatize social security to reward his supporters on Wall Street with a new source of capital, customers, and fees. (Those would be the same people whose firms are now cratering under the weight of the bad debt they recklessly took on while Republican regulators looked the other way).

But as it turned out, we Americans were not about to let our elected representatives turn over our social security taxes to Wall Street financiers to gamble with if it meant losing the guaranteed income that has allowed millions upon millions of American seniors to live out their sunset years with at least a basic measure of dignity.

But while ordinary Americans spoke out, John McCain stood with Bush (hugged him awkwardly in public, even), against the American people. In fact, just six months ago, McCain again let slip his fondness for privatization.

I have been scratching my head why this has not been talked about more, especially since Obama has been having trouble winning votes among seniors. There may well be some good reason I'm missing why it hasn't been a top argument thus far.

But now that you can't look at a newspaper or TV screen without seeing the mayhem on Wall Street, it's time to remind Americans what the world would look like if John McCain was in charge of our economic policy. Plenty of people are losing plenty of their retirement savings as it is.

But if we had let Bush and McCain privatize social security, some of those people would be losing a lot more. And a lot of other people with less retirement savings would be hurting even more, because they depend on social security to cover basic needs.

This is something Americans understand: social security is secure, and the stock market is anything but. There are few more personal or dramatic ways to illustrate McCain's terrible judgment than to imagine the nightmare scenario so many Americans would face if McCain and Bush had gotten their way on this -- or if McCain were to get his way as President.

Important Talking Point: Military Donors to Obama.

Elstun — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:20:32 EDT

The following from military.com

Military Donations Favoring Obama

August 15, 2008Associated Press

WASHINGTON - U.S. Soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous White House campaigns in which military donations tended to favor Republicans, a nonpartisan group reported Aug. 14.

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who has never served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.

Obama has opposed the war in Iraq and says he would withdraw combat troops within 16 months. McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war, saying he would withdraw the troops only when conditions on the ground warrant it.

"Obama will work tirelessly to uphold this nation's sacred trust with its veterans, to ensure they are not forgotten after they return home and he will provide our troops with the leadership they deserve, as well as the support they and their families need," Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

McCain's campaign played down the significance of the donations.

"John McCain has been endorsed by more retired admirals and generals than Barack Obama has military donors," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a statement.

"We feel confident that many U.S. troops stationed overseas will support John McCain in the election this fall, but we suspect most are too busy doing the important work of defending this country than to make political contributions," Goldfarb said.

The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.

Among Soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul, who collected $45,512 from 99 Soldiers serving abroad, the report said.

My Solo Protest This Morning

Elstun — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:35:00 EDT

Sarah Palin was the star attraction at a Republican rally this AM at the Dena'ina Center. Several Tribal leaders had complained about this use of the facility because this was being done before the Center was properly smudged (cleansed) and blessed. The facility, named for the First Peoples of Cook Inlet, was supposed to be opened under the ceremonial protocol of those people. But what Sarah wants, Sarah seems to get in Alaska and the brightly lit sidewalks, traffic control barriers and troopers heralded the first event to ever be held in our new convention center-- remember this fact if you are playing Trivial Pursuit (The Alaska Edition) 30 years from now.

While I had texted scores of people--hoping for some companionship in my endeavor-- I was the only one foolish enough to show. So I stood there with my sign facing the Palin fans who had begun lining at the front doors before I arrived at 7AM. The State Troopers and the Center's security staff actually defended my right to stand by the front door with my NO MORE MCCAIN-PALIN LIES sign as the Palin fans filed in. One loud, hyper woman tried to have me removed. One fellow nodded at me and said: "I will admit that you've got guts". As luck would have it, I found myself standing by the media queue, so I had several interviews while they were waiting to be let in. One interviewer with a cameraman began her interview by calling me "The Oddball..." I tried to deflect that. She must have been from Fox. I tried to speak in sound bites, but it really is hard to do. While I was standing there, a big, shiny vehicle pulled up to the front door and the intense looking driver ran up to the security desk and told them that he has a VIP that he wanted to get escorted in to the VIP-Section. "What's his name?" Security asked, "Oliver Leavitt", the man said. Leavitt is on the Board of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Finally, security signaled it was time for the media to go in and...as most of the crowd had filed past me and it was already past 8AM (I made a commitment to myself to be there from 7AM-8AM), I bid everyone a good morning and returned home.

I have a friend who is on a Spiritual Path and he likes to say that difficulty "...is a meditation". For him, the goal in living is learning to take Right Action and if something is both right AND difficult, we learn from that. After a while, the folks at the front of the line with whom I spent the most time, seemed get used to my presence and even warm up to me. I certainly warmed up to them as they seemed to be decent, nice folks. When I shouted to them to enjoy themselves as they entered the Center, they waved and smiled at me.

So what did I accomplish? I offered an alternative perspective to the new media, I got to meet some nice people, and I have calmed that anxious knot in the pit of my stomach telling me to do something, take some action that stands up to the national Right-Wing machinery now rolling through our state. It was not much, I admit, but it was something and I am glad I did it!

Obama and the Palin Effect by Deepak Chopra

Elstun — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:20:37 EDT

(Herman Hesse's Siddhartha, A Jungian Fantasy at the Berkshire Theatre Festival, Jill Michael and Joe Jung)

Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and turning negativity into a cause for pride. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:

* Small town values - a nostalgic return to simpler times disguises a denial of America ' s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.

* Ignorance of world affairs - a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.

* Family values - a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be needed.

* Rigid stands on guns and abortion - a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
*Patriotism - the usual fallback in a failed war.

* "Reform" - an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow - we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

Everybody Calm Down! Obama Is Hitting Back

Elstun — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:31:35 EDT

Quit your whining, Democrats. If Obama loses this election, it won't be because he didn't fight back.

Tim Fernholz | September 11, 2008 |

There's a picture being sent around e-mail lists and posted on blogs that many a Democrat ought to bear in mind -- and no, it's not another anonymous smear. It's a picture of an assertive Sen. Barack Obama with a LOL-style caption promising, "I GOT THIS!"

Of course, few political observers are quite that confident. In light of Sen. John McCain's post-convention bounce in the polls and the media obsession with Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, Democrats are starting to panic prematurely. Now they're armchair-quarterbacking Obama's campaign: He should attack! He should attack creatively! Why isn't he more populist/more personal/more disciplined? Obama-supporting friends outside of the realm of political journalism are now asking me to allay their fears.

This is what I tell them: Quit the hand-wringing, Democrats, and don't believe the hype. Barack Obama is a lot of things, but he isn't John Kerry and he's not Al Gore. Obama's campaign has been the most disciplined and aggressive Democratic effort of the last eight years. If he loses, it won't be because he didn't hit back.

Even the Prospect staff is not immune to the paranoia about a return to 2004; each poll jump sends my colleague Adam Serwer into inspired anxiety. Just yesterday, founding co-editor Bob Kuttner wrote that Obama's campaign isn't doing enough to go after McCain on issues. As an example, he cited the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suggesting that Obama base a major policy speech or advertisement around explaining that these entities, wrongly privatized, were at the root of the unnecessary sub-prime mortgage crisis and that this crisis exemplifies why conservatism is a failed ideology and liberalism a better one. All true, as far as the economic analysis goes. But a campaign commercial? It took an entire article -- a good one at that -- for Kuttner to explain that in these pages.

Instead, Obama is making a simple case, one that he has been making for a while now: John McCain is George W. Bush. Each of his recent ads reflects this message. And look at his stump speeches and the remarks of his running mate, Joe Biden. Obama has carefully cultivated his campaign themes of change and reform since 2007, with specific examples of what that change would be, while forcefully demonstrating that John McCain represents more of the same. If Obama switched tactics now, no doubt the same folks criticizing him for his lack of reaction would criticize him for his lack of message discipline.

At the Republican National Convention, McCain adopted Obama's rhetoric and has promised that he and Palin would be the true agents of change, though he declines to specify exactly which Bush-era policies he would change. Ironically, a common castigation of Obama is that he isn't setting the narrative of the race -- that the debate isn't on his terms. But it should be clear by now that this isn't true: The race is about change and who can bring it to Washington. Obama's campaign is betting that its message will be the one that resonates with voters, and McCain's will be seen for what it is: pure rhetoric. Maybe that's a bad bet, but nonetheless Obama's story has set the frame, and McCain is the one who's had to work within it. Obama should not get nasty because that undermines the entire narrative of his candidacy.

The McCain campaign's stream of personal attacks against Obama, and its emphasis that Palin has been victimized by the media, has the day-to-day news cycle focused on foolish back-and-forths instead of the issues. Make no mistake: This is part of the McCain team's strategy. Rick Davis, a senior McCain aide, explicitly said that they don't want the election to be about the issues; they want it to be about personality. It's a cynical ploy, but it's one that Democrats see working against Obama's message. Liberals and reporters alike recognize that low-information voters are likely to hear accusations louder than rebuttals, or simply assume that both candidates are slinging the same kind of mud.

Obama has responded, however, with vigor, straightforwardly denouncing the attacks and turning the conversation back to the issues important to Americans. Following yesterday's laughably false accusation from the McCain campaign that Obama called Palin a "pig," he accused McCain of not taking the issues -- or the country -- seriously, and his spokespeople turned the charge around on McCain. When McCain falsely accused Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergarteners, Obama's campaign rightly questioned McCain's honor. When they mocked his work as a community organizer, he laughed off the accusation and asked who, exactly, the Republicans were working for. When Sarah Palin attacked the Constitution, he said in no uncertain terms that she was attacking the fabric of this country. Each time the McCain campaign comes out with a negative, misleading advertisement, Obama publicly sets the record straight, often within hours. Remember how long it took John Kerry to respond to the Swift Boat accusations? And Obama does more than simply correct the lies -- he calls out McCain for his dirty tactics.

Is it enough? Liberal blogger Steve Benen observes that only thing Obama hasn't done so far is fight fire with fire and use the same dishonest tactics as McCain. For instance, Benen suggests, they could argue that McCain wants to cut U.S. military aid to Israel, since that aid is an earmark and McCain claims he wants to eliminate them. Of course, Obama knows that McCain doesn't actually want to cut aid to Israel. But McCain also knew that Obama doesn't want to give sex tips to kindergarteners. Others argue that Obama needs to attack McCain's character. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to call McCain and Palin liars and flip-floppers and to call their attacks dishonorable -- which they are. But some Democrats would have Obama mount a character attack against McCain for abandoning his first wife and family, for instance.

Obama won't do that, though, because his message is change, and because he has more integrity than McCain does. This is not "naïve" and "idiotic," as Terence Samuel at The Root calls Obama's response to the "lipstick affair" -- it is part of a larger strategy. Obama has shown as well as anyone that he is a rough-and-tumble politician who doesn't shy from a fight. But his campaign has made central his commitment to changing the way we do politics. That doesn't mean he's a wimp, but it does mean he can't buy into the Bush-Rove politics that McCain now espouses. Obama remembers, to recall the old adage, it's not worth wrestling a pig: You get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Samuel argues that Obama needs to get down in the mud, but doesn't offer even a single example of an attack that would work -- one that would tar McCain's reputation without sullying Obama's. This is a great example of my favorite kind of liberal armchair-quarterbacking: "We need to hit back harder … but not by saying something I can't print here." As Samuel waxes rhapsodic over Palin insulting Obama, he forgets that just two weeks ago John Kerry and Joe Biden were going after McCain at the convention. This is part of the problem. Even liberal journalists who should know better spend more time giving nonsensical advice to the Obama campaign rather than looking at McCain's shortcomings.

It's not that it's wrong to criticize a campaign, or that some criticisms don't ring true. The Obama campaign and its surrogates need to stop saying that McCain is such a great man before they tear him apart. (Joe Biden, for one, has already gotten the message.) They could be doing a better job sending out rapid responders on the state level, but it's clear they're not in a bubble. They understand the concerns of their supporters. Still, they are on the offensive -- that sex-education smear by McCain was actually a response to an Obama attack ad that ran that morning. The Obama campaign, day-in and day-out, is extraordinarily disciplined about delivering its message.

Obama is essentially tied in the polls with McCain, even as the Republican senator experiences his convention bounce. These numbers will change with events, especially with the debates, and as the sheen wears off Palin. (A reminder: She has been known nationally for less than two weeks.) Obama has invested in a much larger field operation than McCain. The press seems to be developing a spine, if these comments criticizing the media's "outrageous" cowering before the McCain campaign from conventional wisdom apparatchik Mark Halperin are any indication.

But it certainly doesn't help to have Democrats wringing their hands and complaining about problems Obama doesn't have. Enthusiasm is the big indicator in an election that will ride on turnout, and Democrats have every reason to be enthusiastic.

Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton's spokesperson during the primary campaign, has made this point on his new blog. During the primary race, many counted Obama out, didn't understand his campaign's strategy, didn't think he could keep himself in the race. Clinton adopted Obama's change rhetoric and attacked him the same way McCain has -- on experience and for his eloquence. But Obama and his team hewed to their strategy and pulled out the win. The senator from Illinois is known as a closer, and there is plenty of time left. Keep the faith.

Number-crunching pollster sees decisive Obama win

Elstun — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:28:17 EDT

A pollster whose mathematical model has correctly predicted every winner of the White House popular vote since 1988 is banking on a decisive victory for Democrat Barack Obama in November.

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz said Wednesday that according to his "time for change" model, Obama would secure 54.3 percent of the popular vote against 45.7 percent for Republican John McCain.

That margin would virtually guarantee a crushing victory for the Democrat in the state-by-state electoral college that actually selects the next president, Abramowitz said.

He said unknown variables, such as the nation's bitter partisan divide and resistance to Obama's African-American race among some white voters, may result in a slightly smaller popular vote margin for the Democratic nominee.

But, "the combination of an unpopular Republican incumbent in the White House, a weak economy and a second-term election make a Democratic victory in November all but certain," he writes in the October issue of the journal "PS: Political Science and Politics."

"The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, is a time-for-change election -- one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms," Abramowitz said.

His model evaluated Republican President George W. Bush's dismal approval ratings, the change in economic output in the second quarter of the election year, and above all an anti-incumbency mood against the White House party.

"Regardless of the popularity of the president or the state of the economy, it is simply much more difficult for the president's party to retain its hold on the White House," the pollster said.

Abramowitz said his model had correctly forecast the popular vote winner within two percentage points or less in every presidential election since 1988.

That includes the 2000 election, when Democrat Al Gore carried the popular vote. But Bush came ahead in the electoral college after his Supreme Court-mandated win in Florida.

And the model faces a complication this year with the wild-card presence of two third-party candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr, on the ballot for the November 4 election.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.

Right-Wing NewsMax AntiObama Rhetoric

Elstun — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:45:09 EDT

>Note. Do you have friends who subscribe to NewsMax? Tell the to cancel...NOW! Also, check out the namew of the Executive Director of the Republican Majority Campaign PAC: Gary Kreep...true story!

Dear Newsmax Reader:

Please find an urgent message from one of our sponsoring advertisers, the Republican Majority Campaign PAC. They are seeking to defend Sarah Palin from vicious media attacks and expose Barack Obama. Please read their important letter below.

Newsmax.com

They will do anything to destroy Sarah Palin.

They will do anything to elect Obama President — the most leftwing candidate in history.

Only you can stop them.

Dear Fellow American:

As I write this letter, the far Left — the Obama campaign, the Democratic Party headed by Howard Dean and the major (liberal) media—are all working in overdrive to destroy and smear Sarah Palin.

They believe if they can destroy this courageous young woman and popular governor, they will end John McCain's bid for president.

Just this week, commentator Bill Maher ridiculed Sarah's baby son who has Down's syndrome. These people are absolutely despicable.

They have one goal: Put Barack Obama — the most radical left-winger ever nominated by the Democratic Party — in the Oval Office.

Because of this, I am urgently writing you on behalf of the Republican Majority Campaign PAC, one of the nation's largest and most influential PACs.

We are fighting to expose Barack Obama's radical agenda and defend Sarah Palin and John McCain from the liberal media.

We have plans to launch a multi-million dollar TV and online ad campaign to reach millions in the next two weeks, but we need your financial help.

We need it more than ever because Barack Obama will likely spend more money than any candidate in history to get control of the White House.

Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama has very powerful backers.

Obama promised he would abide by campaign finance limits, as John McCain has agreed to.

He lied. This week alone, Obama raised $8 million! He could easily spend $500 million during his whole campaign to buy the White House.

Worse, John McCain and Sarah Palin have their hands tied with public financing limits.

That's why the Republican Majority Campaign needs your urgent help in our major national TV ad campaign to help John McCain and Sarah Palin.

PLEASE HELP EXPOSE THE REAL OBAMA TODAY! CLICK HERE

The Republican Majority Campaign PAC is one of the nation's leading PACs.

Already the Republican Majority Campaign PAC has spent $2 million on grass-roots efforts exposing Obama, voter by voter.

But it's clear we need to do more and urgently.

We need to tell the American people the truth about Obama, his agenda and his radical associates.

In our national campaign we'll reveal the truth about Obama's radical tax agenda, including:

his plan to almost double capital gains tax

his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire

his plan to raise gasoline taxes

his plan to nationalize healthcare

MAKE YOUR MOST GENEROUS DONATION TODAY!

We will also reveal the sordid truth about Barack Obama:

How for 20 years he sat silently as his minister, the radical preacher Jeremiah Wright, said he hated America — the same preacher who blamed the 9/11 attacks on OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

The involvement of convicted felon Tony Resko in the purchase of Obama's$1,300,000 home.

His despicable association with his friend William Ayers, who was on the FBI's Most Wanted list for over 10 terrorist attacks.

The fact that at age 25, Obama was backed by a radical Muslim activist close to the Saudi royal family when he applied to Harvard Law School.

HELP US REVEAL THE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA! CLICK HERE

The Ayers Connection

William Charles Ayers and Barack Obama have been friends for decades.

There is clear evidence that their lives and dealings have been intertwined for many years.

We have reason to believe that Obama and Ayers were friends way back in 1986.

They even served together in 1995 on the Annenberg Challenge, overseeing the distribution of about $50 million to area schools.

That same year, Ayers hosted Obama in his own home and donated to his campaign.

What does the association between Ayers and Obama say about Obama's political views and perspective?

Ayers was an anti-American, traitorous radical who will stop at nothing to push his hateful communist agenda.

In the 1960s and 70s, he was a leader in the notorious underground terrorist group, the "Weathermen."

The Weathermen declared war on the United States government and they bombed over 30 establishments (leading to multiple fatalities, including police officers).

Obama's friend Bill Ayers

"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

William Ayers

Ayers is unapologetic about his terrorist activities.

Incredibly, on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted by The New York Times as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs … I feel we didn't do enough."

How could a man like Obama associate with such a dangerous radical?

And even defend him?

And now Obama, Ayers friend, could be sitting in the White House next year — unless we tell the American people the unvarnished truth about them!

MAKE YOUR MOST GENEROUS DONATION TODAY!

We Must Defend Sarah Palin and John McCain.

The major media have already decided who their candidate is: MSNBC host Chris Matthews says Barack Obama makes a "thrill" go up his leg when he hears him speak.

Oprah has picked your next president.

But you can stop Chris Matthews, Oprah and the rest of the liberal media.

You can say we the American people will pick our president.

Your voice can be heard — we need your urgent help with the Republican Majority Campaign PAC.

Your maximum possible gift of $5,000 would help us enormously.

Even smaller donations are going to help.

Anything you can do will give us the ammunition we need to fight for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Any amount — $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help show the truth before the November Presidential election.

Even if you can only afford $35 or $25 — we need your help and we need it now.

We must act quickly. We want to have our first ads up reaching millions in the next two weeks. Ronald Reagan once said, "If not us, who? If not now, when?

I will let you answer his questions today.

Thank you, and God bless America!

You Can Make a Difference — Go Here Now!

Gary Kreep

Executive Director

Republican Majority Campaign PAC

Paid for by the Republican Majority Campaign.

Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Campaign.

The Stock Market Has Already Voted.

Elstun — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:15:19 EDT

MARK HULBERTCommentary: By Mark Hulbert,

A Poor market in September bodes ill for incumbent party and a big clue as to how it is voting is provided by Thursday's dismal stock market, in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 345 points. For the still-young month of September, the Dow is now down by 3.1%. This points to an increased likelihood that the Democrats will reclaim the Presidency in this coming November's election.

The reason I can even attempt to draw these conclusions from the stock market's recent behavior is an analysis conducted by Ned Davis Research, an institutional research firm based in Venice, Fla. Specifically, the firm constructed two market averages out of how the Dow has performed in past Presidential election years (back to 1900, in fact).

The first of these two benchmarks tracked the market's average performance during years since then in which the incumbent political party eventually won the White House, while the other reflected average returns when the incumbent party lost.

Upon comparing these two benchmarks, Ned Davis earlier this week noted that, "There does not seem to be a lot of difference in election years between those years where the incumbent party wins or loses, except in the month of September where the divergence is striking."

How big a divergence? During Septembers of years in which the incumbent party goes on to win the White House, the Dow has produced an average gain of 0.32%.

During Septembers in which the incumbent party lost, in contrast, the Dow has produced an average loss of 0.71%. That difference, which totals just over one percentage point, may not appear to be that big.

But on an annualized basis it works out to around 13%. Good statistician that he is, Davis realizes that correlation is not the same as causation. One needs to couple the raw statistics with a plausible theory as to why the stock market would perform differently when the incumbent party wins the White House than when it loses.

"Perhaps it is the uncertainty over change," Davis speculates, "or perhaps the stock market predicts or reflects the election results." Another qualification that Davis emphasizes: "The sample sizes are relatively small." So we can't be as confident in drawing any conclusions as we would if there were lots more data points. Regardless, however, the stock market's losses this week can't be good news for John McCain's campaign.

Mark Hulbert is the founder of Hulbert Financial Digest in Annandale, Va. He has been tracking the advice of more than 160 financial newsletters since 1980.

Thoughts On Palin's Family Being "Off Limits"

Elstun — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:34:24 EDT

Finally it has happened to the Republicans. The politics of personal destruction from HR Haldeman and Lee Atwater through Karl Rove has finally splashed its filthy bilge back on the GOP. Remember when the Republicans destroyed Eagleton because it was learned that he had had psychological counseling? Or the Rumor-mongering about Hillary Clinton’s alleged lesbianism and so on. Or even the Rove’s defeat of John McCain in 2000 through a push poll just before the South Carolina primary that asked whether their vote would be affected if they learned that John McCain had fathered a black baby. In fact, McCain had adopted a racially mixed child. So now the bleating bloggers and the journalistic jackals are turning their talents to Sarah Palin and her private life. Her daughter Bristol is unmarried and pregnant. Family should be off-limits, that is true. Senator Obama said the right thing when he called on everyone to stop this intrusive form of Fox News journalism. But the problem is when you are running for the second highest office in the land based upon your perceived championing of family values, it seems fair to ask, “what are those values?” We know, for example, that Sarah Palin opposes birth control, family planning, and sex education in the schools. Such intimate matters, she and her ilk say, are the responsibility of the parents, not the school or government. So Sarah and Todd took their hormonally raging 16 year old out of small town Wasilla and moved to a new big city school to live with an Aunt. Willow yearns to fit in. She had to be relocated because Mom and Dad were never home in Wasilla. Mom has a job in Juneau and Dad has a job on the Slope. Meanwhile, they have given Bristol the “abstinence only” doctrine, and hoped that that and prayer and love from her family would protect her from the wiles of a predatory hunk named…what? Levi Johnson? According to one story about Levi Johnson’s Facebook page (which has since been scrubbed by the Republican Janitors), he really had a terrifically high regard for himself and his “crew” and none of the things he cared about included Bristol. Did Todd really need that job on the slope? Well, he does race high-performance snow machines and has a lot of other toys that must cost a lot of money to operate and maintain. Can’t do that on a governor’s salary. I guess a caring aunt is no substitute for a Mom AND Dad. Yes, family should be off-limits. But she is rallying the Focus on the Family crowd to vote for the McCain-Palin. As the Obama campaign frequently points out-- poverty is anti-family, lack of health care is anti-family, a war launched on lies is anti-family and the economic crisis including bankruptcy, foreclosure and predatory credit practices are all anti-family, high energy prices are anti-family. All of these anti-family issues affecting the lives of The Born but are trumped in Sarah’s mind by the lives of the Unborn. The Book of James informs us that it is not by faith alone, but by our actions that we shall be judged. So how should we judge Sarah with respect to family values? If Sarah Palin is installed as the next vice-president, one beat of a 72-year old heart away from being the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the leader of the free world, maybe I will be wishing that we were harder on her instead of kinder and gentler—everything that the Republicans WOULDN’T be if this had been a 17 year old daughter of Michelle and Barack Obama.

GOP Magick: The 'Expectations' Ritual

Elstun — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:40:05 EDT

> Note. One of the press/public relations games that is played by the campaigns is called "managing expectations". This is related to the maxim that it is far better to under-promise and over-deliver that the other way around. So the way this works for the Republicans going into Convention Week is to predict a massive "bump" for Obama and, when it doesn't quite materialize--rush out the talking heads to wonder aloud what "went wrong".

So this little piece of work (thank you, Jonathan Martin of Politico) is the product of Sarah Simmons, one of McCain's Karl Rove school graduate. Here she is telling the media to look for a 15 point bump for Obama out of Denver. http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/

My next post is going to wonder aloud just how the Bush Administration and the McCain camp will manipulate events to keep that "bump" low.

Beginning Monday, I will be posting from the DNC in Denver.

***********************************************************************************************************

TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Sarah Simmons, Director of Strategy
RE: Obama’s Convention Bounce
DATE: August 22, 2008

Monday marks the beginning of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A combination of factors makes this particular convention historic on many levels. Democrats have just completed an incredibly compelling primary cycle that has both energized and divided the Democratic Party. Because of the unique nature of the Democratic primary, we believe Obama will receive a significant bump from his convention.

This cycle mirrors Bill Clinton’s Democratic convention in 1992: A historic 16-point bump. Barack Obama is more similarly situated to Bill Clinton in 1992 than any other candidate in recent history. Bill Clinton was a new candidate on the national scene; he was running in a "change" oriented election cycle and the economy was voters’ top issue -- a dynamic he was able to capitalize on. He received a 16-point bump coming out of his convention. Obama is also a "new" candidate in a change-oriented environment. And, like Bill Clinton, he will spend the convention presenting himself as the agent of change who will fix the economy.

Obama will ride his VP bump. In addition to Obama taking advantage of the political environment, he will announce his Vice Presidential candidate late this week. This announcement typically gives a candidate a 5-point temporary bump that dissipates. However, Obama’s timing allows him to maximize his Vice Presidential bump and sustain press attention for the course of the week. He will ride the wave of an announcement from late this week (announcement expected by Saturday) through his speech on Thursday. This means that whatever bump he gains from the announcement has the potential to be lasting.

Obama will correct his underperformance with Hillary Clinton’s primary voters and emerge with a much more cohesive base. This convention gives Obama a platform to unite his base. There continues to be a divide in the Democratic base: Between 10-15% of Democrats are voting for McCain or sitting on the fence. In target states, that number is even higher, between 15-20% in many surveys. The Obama campaign knows that winning or losing in states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania depends on Obama’s ability to bring these voters home. If his convention successfully showcases Hillary Clinton and heals the wounds from the primary, he will move large groups of voters in those key places.

Obama’s stadium address on Thursday -- the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s "I Have A Dream" speech -- will result in effusive and overwhelming press coverage. On Thursday, Obama will give a great speech, as has been his trademark. The press will sing his praises and remark on his historic address and Obama’s place in history. For example, The Associated Press today published an article comparing the historic nature of the addresses – a week before Obama’s speech. This coverage will be impenetrable and will undoubtedly impact the polls.

We believe Obama will see a significant bump, and believe it is reasonable to expect nearly a 15-point bounce out of a convention in this political environment.

Giuliani and Romney to crash Democrats' Denver party

Elstun — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:40:07 EDT

--Rudy singing along with Julie Andrews in 1997.

Here are some signs to wave in their faces when they arrive:

"WHEN ARE YOUR SONS GOING TO IRAQ, MITT?"

Remember, when he was challenged to explain why his several strapping, healthy sons are not over in Iraq fighting in the war he so staunchly supports, Mitt answered that "... have chosen to serve their country in another way: getting me elected..." Well, he didn't get past Florida, that was several months ago...have they signed up yet, Mitt"

"CAN I BORROW ONE OF YOUR DRESSES FOR THE PARTY, RUDY?"

Comedian Bill Maher has made a point of torturing Giuliani on his multiple cross-dressing outings whilst a denizen of New York City.

Here's part of the story....

By Andy Sullivan 43 minutes ago

When Democrats gather in Denver next week to nominate Barack Obama for president, they'll be joined by such uninvited guests as Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

The two former presidential candidates will be among two dozen or so Republicans in the city hoping to get their party's message out during a week dominated by Democratic festivities.

Their slogan? "Not Ready '08: A Mile High and an Inch Deep," a play on the nickname for the high-altitude city in the western United States.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Obama's rival for the November 4 election, is expected to keep a relatively low profile that week, though he is scheduled to appear as a guest on "The Tonight Show" talk show on Monday.

His surrogates will set up shop within walking distance of the Democrats' convention hall, hoping to catch the attention of the 15,000 reporters gathered there.

"With all the hype of the actual convention and all the Obama fans gathered in one spot, we're going to get beyond the glitz and the celebrity and talk about the facts of his record," said Matt McDonald, a McCain staffer overseeing the effort.

"Hurry Up And Get Iraq Solved In Time For The Election..."

Elstun — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:42:55 EDT

Gee...all it takes is a little presidential campaign with Barack Obama challenging idiotic war policies to get things moving in the right direction. I guess the Worst President in History wants to help McSame get elected by moving Iraq off the table. The right thing for the wrong reason; but what can we expect from this bunch? Am I cynical? You're damned right I am!

Here is the article

Blah-blah-blah...

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.

More blah-blah-blah...

U.S. officials have resisted committing firmly to a specific date for a final pullout, insisting that it would be wiser to set a target linked to the attainment of certain agreed-upon goals. These goals would reflect not only security improvements but also progress on the political and economic fronts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq;_ylt=AsBCy2FTPy7oVAJBA3o07UwUewgF

McCain not sure how many houses he and wife own

Elstun — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:19:11 EDT

Days after he cracked that being rich in the U.S. meant earning at least $5 million a year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain acknowledged that he wasn't sure how many houses he and his wealthy wife actually own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain responded to a question posed by Politico, according to a story Thursday on the publication's Web site. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

Later, the McCain campaign told Politico that McCain and his wife, Cindy, have at least four in three states, Arizona, California and Virginia. Newsweek recently estimated the two owned at least seven properties.

On the campaign trail, McCain doesn't refer to his wife's wealth, estimated by some at $100 million and based on her late father's Arizona beer distributorship.

Democratic rival Barack Obama's campaign has been trying to make their wealth more widely known to blunt criticism that Obama is an elitist out of touch with ordinary Americans.

According to her 2006 tax returns, Cindy McCain had a total income of $6 million. She has not released her 2007 returns, which she files separately from her husband. McCain's tax returns showed a total income of $405,409 in 2007.

In a forum last week with the Rev. Rick Warren, McCain was asked to define the word "rich" and to give a figure. After promoting his tax policies, McCain said: "I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?" The audience laughed, and he added: "But seriously, I don't think you can — I don't think seriously that — the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues."

Obama, asked the same question at the forum, said those making $250,000 and higher are in the top 3 to 4 percent and "doing well." Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported making $4.2 million in 2007.

Did McCain Cheat At Saddleback?

Elstun — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:14:12 EDT

>Note. First, we have a story of the McCain Camp whining about NBC's Andrea Mitchell coverage of Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church colloquy bertween McCain and Obama. Apparently she found it odd, as did many others, including the blog Pensito Review, that McCain seemed to have prescience about the questions when his turn came. Fox is so biased against Obama that we don't even bother to complain any more. Pure objectivity is the goal that trolls use to beat media with contrary opinions. McCain was prepped; Obama was sandbagged. Either quit pretending it was otherwise or shoot those Rove attack dogs you employ, McCain.

McCain camp accuses NBC of partisan coverage

Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:52pm EDT

By Paul J. Gough

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - The John McCain campaign fired off an angry letter to NBC News criticizing Andrea Mitchell's comments regarding the "cone of silence" at Saturday night's presidential candidates' forum at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.

Campaign manager Rick Davis cited Mitchell's comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the Barack Obama campaign had said privately that they believed McCain "may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared."

Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday sat down first with Obama and asked him the same questions he would later ask McCain.

Davis denied what he called "a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated." While Obama was being interviewed, McCain was driving to the event and then in a green room without TV, Davis said.

In a letter to NBC News president Steve Capus, Davis said that the network's "level of objectivity ... has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain." He requested a meeting with Capus to discuss news standards and objectivity.

"We are concerned that your news division is following MSNBC's lead in abandoning nonpartisan coverage of the presidential race," Davis wrote.

In a statement Monday, NBC News said that it welcomed an opportunity to speak with officials from both campaigns and said it is in daily contact with the McCain camp.

"With all due respect to the campaign leadership, they are viewing our coverage through a political prism," NBC News said. "We stand by our reporting, our journalism and our journalists."

It's not the first time that NBC has been the subject of accusations during the presidential campaign. MSNBC and NBC News were cited several times during the primary campaign over perceived mistreatment of Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

Cheating at Saddleback: McCain Appparently Knew Question About Supreme Court
in Advance

POSTED: Monday, August 18, 2008

FROM BLOG: Pensito Review - News and Opinion on Politics, Culture and Media

The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com.

MCCAIN: Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –
WARREN: We will get to that.
MCCAIN: OK. All right. OK.
WARREN: You’re jumping ahead…

The McCain campaign is fighting hard against charges that McCain cheated on the rules of debate at a rightwing evangelical forum in a California megachurch over the weekend by cribbing the questions in advance. They are so desperate, apparently, that a McCain operative even played the POW card, citing McCain’s imprisonment by the Vietnamese 40 years ago as evidence somehow that he did not cheat Saturday night.
What’s suspicious here is that the topic of the Supreme Court had not come up in McCain’s interview, so it was not a topic to go "back" to.
Even "Pastor Rick" Warren, the multimillionaire evangelist who hosted the event — and who clearly favored McCain in the questioning — has admitted that McCain was not sequestered during the live session with Obama.

Warren told the live audience in the hall and on CNN that McCain was in a "cone of silence" to prevent him from having the advantage of hearing the questions in advance. In fact, McCain was in his car during much of Obama’s session, where he certainly could have listened to the interview.

And this exchange from the forum appears to indicate that McCain knew that Warren was going to ask him a very specific question about the Supreme Court. Notice how McCain asks if he can go "back" to a question about the court:

WARREN: Let’s deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that’s a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?

MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

WARREN: OK, we don’t have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.

MCCAIN: A union — a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage.

Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –

WARREN: We will get to that.

MCCAIN: OK. All right. OK.

WARREN: You’re jumping ahead…

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But, anyway, go ahead.

What’s suspicious here is that the topic of the Supreme Court had not come up in McCain’s interview, so it was not a topic to go "back" to. On the other hand, Obama had been asked a question about the Supreme Court during his earlier session, which McCain supposedly had not heard:

McCain Overplayed The Georgia Hand...

Elstun — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:37:05 EDT

> Note. The Conservative and timid MSM blabberclass were all about McCain gaining the 'leadership' initiative during the Georgia Crisis. Lou Dobbs hissed through his abundant teeth that "...McCain stepped up while Senator Obama golfed"...or something to that effect, I paraphrase.Well, as any politician, jounalist or ex-beauty queen will tell you, what events may give you, Time can take away. So it is with McWhatever; from today's HuffPost.

*******************************************

Crisis in Georgia Beginning to Turn Into a Big Political Liability for McCain

Robert Creamer: At first the unfolding conflict between Russia and its neighbor the Republic of Georgia seemed to be just what the McCain candidacy needed: a foreign policy crisis that would allow him to demonstrate a "tough, decisive, experienced" mastery of foreign affairs, and a new rationale for why Americans should choose experience over change in a dangerous world. But it hasn't taken long for the developments in the Caucuses to become a growing political liability instead. Click here to read more.

Alaska Selected To Join Barack Obama Backstage At Convention-Profile

Elstun — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:14:37 EDT

Holly Miowak Stebing of Anchorage, Alaska
Holly, a 20-year-old Alaska Native Inupiaq, is spending her summer break from Stanford University at the First Alaskans Organization interviewing native elders about their experiences with segregation. Holly is passionate about improving healthcare access for Native Americans, and protecting Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. The 2008 presidential election is Holly's first as a voter. She says: "This was the first campaign I felt I needed to support. I don't have a lot of money, but I donate what I can because I believe in [Barack]." She will attend the convention with her mother who is the first Native American woman to pass the Alaska bar.

Congratulations, Holly!

The Campaign of Hope and Faith Come Together

Elstun — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:24:26 EDT

>Note. John McCain is being challenged on traditionally Republican ground, on nearly all fronts, by Barack Obama's remarkable movement of hope and change. As noted in the previous post, the Military rank-and-file seem to be enlisting in the Obama army. Four developments out today on the "Faith Front". A Washington Post story today:"GOP Loyalty not a given for Young Evangelicals"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403446.html?hpid=topnews

Another commentary published in the Huffpost, with links, is pasted below, "Will the Real Pro-Life Party Please Stand Up?" Zack Exley makes the case, which those on the Christian Left have known all along, that the Republican Party exploited virtue to deliver Mammon. Neither compassion nor life was really part of the K street agenda.

Finally, two other important developments on the Faith-based front: The launching of the Mathew 25 initiative. Mathew 25, based on Mathew 25:40 (dust off your Bibles and look it up) speaks to compassion and asserts a real faith component in this campaign. I am excited about www.matthew25.org .

And this Saturday there will be a forum hoted by Reverend Rick Warren on the Saddleback Church. Rachel Zoll, AP Religion writer notes:

"Warren is an anti-abortion Southern Baptist who is nonetheless part of a shift away from the religious right's strict focus on abortion and marriage. The environment, poverty and education have also become pressing concerns, especially for younger evangelicals.

Warren is best known for building Saddleback Church into a 23,000-member megachurch in Lake Forest, Calif., and for writing the multimillion-selling book "The Purpose-Driven Life."

But he and his wife, Kay, are also leading advocates for HIV/AIDS victims worldwide. They have invested enormous resources in their PEACE Plan, now under way in Rwanda, which aims to combat corruption, illiteracy and other social problems through church partnerships with government and business..."

Senator Obama is much more comfortabler discussing matters of faith than is Senator McCain and I see this as a real opportunity to resonate with younger evangelicals. Keep watching for stories on this event.

***************************************************************************

Will the Real Pro-life Party Please Stand Up?

AP/Alex Brandon

Zack Exley: Many Christians are finally getting fed up with the complete failure of the GOP to reduce abortions, even with 20 years of Republican presidency since the rise of the Christian right. If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war then he could bring about a seismic shift in electoral politics that makes the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon look like nothing. Click here to read more.

New Hays Research Group Results in Alaska: Obama 45; McCain 40

Elstun — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:46:17 EDT

From Hays Research Group:

"...Our first published Presidential election poll of this campaign has yielded some very interesting results. This month Hays Research Group asked 400 Alaskan Voters who they intended to vote for in the upcoming presidential election.

As always, the results of this scientific survey are free for you to view online at:

http://www.haysresearch.com/080708.htm

If you know anyone else who you think might like to receive our monthly newsletter and free 'Opinion Counts' survey results, please encourage them to sign up for our newsletter at http://www.haysresearch.com/

And finally, if you have any questions about this survey, or any of the public opinion research services Hays Research Group provides, please feel free to contact me!

Anne Hays

Research Director

Hays Research Group

P.O. Box 110183

Anchorage, AK 99511-0183

(907) 277-1025

anne@haysresearch.com

Answered by 400 out of 400

Question 1

"Thinking about the election for President of the United States, if the

election were held today and the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama,

Republican John McCain or Independent Ralph Nader, for whom would you vote

or are you undecided?"

Obama - strong 138/400 35%

Obama - not so strong 28/400 7%

Undecided - lean Obama 15/400 4%

Total Obama 181/400 45%

McCain - strong 127/400 32%

McCain - not so strong 26/400 7%

Undecided - lean McCain 8/400 2%

Total McCain 161/400 40%

Nader - strong 6/400 1.5%

Nader - not so strong 2/400 <1%

Undecided - lean Nader 1/400 <1%

Total Nader 9/400 2%

Other 8/400 2%

Undecided / Don't Know 41/400 10%

Our Obama House Party

Elstun — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:35:29 EDT

August 7, Harriet and I hosted a houseparty for Obama. Galen is the Field Coordinator for District 25 and she provided the "official" campaign presence at the meeting. We sent out scores of emails, leafleted out neighborhood and made calls and, in the end, we had about a dozen folks show up over the evening. The three people who signed up via the website did not show up. There may have been discouragement because of a thunderstorm/hail/shower that immeidately preceded the event. Afterwards, the sun broke through and our freshly-mown backyard became the venue for much of the discussion that evening until around 7 when a little sprinkle sent us scrambling inside. We had lots of food contributed by the folks who came and the discussion was wide-ranging, in fact, so much so that a couple of times it was necessary to pull us back on track.

We watched a DVD of the South Carolina Victory Speech, which, while an excellent and inspiring speech also contained a couple of identifiable jabs at the Clinton Campaign which, at this time of party unity, might not be the best video for these purposes. There were a couple of clinton supporters present at the houseparty and both made note of those comments, while expressing overall support and positive feelings from the evening.

We went around the room and each of us talked about why we were supporting Barack. I will confine myself to the comments of Harriet and me, although many great comments were shared by everyone. Harriet spoke of her own political experience this year as a local government candidate. She saw a perceptible "shift" in the mood of the electorate: liberal/progressive voters are much more motivated than conservatives. She senses an opportunity for real change at the most local level and Barack has the capacity to galvanize that mood at the national level.

I spoke of how cynical I have become over the years. The Rove image machine had twice pushed a toady press corp and the corporate media into twisting the finest qualities of our presidential candidates into deficits. Al Gore, a brilliant policy leader was turned into a muddle-headed exaggerator; John Kerry, a genuine hero became a "coward". I faced 2008 with some trepidation. Despite the excellent field of candidates presented by the Democrats last Fall. I could not help but wonder how the political machinery of personal destruction would work this year. And then Barack Obama emerged.

Hunter Thompson is his book "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" wrote about his struggles in covering the 1972 McGovern campaign for the Rolling Stone Magazine. Everything about the McGovern campaign seemed muddled and unconnected to the voter. Thompson couldn't identify the quality that was missing from the campaign until, one evening, around 4 am, driving around the streets of Chicago, Thompson heard a radio spot by the DNC that used an old clip of Bobby Kennedy's voice. Thompson had a journalistic apotheosis: he likened Kennedy's voice in the midst of the 1972 campaign to a sudden shot of the Rolling Stone's "Let It Bleed" in the middle of a recital by the Norman Luboff Choir. Kennedy's clear, nasal-accented, rapid-fire challenge to Americans to believe in themselves again was exactly what was missing from the 1972 campaign and...bring it up to date...it is exactly what is needed in 2008.

Incredibly and fortuitously, Barack Obama has come along to deliver that message and that energy and I am able to set aside my cynicism and...yes...hope again.

I recommend that everyone who can, host or participate in a house party...its a great way to bring together like-minded neighbors and be part of this time of historic change.

Where is the Media on McCain and Adultry?

Elstun — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:51:47 EDT

This comment posted to Ben Smith's Politico Blog summarizes what I have been wondering for a long time. The MSM wallows in tabloid journalism, the Edwards infidelity story being the latest example. The Edwards story has become a black hole of the political news galaxy, sucking in all the matter and letting out no light. Okay...given the MSM's pursuit of Joe Sixpack's endless fascination with gossip--feed him this one.

********************************************************************************

It will be interesting to see if any enterprising reporter asks John McCain point blank: "Have you ever committed adultery?" It is a germane question because (1) Edwards adultery is big news and (2) McCain has made "moral character" the main issue of his campaign. McCain may not be too keen to answer yes or no because the truth won't please the family values crowd. While he was a P.O.W. in Vietnam, his first wife, model Carol Shepp, was seriously injured in a horrific traffic accident in which she was thrown through the windshield. She didn't mention this in her letters to him in Vietnam to keep his morale up. When he got back and saw her 4 inches shorter, seriously overweight, and on crutches, he began having affairs. One piece of indisputable evidence is the fact that he obtained a license to marry wealthy beer heiress Cindy Hensley on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to Carol. If you type: McCain adultery to Google, you'll get 500,000 hits. Journalistic standards ought to require that if Edwards cheating on his sick wife is an indication of a deep moral flaw, then McCain cheating on his sick wife ought to be the same thing. And McCain is a candidate for President; Edwards is not.
Posted By: From electoral-vote.com | August 09, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Today's Washington Post on the Obama Campaign in Alaska

Elstun — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:00:11 EDT

>Note. Hooray For FAIRBANKS! The REAL Alaskan City! Great pic above from Flickr. Pay attention to the comments at the end from McHugh Pierre, spokesman for the Alaska Republican Party, holds out hope that McCain will change his position on drilling in the refuge. He also batted aside japes from his Democratic rivals -- who issued a series of news releases suggesting vacant office space that McCain's campaign might rent -- by suggesting the influx of Obama staffers amounted to carpetbagging.

"Obama is trying to take advantage of our situation," Pierre said. "Obama has a lot of East Coast liberal staffers in Alaska" while McCain, he said, "has a real grass-roots effort, Alaskans talking to Alaskans.

McHugh Pierre's Telephone Number is (907) 276-4467. Give him a call and ask him to identify the "east coast staffers in Alaska". I did. I'm still waiting for his return call.

**************************************************************************

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 5, 2008; A04

ANCHORAGE -- In what might be the fullest realization of Barack Obama's pledge to run hard in parts of the country largely untouched by presidential campaigning, the Democrat's Alaska operation is making plans for organizers to hopscotch the state's vast and sparsely populated interior by bush plane, knocking on doors in remote outposts for their candidate.

"Go around, put up signs, shake some hands, see some of the important people in the village," said state representative and professional pilot Woodie Salmon (D), describing his own campaign tactics in a legislative district that includes 94 villages, 70 of which can be reached only by air. "Get things stirred up and leave again."

Conservative and quirky, Alaska last went for a Democratic presidential candidate 44 years ago. No nominee from either party has even visited since Richard Nixon's journey to glad-hand in Anchorage on the last weekend of the 1960 campaign, a stop that some argue cost him the razor-thin election.

Obama, who often boasts of having visited the other 49 states, has yet to commit to a stop here. But his vibrant campaign operation here is stoking expectations and mounting the most prodigious presidential effort Alaska has seen.

While the John McCain campaign has yet to open an office anywhere in the state, Obama has dispatched dozens of paid staffers here over the past month; the latest batch arrived over the weekend. It is assigning field coordinators in each of the state's 40 legislative districts and has been buying television ad time since June.

"The campaign is treating Alaska as a key battleground state," said Jeff Giertz, the campaign's communications director in Alaska, who arrived in Anchorage from Iowa, the scene of Obama's first victory of the Democratic nominating contest.

With only three electoral votes, Alaska may seem a low-stakes prize. But by pouring time and money into traditionally Republican Western states such as Montana and Colorado, the Obama campaign is trying to make good on its vow to redraw the electoral map and force the McCain campaign to watch its flanks -- all the while reinforcing Obama's overarching claim of nurturing a politics of inclusion.

"It's a tough state to move, but we're making a play," Giertz said. "If there's any year where a Democrat can win Alaska, this is the year."

Public surveys consistently have McCain ahead, but by single-digit margins that reflect the Republican's tepid support here.

"Obama's really holding his own," said Andrew Halcro, a former Republican state lawmaker and independent gubernatorial candidate who termed the Obama effort "amazing."

"I think they could come pretty close," said David Dittman, the state's leading pollster, who works primarily with Republicans. He added: "I don't think Obama would win."

In a state where Ross Perot drew 28 percent in 1992 and Ralph Nader banked every tenth vote eight years later, an array of circumstances offers encouragement to the underdog Democrat, starting with McCain's last-place finish in the Republican caucus in February behind Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

The Arizona Republican faces a tough sell here. Though McCain's military credentials resonate with Alaska's veteran and active-duty residents, he is also known here for railing against the "earmark" appropriations that bring Alaskans more federal money per capita than any other state.

But McCain's most dubious distinction is as the first GOP candidate in memory to oppose oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The position, which McCain reiterated even while reversing his opposition to off-shore drilling, puts him at odds with the overwhelming majority of Alaskans.

"There's a sense of betrayal with McCain in the fact that he doesn't support it," Dittman said. "There's the sense that he's not any better than a Democrat."

And this year, being a Democrat may not be such a bad thing. Every Republican on the November ballot can expect to suffer from the corruption scandal that has tarred Alaskan politics. Last week's indictment of Ted Stevens, the U.S. Senate's longest-serving Republican, follows the federal convictions of three state GOP lawmakers in cases that featured surveillance videos starring the oil executive who prosecutors say remodeled Stevens's modest Girdwood home.

Public revulsion at the continuing torrent of revelations fueled the upset election of Republican Sarah Palin as governor in 2006, on a platform of Alaskan pride and cleaning up government.

"I think Obama's message is similar to Sarah's two years ago," said Halcro, who lost his third-party bid to Palin. "People want to believe that these really complex public policy questions are going to be solved by what I call glittering generalities."

Alaskans may also appreciate being noticed.

"We've always voted up here. Just nobody's paid much attention," said Jim Schultz, 71.

Snowy-bearded and cheerful, the federal retiree worked the phones in Obama headquarters on a rare sunny evening during a cold and cloudy summer. Across the table sat a beaming Celine Gammond, 18.

"It gives us legitimacy," she said of the campaign's effort. "It's like we're a real state."

The youthful enthusiasm that powers the famous Obama ground operation first became apparent here on caucus night: The 8,800 who jammed into caucus sites represented more than ten times the turnout four years earlier, with 70 percent for the Illinois senator.

"I hope America doesn't disappoint these young people," Schultz said. But working the phones reminded him that in the great north, more than the weather can be harsh: "I think what surprises me is the animosity or the rudeness. If they're Republican they say, 'I'm not even going to talk to you.' Or they hang up."

Still, political professionals say the sheer force of effort is bound to produce dividends.

"They really appreciate that people would come to your town and talk to you. That's a big thing," said Salmon, who uses his two Cessnas for "campaigning, hunting, and odds and ends."

Fuel will be expensive, though, especially if the pilot refuels in the bush, where prices reflect the expense of delivering it there by barge or even air. "Arctic villages' last reported gas price was about $10 a gallon, and they live right next to ANWR," Salmon said.

McHugh Pierre, spokesman for the Alaska Republican Party, holds out hope that McCain will change his position on drilling in the refuge. He also batted aside japes from his Democratic rivals -- who issued a series of news releases suggesting vacant office space that McCain's campaign might rent -- by suggesting the influx of Obama staffers amounted to carpetbagging.

"I don't think the views or opinions of Alaskans have changed, and the views of the Republican Party still represent the views of most people.

"Ronald Reagan didn't even have an office here," Pierre said. "This is the normal deal."

Despite Media Narrative, Obama Leads By Over 100 Electoral Votes

Elstun — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:42:49 EDT

> Note. Mark Nickolas' Blog reports that the MSM has itr wrong not only in the little things, but in the biggest picture of all...the electoral trend.

SEE the original post at

http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2974blog/&blogId=2974

by Mark Nickolas on Aug 4, 2008

With all the breathlessness over the minute movements in the irrelevant national polls, the one thing no one seems to be noticing is that the electoral map is still trending very poorly for John McCain (R).

I realize that it cuts against the media narrative right now to focus on anything that doesn't suggest a dead-heat, but it's quite instructive to see how the independent groups (and even right-leaning ones) currently see the state of the race through the only prism that matters -- the Electoral College:

                   Obama McCain    Margin
Real Clear Politics   322    216    Obama +106
Electoral-Vote.com    316    209    Obama +107
FiveThirtyEight.com   303    235    Obama + 68
Pollster.com          284    147    Obama +137
AVERAGE               306    202    Obama +104

If you think about the reporting of the fluctuating state polls lately that show a tight race, all of them involve red states that McCain can't afford to lose: Colorado, Montana, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Alaska, Georgia, etc.

Despite the media narrative that a number of blue states are competitive, the truth is none of the recent polling shows McCain making any significant inroads in the blue states. Consider:

In Michigan, McCain had not led in any poll since May;
In Pennsylvania, McCain has not led in any poll April, and a Republican poll released last week showed McCain trailing by 9, in line with the current Pollster.com average;
In New Hampshire, McCain has not led in any poll since April;
In Minnesota, while one recent poll showed McCain within the margin of error, no other poll in the past month (including one poll taken more recently) has him within 12 points.

So, while the media breathlessly reports the national tracking polls which shows a close race, the state polling is still showing a pretty significant Obama lead.

P.S. -- Again reminding us how big of a joke CNN's political reporting has become, their current electoral map has it Obama 221, McCain 189. What a farce.

Big Oil Bundling For McCain

Elstun — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:54:02 EDT

>Note. Veco provided home improvements for Ted Stevens and the Justice Department indicts him; what do they think of THIS? No quid pro quo here, right?

Multiple Oil Company Executives Gave Huge Contributions To Electing McCain Just Days After Offshore Drilling Reversal

By Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld

- August 4, 2008, 12:47PM
Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee, just days after McCain reversed himself to favor offshore drilling, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Nine of these contributions, seven from Hess executives and two from members of the Hess family, came on the same day, June 24th, the records show. The total collected in the wake of McCain's reversal for the fund, called McCain Victory 2008, from Hess execs and family is $285,000.

We were alerted to the contributions by Campaign Money Watch, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign contributions. The contributions were given a quick mention deep in a report the group issued late last week, but with no names or other details provided. The Hess contributions are clearly newsworthy on their own.

The Washington Post reported last week that campaign contributions from oil industry execs rose in a big way in the last half of June, after McCain drew a huge amount of attention by reversing his opposition on June 16th to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

These Hess contributions, however, hadn't been reported until now, and they will give more ammo to those arguing that McCain is being rewarded by campaign contributions in exchange for pro-industry positions. Here's a table detailing the contributions:

24-Jun J. Barclay Collins Hess Corp.Attorney $28,500
19-Jun John B. Hess Hess Corp.Executive $28,500
24-Jun Susan K. Hess Homemaker $28,500
24-Jun Norma W. Hess Retired $28,500
24-Jun John J. O'Connor Hess Corp.Executive $28,500
24-Jun Lawrence Ornstein Hess Corp.Senior VP $28,500
24-Jun John Reilly Hess Corp.Executive $28,500
24-Jun Alice Rocchio Hess Corp.Office Manager $28,500
24-Jun John Scelfo Hess Corp.Senior VP of Finance $28,500
24-Jun F. Borden Walker Hess Corp.Businessman $28,500
Norma W. Hess is the widow of oil magnate and company founder Leon Hess, and Susan K. Hess is the wife of Hess chairman and CEO John Hess.

Neither a spokesperson for Hess nor the McCain campaign immediately responded to requests for comment. More on this in a bit.

Late Update: It turns out that $28,500 is the maximum that can be given to the RNC, but because this particular victory fund collects money via various channels, an individual donor can actually give more than that to it. I've edited out "maximum" from the headline. Obviously this doesn't change the story in any way.

Late Late Update: A Hess office manager and her husband, an Amtrak worker, each chipped in $28,000 apiece, too.

Late Late Late Update: Turns out that the office manager and her Amtrak husband rent their home in Flushing, Queens.

McCain Vs 'Uppity' Barack Obama

Elstun — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:40:40 EDT

>Note. Paul Jenkins--the Huffpost Blogger, not the Anchorage Times curmudgeon, had a post a couple of days ago that goes right to the heart of the narrative that the GOP, Rove and McCain are weaving about Obama being a phenomenon of shallow celebrity: Barack Obama doesn't know 'his place'. Oh, of course they don't actually SAY that, silly rabbit. That would be too...inappropriate. But what they DO say is this: how else can you explain this candidate's success? If he is an empty suit, without experience or ability, how else can you explain the fact that his has raised more money than any political campaign in US history, drawn record-breaking crowds in the US and abroad, and has been ahead of John McCain since widespread general election polling began four months ago? People of America...the subtext of this narrative goes...this 'boy' doesn't know his placed and it is up to us good ol' Amuricunz to teach him! Doesn't it just 'feel' better to have a grumpy old white man who lives in a world where Iraq and Pakistan share a common border in the oval office?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/obama-still-does-not-know_b_115671.html

The Slime Behind The Pentagon-Germany Visit & McCain Attacks!

Elstun — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:11:38 EDT

>Note. Some breaks just happen because you are right. For example, Senator Obama benefitted from the al-Malaki support of his 16 month withdrawal 'horizon'; he benefitted from the realignment of 'official' U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe (-over a year after Senator Obama framed the issue); and Senator Obama's declaration that he would use the tools of engagement toward Iran has also been proven right by Secretary of State Rice struggling mightily to salvage some sort of legacy for the Bush Administration. Other breaks happen not because you are right, but because you are manipulative. John McCain, the Man-With-The-Angry-Voices-In-His-Head, benefitted from the manipulations of a Bush political operative embedded in the Pentagon. Here is the story from the Strategy08 Blog. Copy and paste this on all the sites you subscribe to—especially the MSM ones like CNN--this needs to get out! http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/the-slime-behind-the-pentagon-germany-visit/#more-289
Robert Wilkie, Assistant Secretary of Defense Legislative Affairs
This is the guy who began the sliming of Barack Obama’s planned visit to Landstuhl, the military hospital in Germany, and helped the McCain campaign get their political ad out–this is downright coordination between the Pentagon and the McCain presidential campaign. For more information on this explosive story, please continue to read below:

Robert Wilkie’s biography reads like a Republican’s wet dream of gaining access to power, first starting with his career on Capitol Hill in working for Senator Jesse Helms, the famed racist, and then his appointment to his current position by President George W. Bush in 2006 and subsequent confirmation by the U.S. Senate in 2006.
Here’s the beginning of the story, starting with the briefing by Robert Gibbs, the Obama press secretary, here:
Senior strategist Robert Gibbs said the visit to the military hospital in Germany had been in the works for about three weeks, with Gration serving as the campaign’s contact with the Pentagon.
The Pentagon cleared the Obama plan to land at the base on either July 15 or 16, Gibbs said. The plane needed the clearance because of restrictions on landing nonmilitary aircraft there, he said.
But then on Wednesday, Gration told Obama aides that the Pentagon had informed him that the visit could be viewed as a campaign stop.
“They cited a regulation,” Gibbs said of their point of contact, described as legislative affairs in the office of the secretary.
It seems that Robert Wilkie likes to cite regulations for political reasons, given a previous Boston Globe story in 2007:
Robert L. Wilkie , a former Bush administration national security official who left the White House to become assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs last year, has outlined a half-dozen guidelines that prohibit most officers below the rank of colonel from appearing in hearings, restricting testimony to high-ranking officers and civilians appointed by President Bush.
The guidelines, described in an April 19 memo to the staff director of the House Armed Services Committee, adds that all field-level officers and enlisted personnel must be “deemed appropriate” by the Department of Defense before they can participate in personal briefings for members of Congress or their staffs; in addition, according to the memo, the proceedings must not be recorded.
…
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the move as a blatant attempt to bog down investigations of the war. But veterans of the legislative process — who say they have never heard of such guidelines before — maintain that the Pentagon has no authority to set such ground rules.
The one way to stop slime like this, is to make the story ABOUT the slime, particularly the origin of the slime. Thus, the focus of the outrage is now on the origin of the slime, Robert Wilkie, and the Bush White House by default. This helps in creating more support for Barack Obama from the general populace when they realize that it was the White House and the Pentagon that worked in coordination with John McCain’s campaign to politicize this visit to wounded troops.

Vice President Tim Kaine?

Elstun — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:39:38 EDT

>NOTE. Tim Kaine is Governor of Virginia and, because of that, he is often referred to by the Talking Heads as a "Centrist". After all, a "progressive" could never get elected Governor of the cusp state, right? Wrong. Tim Kaine is popular, he's populist and he's progressive. Too often in the Post-Reagan America, liberal/progressive politicians are not 'comfortable in their skin'; Kaine is. And, like Barack Obama, he's got brainpower. Let the Democratic Leadership Council keep their Evan Bayhs; we need a solid progressive with fire in his belly That's Tim Kaine. Here's a profile by Larry Sabato.

***********************************

By Larry Sabato

We have no earthly idea if Virginia Governor Tim Kaine is Obama's choice for Vice President. All we know is that distinguished reporters who claim to have good sources are calling and saying that Kaine is on the short-short list.

Since the Crystal Ball is based in Virginia, and since we have followed Tim Kaine's career since it began on the Richmond City Council in 1994, we'll offer our readers a brief precis on what Kaine would add to the ticket, and what he would not, should the rumors prove accurate.

As with all potential Veep picks, there are pluses and minuses. Let's start with Kaine's advantages:

1. Personal Chemistry

There can be little doubt that this is the main reason why Obama is looking at Kaine. The first state governor outside Obama's Illinois to endorse Obama for President, Kaine was immediately drawn to the Illinois senator because they are two peas in a political pod. Both Harvard Law graduates with Kansas roots, both attorneys with a central focus on civil rights, and both relatively new to the big leagues, Obama and Kaine clearly like one another and enjoy each other's company.

Obama has realized that a modern Vice President practically lives with the Chief Executive, especially in times of crisis, and he wants someone he can trust completely. One other similarity that some see is less flattering. Obama and Kaine are both supremely self-confident, and their adversaries (and even some of their friends) occasionally detect a hint of hubris and arrogance. On the other hand, we have never known a President or governor who was genuinely humble. That special quality possessed by the meek doesn't go hand in hand with high political office.

2. Emphasis on Domestic Policy

The foremost issue in the minds of voters isn't Iraq or foreign affairs anymore; it's the sour economy and domestic policy. A governor focuses daily on the key components of domestic concern--jobs, education, transportation, health care, and the like. Kaine could speak with self assurance in these fields. Not only has he served as governor, but he was on the Richmond City Council from 1994 to 2001 (when he was elected lieutenant governor), and the Council-elected mayor of Richmond from 1998-2001. As an ambassador to the urban areas of America, Kaine would have credibility.

3. Out-of-Washington Change

It has not escaped anyone's notice that the President is at 25 percent approval, the Congress is around 15 percent, and even the Supreme Court has fallen below 50 percent in some polls. Since Obama has been in Washington barely long enough to learn the street layout, he can avoid the awful, prevailing D.C. taint. Kaine adds emphasis to the 'change' theme since he has no Washington experience of any kind.

4. Virginia

For decades, analysts prematurely proclaimed that the Old Dominion had become the New Dominion, and in the twenty-first century it's finally true. Among the most improbable of 2008's toss-up states, Virginia is on the knife's edge. It is not unreasonable to expect the sitting Governor to add a couple of points to Obama's total. Kaine is popular (mid-50s in most surveys), though not wildly so, as was his predecessor, Mark Warner, who is currently cruising to a big U.S. Senate victory in the state.

Oh, it almost goes without saying that John McCain would have a very difficult time finding the 13 electoral votes he might lose in Virginia. Keep in mind that Virginia has voted Republican in thirteen of the last fourteen presidential contests (save only LBJ's in 1964), and the state is tied for the best GOP record in the nation. Even Georgian Jimmy Carter, who won all the other states of the South, couldn't take Virginia. Defeat in the New Dominion would be a major and perhaps decisive blow to McCain. Could Tim Kaine be the first VP nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1960 to deliver a critical, toss-up home state for his ticket?

5. Special Qualities

Kaine is Roman Catholic, often described as "devout" even though he is pro-choice in effect while projecting a pro-life image and accepting of the death penalty despite personal opposition to it. Catholics are a swing vote in 2008, and Kaine's Christian religious orientation matches Obama's. This might help with the campaign's much publicized outreach to church-going Americans. Kaine is a former missionary to Honduras and he speaks fluent Spanish, which can only assist in the effort to woo Hispanics.

Kaine is more national than real Virginian (as a native of Virginia, this author can snobbishly suggest this), having been born in Minnesota, having grown up in Kansas, and having attended colleges in Missouri and Massachusetts. Therefore, Kaine has ties to three swing states (MN, MO, and VA). Kaine has a bipartisan dimension, since his father-in-law is Linwood Holton, Virginia's first Republican Governor of the 20th century, who served from 1970 to 1974. Republicans will be quick to add that Holton has long since left the party--Holton says the party left him--and he recently told this author that the only Republican he has voted for in recent times is retiring U.S. Sen. John Warner, a moderate.

Kaine is highly articulate, young (age 50, close to Obama's 46 years), and an accomplished campaigner. As a team, they will look good and make sense, much as the youthful team of Bill Clinton and Al Gore produced synergy for 1992's Democrats. Finally, fulfilling the oldest VP mandate of "first, do no harm", Kaine is squeaky clean and scandal-free, as even his enemies admit, and he is unlikely to commit gaffes or deflect attention from the presidential nominee.

There are no perfect people, and that goes double for VP picks. So Kaine brings certain disadvantages and baggage to Obama, too:

1. Lack of Experience Where It Is Most Needed

Other than the possibility of racial leakage at the polls--the chance that many white voters who would otherwise vote Democratic this year will be unable to cast a ballot for an African-American--there is no greater threat to Obama's victory than his inexperience. With fewer than four years in Washington as a senator, most of which has been spent running for president, plus a stint in the Illinois State Senate, Obama's public office resume is undeniably thin. His recent successful Magical Mystery Tour of eight European and Middle Eastern countries notwithstanding, Obama has little or no foreign policy, military, and national security experience.

Unless one counts foreign trade missions, Kaine has even less knowledge of these areas than Obama. Survey after survey has shown that Americans have a hard time, at least so far, seeing Obama in the role of commander-in-chief. A VP pick with solid background in the military or international arena would be reassuring. Kaine provides no comfort there, and it may cost Obama. Overall, Kaine has executive experience as a mayor and governor that perhaps balances Obama's purely legislative resume. Yet this would be a team whose elective resume is rather skimpy, beginning only in the mid-1990s, with just one truly consequential office each--and not a full term in it for either.

2. The Hillary Factor

Few insiders believe there is a chance Obama will pick Hillary Clinton, despite her near-tie with Obama in popular votes and delegates. The reasons are well known, including lack of personal chemistry and the potential campaign and White House role of Bill Clinton. But given continuing reluctance among some Hillary voters to back Obama, is it a risk for Obama to form a ticket with Kaine, one of his earliest and most ardent backers? Might it not make more sense for Obama to select a former strong Hillary backer--though someone of pleasant personality with whom Obama could forge a working partnership? The obvious name is Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who some say is also on Obama's short-short list.

3. Kaine's Governorship

Few nonpartisan observers in Virginia regard Kaine's tenure in the Governor's Office as particularly successful. Having known every governor since Albertis Harrison (1962-1966) and having studied the records of the dozen most recent governors, I would characterize Kaine's term to this point as belonging to the bottom quartile. To be fair, he has a year and a half to go, and sometimes a Virginia governor can make a final push that raises his grade considerably.

So far, Kaine has had one shining moment after the Virginia Tech massacre in April 2007, when he handled the tragedy with aplomb--easily on a par with Gov. Frank Keating's management of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 or Gov. Haley Barbour's skill in bringing Mississippi back from the brink of chaos after Hurricane Katrina. But otherwise, his executive tenure has recorded few significant successes and one giant, overriding failure in the transportation field where Kaine hoped to make his mark. Is Kaine solely responsible? Absolutely not.

The Republican House of Delegates, controlled by social conservatives and anti-tax partisans, has been determined not to give Kaine a major achievement. "No more Mark Warners" has been their slogan, believing that the GOP's willingness to work with Kaine's Democratic predecessor to pass a large tax hike created a political juggernaut in Warner, and deeply alienated the right-wing Republican base. Still, even Democratic legislators friendly to Kaine say privately that he is often a distant governor, certainly compared to Warner, inclined to give orders without thorough follow-up and flexibility. Whether Kaine's record as Governor would matter much to a national audience is doubtful, so this may not be much of a threat to Obama.

4. The Aftermath in Virginia

Naturally, Obama would not be especially concerned about the post-Kaine era in Virginia, and given the frustrations of his governorship, one could hardly blame Kaine for grabbing a chance to move up and out--and eventually perhaps have his own shot at the presidency. However, many Virginia Democrats are privately unhappy at the prospect of Kaine leaving in mid-term, potentially the first Virginia governor not to complete the single four-year term since it was established beginning in 1852. That is because Kaine would be succeeded by a deeply conservative Republican lieutenant governor, Bill Bolling.

Undoubtedly and appropriately, Bolling would quickly move to put his own stamp on state government with a new Cabinet, agency heads, and board appointments. Under an agreement previously reached with the now-presumptive 2009 GOP gubernatorial nominee, Attorney General Bob McDonnell, Bolling would be the Republican nominee for a full term. (The election is in November 2009.) Bolling had side-stepped a divisive GOP primary with a grateful McDonnell in order to run for reelection to the lieutenant governorship, but part of their gentleman's agreement--confirmed by both men to me at the time--guaranteed Bolling the nomination if he should succeed to the top spot before the June 2009 nominating deadline. Thus, for the first time since 1852, an incumbent Governor, Bill Bolling, would seek reelection.

While mistakes in office could always deny him the prize, the presumption would be that Virginians would not want three governors in one year. Thus, Kaine's departure could deliver a five-year Bolling governorship, quite possibly followed by a term of McDonnell. (The modern Virginia tradition has been to give a party at least two consecutive terms in the governor's chair, even though the one-term-and-out rule means that different people would be elected every four years.) The Bolling term would include the redistricting year of 2011, possibly enabling Republicans to tenure in their state legislative and U.S. House incumbents for another decade. The Senate of Virginia, narrowly controlled by the Democrats (21 to 19) and dependant upon the good health of an eighty-something incumbent, could also go Republican in 2011, with a GOP governor leading the charge. This would wipe out Democratic momentum in Virginia.

We're jumping way ahead, and perhaps this nightmare scenario for Democrats would be short-circuited somewhere along the way--but it is very much in the minds of senior Virginia Democrats as they contemplate an early Kaine departure for the Vice Presidency. And the top Republicans will hardly believe their luck, if this comes to pass. In all states, gaining the governorship is the key to expanding a party's political control. The Virginia GOP has been deep down and virtually out since 2001, but they may well owe their comeback to a Democratic presidential candidate and a Democratic governor. By the way, this same situation could develop even if Kaine is not chosen VP. A President-Elect Obama would almost certainly offer Kaine a Cabinet post. Were Kaine to take it, Republicans would begin their roll.

Democrats will happily absorb the first half of this essay, while Republicans will eagerly focus on the second half. As always, the Crystal Ball tries to walk in the middle of the road--that six-inch-wide yellow line where you get hit from both sides.

This entire piece of prose is pure speculation, of course. But hasn't it been fun?

Dr. Sabato, the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, founded the Center for Politics in 1998.

Counterattacking A Viral Attack

Elstun — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:51:43 EDT

>NOTE. The letter referenced in my letter to the Richmond Times-Dispatch is reproduced below. The Obama blog doesn’t support fancy fonts so you do not have the benefit of seeing the dizzying array of colorful fonts that gilded the words of Mr. Alvarez. Maybe the newspaper will print my response, maybe not. I am sharing it with you so that maybe you can share it with others who drop this piece of rhetorical “mierda” in your email box. Google "Manuel Alvarez, Jr. Sandy Hook" and you will see the extent that the echo chamber has spread this thing.

An open letter to Manuel Alvarez, Jr. Sandy Hook (Sent to the Richmond Times-Dispatch).

Dear Manuel,

Your thinly-veiled attack on Barack Obama has been making the rounds of the Right-Wing echo chamber from the FreeRepublic.com to Fox Network News.

Your insinuations were forwarded to me by a friend who had received them from an conservative acquaintance. Your words were enhanced with colored fonts and highlights by someone along the way, perhaps anticipating an audience without the intellect to grasp your thrusts in their original form. After reading your words, I decided to write to you. As an Obama supporter and an advocate for change, I am one of the ‘dupes’ that you are targeting with your letter. Not having your address, I am submitting this to the source of your comments, the Richmond Times Dispatch in hopes that they might run it.

I, like you, am a citizen of the United States. Unlike you I am not an immigrant with an ax to grind. I have to judge things here in the United States simply as they have been and how they are now and how I hope things will be in the future. Before George W. Bush this country was more united than it was divided. Before George W. Bush this country was respected in the world. Before George W. Bush this country had a buoyant economy. Before George W. Bush our national guard existed to help combat American disasters. Before George W. Bush we were welcome partners in this hemisphere, North and South. Before George W. Bush our Constitution was the foundation of our freedom. Manuel, many of the great things that once were have been diminished under eight years of George W. Bush and I am looking for a leader who will work to reverse the disasters of the Bush era. So, yes, "Change" is important to me. You see, Manuel, those of us who only know the United States as the great and compassionate country that it once was will work for change and support change because we no longer will accept leadership that diminishes, trivializes and undermines this great country. While I am sure that you look forward to returning to a Free Cuba one day, I am focused only on strengthening the institutions of freedom here in the United States. That is why I see Barack Obama as my choice for change.

Respectfully,

Elstun W. Lauesen II

Letter from a Cuban, READ VERY SLOWLY………

“C H A N G E”

From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008 ~

Dear Editor, "Times-Dispatch",

Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America ’s. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.

On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba , and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.

I’ve thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.

When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, “Praise the Lord.”

And when the young leader said, “I will be for change and I’ll bring you change”; everyone yelled, “Viva Fidel!”

But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner’s guns went silent, the people’s guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received th eir free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I’m back to the beginning of my story.

Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ?

“C H A N G E”

Would we?

Manuel Alvarez, Jr. Sandy Hook

MEDIA'S 'LIBERAL BIAS' BIAS: Study Says Media Tougher on Obama

Elstun — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:24:01 EDT

>NOTE. The L.A. Times has published a study and, as I pointed out earlier, the media has been 'McWhipped' into being tougher on Senator Obama than the Man-With-Angry-Voices-In-His-Head.

In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia272008jul27,0,2066363,full.story

Obama's Prayer

Elstun — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:08:21 EDT

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press WriterFri Jul 25, 4:26 PM ET

An Israeli newspaper's decision to publish a handwritten prayer left by Barack Obama in the cracks of Jerusalem's Western Wall drew criticism Friday as an invasion of his privacy and his relationship with God.

In the note, placed at Judaism's holiest site Thursday, Obama asks God to guide him and guard his family.

"Lord — Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will," reads the note published in Maariv.

See the rest of the story:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_obama_s_note

McCain's Prayer:

"Lord, quiet those angry voices in my head and PUL-EEEZE help me keep it together long enough to get through this campaign..."

Bush's Prayer:

"Lord, grant me unconditional immunity from prosecution for abuse of power, war crimes and crimes against humanity...Oh and throw in a new iPhone while you're at it..."

Fox News (Britt Hume) asking a panel of "experts" about Obama's Prayer: "...Don't you find that the prayer revealed a selfish preoccupation with his own safety when we have a world facing threats from terrorism?"

Rush Limbaugh: THERE IT IS FOLKS...IN BLACK AND WHITE...OBAMA THINKS HE TALKS TO GOD...OBAMA THINKS THAT HE IS DOING GOD'S WILL! THIS IS SCARY FOLKS..."

James Dobson: "...Did you hear any mention of Jesus, the Son of God, who Senator Obama 'Claims' as his Savior? I think we can now put to rest who his REAL lord is: the Lord of Abraham who is, must I say it, friends, worshipped by the Muslims as well as the Jews..."

FreeRepublic.Com: "...This is another example of Obama's manipulations of the media...they paid somebody to 'leak' that prayer to the Liberal Media!"

Okay...enough of this silliness.

My point is this: sometimes things are exactly as they appear. Maybe...just maybe, folks...Barack Obama is a spiritual person with a highly evolved consciouosness and no spin is called for.

The Promise Land Eludes The McCainaanites...

Elstun — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:10:00 EDT

They burn hecatombs to the gods of the Media. The Lords of the Waste and their Minions have accepted their presumptive leader as their own, albeit begrudgingly. Treasure is offered and the Trolls of the Limbaugh Region have joined the battle. But why, O why hath the Path to the Promised Land thus far eluded them? They accuse the Obamanites of treachery, they rattle their spears toward the heavens and unto the gods with anger: are chimeras released against them? Djinn? Sprites?

What, O what can be the source of their misfortune? Perhaps the McCainaanites should look within.

******************************************************************************

McCain fighting the label 'old and confused'

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

Fri Jul 25, 6:04 AM ET

Thomas Nast's political caricatures in the early 1870s so bedeviled New York City's corrupt Boss Tweed that he once bellowed: "Stop them damn pictures! I don't care what the papers write about me. My constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see pictures."

Not only can most of us read these days, almost everyone has a TV set. And our late-night comedians provide the exaggerated portraits — fair or not — of our political leaders.

Jimmy Carter? Inept bean counter. Ronald Reagan? Genial dope. George H.W. Bush? Clueless wimp. Bill Clinton? Randy redneck. George W. Bush? Clueless incompetent.

John McCain's caricature is being set: old man. He wisely goes along with the joke — why deny the obvious? — and tries to turn it into a plus. After all, "old" means experienced, especially when compared with a 46-year-old upstart.

But McCain must fight against those who'd add another word to the shorthand: "confused." For a Republican on the verge of turning 72 and campaigning to be commander in chief, being tagged as a confused old man could be an electoral disaster.

A series of gaffes, taken in such a context, has moved McCain toward that danger zone:

• McCain was in Jordan with Sen. Joe Lieberman on March 18 when he asserted that Iranian operatives were aiding al-Qaida fighters in Iraq. Lieberman whispered to him, and McCain corrected himself: Iran was aiding extremists, not al-Qaida.

That distinction — al-Qaida is a Sunni Muslim group while Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim nation — had tripped up McCain a day earlier in a radio interview. The next month, during a Senate hearing on April 8, McCain stumbled again by referring to al-Qaida in Iraq as "an obscure sect of Shiites."

• In an interview with a Pittsburgh TV station on July 9, McCain recalled how he had resisted his Vietnamese captors by refusing to give up the names of his fellow Navy pilots. Instead, he said, he recited the defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Actually, McCain gave the names of Green Bay Packers. At least that's what he claimed in a 1999 memoir.

• McCain has had trouble discussing the Czech Republic. In New Mexico on July 15 for a town-hall meeting he discussed energy supplies in Czechoslovakia. But that country hasn't existed since 1993 when it became the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He had made the same mistake the previous day — and back on April 2.

• In an interview with ABC News on July 21, McCain said of Afghanistan, "We have a lot of work to do, and I'm afraid that it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." In fact, Iraq doesn't border Pakistan.

• McCain told CBS News on July 22 that the additional troops sent to Iraq by President Bush led to "the Anbar awakening," calling it "a matter of history." Actually, the "awakening" — in which Sunnis turned against al-Qaida — began before Bush announced the so-called surge. His defense of the inaccurate statement, delivered in front of the cheese section at a supermarket, didn't help.

All presidential contenders misspeak, of course, and they are amplified by a 24-hour media world. It's what reasonable people make of their mistakes that counts.

For example, Barack Obama's erroneous anecdote, related May 26, about a great-uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz — in reality, it was a subcamp of Buchenwald — suggested some confusion of his own, not a false statement designed to deceive.

More troublesome for Obama was his remark July 23 about how "we" in "my banking committee" approved a Senate bill calling for divestment from Iran. Not true — Obama doesn't serve on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and thus didn't vote on the bill even though he sponsored it. McCain's campaign sought to use the overstatement to further the charge that Obama is eager to take credit for the work of others because he has achieved so little himself.

Because of his age, future fumblings by McCain are likely to draw more attention, especially if they are about the Iraq war, his signature issue. The tipping point would come only if he were to make a mistake when it mattered — during a major speech, a key interview, a presidential debate.

In June 1975, President Ford slipped and fell while getting off Air Force One — nothing serious, an accident that could happen to anyone. Then he stumbled two more times on the same European visit and again, a month later, while climbing the stairs of Air Force One. In spite of Ford's lifetime of athletics, comics began to depict him as a klutz.

A year later, when Ford asserted during a debate with Carter that the Soviet Union didn't dominate Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, the caricature of Ford as a lightweight bumbler seemed all too true. And he lost a close election.

For Obama, the caricature is not quite set. Is he an inexperienced wannabe? A smooth-talking elitist? A naive flip-flopper? As with McCain, age is a part of the portrait — not too many years but too few.

McCain aides would be happy to see Obama depicted as all of the above. But they have to hope their own candidate doesn't suffer more mental stumbles akin to the physical ones that badly bruised Gerald Ford.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Douglass K. Daniel is a writer and editor in the Washington bureau of The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2008 Yahoo All rights reserved.Copyright/IP Policy |Terms of Service |Help |Feedback
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site. To learn more about how we use your information, see our» Privacy Policy

The McMedia, McCain and the McWhine Strategy is McWorking!

Elstun — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:56:33 EDT

There are four narratives being pushed by the Right-Wing and their echo-chamber about Barack Obama’s trip to Europe. Each has achieved traction that has served to diminish what should be a remarkable and positive moment for America. Instead of framing his trip, as many Europeans have, as emblematic of the promise of an historic change of direction in American leadership; the Irony Curtain of American Media is casting it as manipulative, dangerous and slyly subversive.

The first and most important narrative tells us that the media coverage of Obama is biased in his favor. Hence any positive images that feed through to us should be suspect. If he screws up, that has extra-impact because the mistake magically made it through the gauzy lens of an adoring media.

Bonnie Erbe of U.S. News sniffs that the Obama campaign has manipulated the media to an extent not witnesses in a recent presidential campaign. Gee, Bonnie…does the Campaign of 2004 and 2000 count as ‘recent presidential campaigns? Does the ‘swift boating’ of Kerry and the now discredited reporting of Al Gore’s ‘love canal’ comments by the New York Times that lead to a stream of false media representations of Gore fed by the Bush campaign qualify as media ‘manipulation’? I cannot resist reminding Bonnie of the latter.

In December, 1999, the news media generated dozens of stories about Gore's supposed claim that he discovered the Love Canal toxic waste dump. "I was the one that started it all," he was quoted as saying. This "gaffe" then was used to recycle other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."

But behind these examples of Gore's "lies" was some very sloppy journalism. The Love Canal flap started when The Washington Post and The New York Times misquoted Gore on a key point and cropped out the context of another sentence to give readers a false impression of what he meant.

The error was then exploited by national Republicans and amplified endlessly by the rest of the news media, even after the Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections.

So if we are to believe critics like Ms Erbe, Obama’s campaign out-manipulates the two Bush campaigns?

If you believe her, I have some yellow cake from Niger to sell you.

The second narrative is the dark magic of suggestive failure. Like the critical Aunt who chastises us to not leave the yard because we will have an accident, get lost or get abducted by a stranger, this narrative talks darkly of ‘risk’ and ‘failure’ and the dire consequence of a ‘mistake’. Blogger Bob Cesca documents the following:

On Tuesday's edition of Morning Joe, Mika Brzeznski, Andrea Mitchell and Very Serious Mark Halperin (who publicly encouraged Senator McCain to convince people that Senator Obama is a terrorist) agreed that after three days of reporting the actual news that Senator Obama's overseas visit was successful, they should deliberately attempt to "trip him up" -- to "hold him accountable."

The third narrative tells that Barack Obama’s trip overseas is "presumptuous". This is the ‘how DARE he…" narrative.

Again, Cesca:

AP: "In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous..."

TIME Magazine: "capable to become the Commander in Chief of a superpower -- without seeming presumptuous..."

The National Journal: "He is well aware voters here at home might see that as presumptuous..."

Washington Post: "Whether by the end of this week he will be seen as presumptuous or overly cocky..."

Chicago Tribune: "That means walking the fine line between looking presidential and appearing arrogant and presumptuous..."

Boston Globe: "plus the growing sense in some quarters that the presumptive Democratic nominee is getting a little presumptuous..."

Finally, the fourth narrative is the Xenophobic Narrative. There is something subversive about a candidate campaigning in Europe. This plays into the dry tinder of the wooden minds that still call their French fries ‘freedom fries’. It might spark a fire as the Rush wind blows between their ears. Lou Dobbs bares his oversized teeth as he growls his question to the panel of talking heads, "Why is he campaigning over there…Isn’t he running for president of the United States?"

Media commentator Paul Janench finds it ironic that McCain’s people whine about the swooning of the news media over Obama. …In the past, journalists did a lot of swooning over McCain – the war hero and political maverick on his Straight Talk Express. What about the scant coverage of McCain’s visits to other countries in the Western Hemisphere earlier in the year?
They were hardly as significant as Obama’s week-long trip. In just the first few days, Obama was in two war zones. Sure, the video footage and the photos of him with the troops were great public relations. But his trip also is generating real news. For example, the prime minister of Iraq seemed to agree with Obama’s time table for the redeployment of U.S. troops by the middle of 2010.

What the overseas trip of Senator Obama reveals is less about him than the media and less about his ability to manipulate the media than the capacity for the media to manipulate itself. Ironically, the current capacity for self-manipulation derives from a consciousness of those employed by the media of past failures. Besides the manipulations mentioned in the presidential races above, the failure of the media to be more critical of the manipulations of the Bush White House after 9-11, leading up to the war in Iraq is part of the new journalistic consciousness. The 'media' is so determined not to be fooled again that they are falling for the criticism on the Right like a bunch of McFools.

Anti-Obama 'Skepticism' Is The New "Political Correctness"

Elstun — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:49:23 EDT

>NOTE.

For the last two days I have been trying to follow the progress of Senator Obama's trip abroad. What I have seen mostly, however, is a concerted effort by the talking heads in the media to "tamp down" and diminish the historic character and spirit of this mission. Perhaps in an effort to be "fair and balanced" a la Fox News, Lou Dobbs, for example, bared his teeth through a half-hour panel discussion by a trio of skepical panelists who emphasized the potential for 'disaster' and virtually called upon the reporters to ferret out the weaknesses, stumbles and mistakes that may occur. But Lou Dobbs is not alone. Of Course there is Fox and their panelists--almost to a person grousing about the pro-Obama media bias. It is sickening to see this snarling and spitefulness chewing at the heels of what should be viewed as the emergence of a American renewal on the world stage after 8 years of demonic possession by the Dark Priests of the Bushniks. McCain would make more points with Independents if he made supportive sounds rather than attacking Senator Obama...there will, after all, be plenty of time for attacks later.

In this sense, I really do appreciate Arianna Huffington's contrarian piece that appeared today.

Arianna Huffington: Tell Me Again, Why Is Obama Being Popular With Our Allies a Bad Thing?

I understand why John McCain's campaign is desperately looking for negatives in Obama's overseas trip, claiming "people in Missouri" aren't "going to like seeing tens of thousands of Europeans screaming" for Obama. But why have so many in the media internalized this claptrap? People like Gloria Borger, who said on CNN that Obama doesn't "want to be seen having too many adoring people after him in Europe," and the Baltimore Sun's Paul West, who warned: "European adulation for Obama will make him the continent's poodle." Of course, at no point does the McCain campaign or anyone in the media point out what, exactly, is the danger to America if our closest allies actually, you know, don't hate us. Click here to read more.

Alaskans suffer nation's highest gasoline prices

Elstun — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:28:33 EDT

>Note: I just returned from a great meeting with Donna Brazile who is traveling to Alaska in behalf of the Obama Campaign. The small conference room at CIRI was packed and there was terrific audience participation. What a stellar group of 'opinion leaders' as they called us--it made me proud to be an Alaskan! One of the points made by Georgiana Lincoln was that there was a need for Ms Brazile and Senator Obama, if he comes to the state, to visit a village. This Reuters popped up on the newsfeed today...

By Yereth Rosen

Fri Jul 18, 11:51 AM ET

Think you're feeling pain at the gas pump? Consider the residents of Lime Village, Alaska, an isolated Denaina Athabascan Indian community where gasoline prices have hit $8.55 a gallon.

The price is severely curtailing movement around the interior Alaska village, where four-wheelers are sitting idle, said Ursula Graham, administrator for the Lime Village Traditional Council.

"Nobody's going on joy rides, that's for sure," Graham said.

Alaska, despite its status as a major crude oil producer, has the highest average gasoline prices of all U.S. states, according to the American Automobile Association. Alaska prices averaged $4.65 a gallon for regular gasoline on Friday, compared with a national average of $4.10, according to AAA.

Neal Fried, an economist with the Alaska department of labor, said the ironic situation reflects the hard reality that the state's small population hinders economies of scale and market competition.

"Even if you take all of Alaska into account, it's a pretty small marketplace," he said.

High oil prices have helped the state government, which relies on oil taxes, royalties and fees for at least 80 percent of its general operating revenue. Alaska reaped more than $10 billion in oil revenue in the just-completed fiscal year, double the oil revenue of the previous fiscal year.

Fried noted that North Slope oil development is bustling, which would not be the case if oil were $30 a barrel.

"There are more people working on the Slope than we've ever counted before," he said.

But high fuel prices pinch individual Alaskans, especially in rural areas with no outside road access, where shipments of petroleum products require extraordinary and costly efforts.

DOG SLEDS

Fuel that goes to Lime Village is sent 1,800 miles by barge from Anchorage to the southwestern Alaska hub of Bethel, transferred to another barge for a trip up then Kuskokwim River and then flown by small plane to its final destination. Of a representative sample of Alaska communities, Lime Village had the highest fuel prices, according to a recent University of Alaska Anchorage study.

Gov. Sarah Palin has proposed using some of Alaska's fat budget surplus to send one-time $1,200 energy-relief checks to all state residents, to suspend the state's 8 cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and other measures for immediate assistance.

The legislature is considering her request in an ongoing special session.

Meanwhile, in Lime Village, boat trips on the Stony River are fewer and more carefully planned. Villagers combine tasks such as checking fish nets and collecting firewood, Graham said.

One man even moved his fish camp, smokehouse and all, from an outer area to the midst of the village so that he could avoid the boat trip entirely.

Residents like the idea of a $1,200 payment from the state, Graham said. But long-term solutions remain elusive.

"Going back to dog teams is an option," she said. "It's kind of a joke, but not a joke."

(Reporting by Yereth Rosen; Editing by David Gregorio)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

GOP 'SOFTEN UP' THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA BEFORE BARACK'S EURO TRIP

Elstun — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:23:29 EDT

So let me see if I've got this straight. The Republicans are "up in arms" because Barack Obama is visiting Europe and the trip is "political". Close coordination between the Bush-friendly German Prime Minister Merkel and American counter-parts have already infected the media with a Right-Wing virus about her "concern" over a planned Obama speech at Brandenberg Gate.

All this breast-beating on the Right about Senator Obama's European trip is targeting one audience: the American media. With three news Anchors set to roll with the Obama Trip, the GOP hounds are howling that this will be undeserved coverage and that the trip is "entirely" political. They are blasting the three networks as "sycophantic".

Oh my, a foriegn trip by a candidate for president is political? As he has always demonstrated, John McCain never, ever does what he is accusing his oppponent of doing.

In February, the McCainaanites cancelled a planned trip to meet with Gordon Brown and address a German security conference so McCain could "wrap things up" in the Republican primary. He had not yet dispatched Romney and that pesky Huckabee.

There were no political considerations affecting his travel plans in this case; just unfinished business.

In March, McCain took a well-publicized trip to Europe and Iraq. As the March 15 Washington Post reported: "Strategists for Sen. John McCain, here speaking in Springfield, Pa., say his meetings with Middle Eastern and European leaders will show voters his foreign policy experience..."

Nothing political about that.

Then, earlier this month, McCain took off to visit Columbia in South America along with an embedded Fox News reporter. And, as reported by Fox's Fin Gomez, the purpose of the trip was to: "...further contrast himself, and his extensive foreign policy record against, what the McCain campaign considers an Obama weakness."

Nothing political there either.

Here's what the real strategy is: To beat up the MSM anchors so much that they will be falling all over themselves to be "fair and balanced"--that is, criticising the hell out of the Obama campaign to pre-empt criticism by the Right.

This strategy will probably work.Which is why the MSM is no longer active newsies source of info; unfortunately, the intellectually lazy mental fatasses (ILMFs) who are traditionally late to the election game do rely on the MSM. And the ILMFs are the collateral in the so-called battle for the middle. Bottom Line: McCain and the GOPPERZ may be marginally effective in their preemption of what promises to be an overwhelmingly powerful media event when Barack rocks Europe.

Mars and Alaska

Elstun — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:26:29 EDT

Question: when will we turn the Red Planet Blue?

************************************************************************

Lee Pullen
Astrobiology Magazine
SPACE.com 50 minutes ago

Little did Bucknell University geology professors Craig Kochel and Jeffrey Trop know, as they were working in Alaska, that they would soon predict one of the most important planetary observations ever made.

The pair was in Alaska for an eight-day trip in July 2006, studying geological features and the processes that create them. As they studied photographs taken of the surrounding area, some features caught Kochel's eye. He thought they were strangely familiar, and then realized they reminded him of images he'd seen when working on the Viking missions to Mars in the 1970s.

Kochel and Trop trekked to where the shots were taken overlooking a glacier. Spotting triangle-shaped landforms called "fans" sealed the deal: They looked strikingly similar to photographs taken of features on Mars.

Mystery solved

Although geologists can usually tell what shapes the landscape around us, it was a mystery what formed the Mars-like features found in Alaska.

The conditions on Mars are quite different than anything experienced on Earth. For example, Mars is much colder than even the Arctic — the average martian temperature is -81 degrees F (-63 degrees C) — and the planet's atmospheric pressure is lower than Earth's. Still, for the same features to be present on Earth and Mars, the two professors suspected similar processes would have made them.

They had just over a week in Alaska to discover what created the glaciers and fans.

During this time they managed to see an impressive 289 events, including rock falls and floods. The vast majority of these events were snow and ice avalanches. The frequency of these avalanches astounded the scientists, who reasoned that climate change was the most likely culprit. As temperatures rise, the glaciers pull back, creating large areas where ice has been separated. Material can fall down these cracks and lead to avalanches. This was creating the features seen in Alaska, and perhaps the same thing had happened on Mars.

An astounding prediction

Realizing the importance of this discovery, Kochel and Trop presented their findings to a NASA lunar and planetary science meeting. Their comparisons were based on older photographs of Mars, but the HiRISE camera aboard NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was sending back new pictures which further confirmed the idea of avalanches on Mars.

Kochel and Trop explained that with a bit of luck and good timing, it would be possible to snap photographs of martian avalanches.

Amazingly, soon afterwards the orbiter sent back images of an ice flow avalanche in action on Mars. Pieces of ice, dust and possibly rocks crashed down from high, steep areas, sending clouds of fine material billowing upwards. The cloud itself was about 590 feet (180 meters) across. The exact cause of the avalanche isn't known with certainty, but it could be because the sun warmed layers of ice.

This was the first time an avalanche had been observed on another world, and was the perfect confirmation of Kochel and Trop's ideas.

Valuable research

Studies like this help us understand the changes that take place during periods of climate variation. They also show that although planets like the Earth and Mars are very different places, in many ways they can be astoundingly similar.

The details of this paper will also be of interest to astrobiologists. Searching for water on other worlds is thought to be a key step toward finding life, and understanding how the water cycle takes place on Mars will help scientists make more accurate predictions. Couple water with a dynamic world experiencing changes to its landscape, and Mars looks all the more promising for life.

Kochel and Trop's research paper was published in the July issue of the journal Icarus.

101 Amazing Earth Facts Martian Poles in the Swiss Alps Earth vs. Mars: Polar Opposites Original Story: How Mars and Alaska Are Alike

Visit SPACE.com and explore our huge collection of Space Pictures, Space Videos, Space Image of the Day, Hot Topics, Top 10s, Multimedia, Trivia, Voting and Amazing Images. Follow the latest developments in the search for life in our universe in our SETI: Search for Life section. Join the community, sign up for our free daily email newsletter, listen to our Podcasts, check out our RSS feeds and other Reader Favorites today!

Is McCain A Luddite?

Elstun — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:50:45 EDT

>Note. The article below the cartoon is from a Silicon Valley blog. The author expresses disbelief at Senator McCain's lack of technological savvy. The cartoon I found when I googled 'luddite'. Please click 'view full post' to see the article.

Send THIS to your Republican Friends and Neighbors!

Elstun — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:48:53 EDT

Illustration by André Carrilho (c) New York Times Magazine

McCain Math
A budget-balancing plan that won't work

Monday, July 14, 2008; A12

SEN. JOHN McCain says that President McCain would balance the federal budget by 2013. The plan is not credible.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of $443 billion in 2013 if President Bush's tax cuts are extended, as Mr. McCain wants, and the alternative minimum tax is merely patched to make certain it does not hit growing numbers of taxpayers. But Mr. McCain is proposing far more tax cuts. The only way he avoids having them add hundreds of billions more to the deficit in 2013 is by phasing them in and adding other caveats. Mr. McCain says on the campaign trail that he would repeal, rather than merely adjust, the alternative minimum tax, slash the corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, to 25 percent, and double the exemption for dependents. It turns out that none of that would be fully implemented by the end of the first McCain term. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates the extra cost of the scaled-back plan at $47 billion in 2013, bringing the deficit to a daunting $490 billion. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign claims it would be far higher, somewhere between $650 billion and $750 billion.

The McCain campaign says it will fill the hole with spending cuts. It would "reclaim billions" by rooting out existing earmarks and prohibiting new ones; impose a one-year freeze on discretionary spending other than for defense and veterans; and "reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations" to use toward deficit reduction. These claimed savings are illusory. The campaign assumes $150 billion in savings by cutting in half deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Congressional Budget Office says that even reducing troops to 30,000, far beyond Mr. McCain's estimate, would save just $55 billion in 2013 beyond the costs that the CBO projects as part of its deficit calculation. The campaign assumes an additional $160 billion in cuts to the Pentagon procurement budget and other discretionary spending. But eliminating every procurement program that the CBO has identified as a potential budget target would save perhaps $30 billion in 2013.

In any event, Mr. McCain has called for billions more in new spending: increasing the size of the military, launching a new energy independence project, fully funding the No Child Left Behind law. Where's the savings? Mr. McCain says that he would limit overall growth in discretionary spending to 2.4 percent annually. History suggests that this would not be easily achievable: Discretionary spending has grown an average of 6.9 percent over the past seven years.

Mr. McCain's campaign says that he would rein in the growth of entitlement spending, saving another $160 billion, but it does not explain how. His campaign cites "excessive agricultural and ethanol subsidies," but eliminating all farm subsidies would trim less than $15 billion in 2013. Mr. McCain's opposition to the pending Medicare bill does not offer comfort on his willingness to deal with entitlements. He's willing to reverse $13 billion in scheduled cuts to doctors but opposes paying for it by reducing overpayments to the private Medicare plans. These overpayments -- the plans cost, on average, 13 percent more -- are just about the lowest-hanging fruit in tackling Medicare. In fact, Mr. McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told USA Today in May that the plans should have to "compete on a level playing field" with traditional Medicare. Mr. McCain sells American voters short -- and he does himself a disservice -- with his implausible claim.

RealClearPolitics: 'Dems Aim For Last Frontier '

Elstun — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:09:32 EDT

Reid Wilson

Thu Jul 10, 2:45 PM ET

"...Democrats hoping to make big strides in the state are looking for help from an unlikely source. Even though Republicans have won almost every single electoral vote the state has ever cast, Barack Obama has offered at least early indications that he intends to compete in the state. Recent polls have shown him trailing John McCain by a small margin, and the Illinois Senator has already run two advertisements in Alaska. Such an advertising buy is a drop in the bucket for a candidate who, according to conservative estimate, could spend $200 million in the general election. A week-long saturation ad buy in the state's three markets costs just $88,800, according to one estimate. Obama isn't skimping on staff resources, either. In addition to the two Democratic National Committee-financed staffers who were sent to Alaska under Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy, the presidential campaign will send a number of staffers, including a state director and a press officer, to the region, according to one source inside the Obama campaign. The source would not comment on the exact number of additional staffers expected to head to Alaska, but characterized the campaign's forthcoming effort as 'robust.'..."

Read the whole thing at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/dems_aim_for_last_frontier.html

Senator Obama's Quote of the Day...

Elstun — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:41:05 EDT

...referring to McCain Economic Advisor Phil Graham's reference to the "mental recession" and to Americans as a "nation of whiners", Senator Obama, campaigning in Fairfax, Va today, cautioned that America already has one Dr. Phil and, when it comes to the economy, it certainly doesn't need another.

In "Dr. Phil" Graham's defense, he is an ex-U.S. Senator who is wrapped in a golden safety net so his powers of empathy are understandably fuzzy.

This was relayed by Ben Smith of Politico:

Obama slams Gramm in Fairfax

Carrie Budoff Brown reports that Obama brought up the comments by McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm, who said the economy was in a "mental recession":

Now, Sen. McCain is an honorable man, and we all deeply respect his service to our country. But when you look at our records and plans on the economic issues that matter most for women, it becomes very clear that he won’t bring the change we need — while I will.

That starts with acknowledging the economic difficulties so many women are facing right now. Sen. McCain, however, has said that we’ve made “great progress” on the economy. And Sen. Phil Gramm, a top economic adviser to Sen. McCain, just recently said that this is merely “a mental recession.” Sen. Gramm then deemed the United States — and I quote — “a nation of whiners.” This comes after Sen. McCain recently admitted that his energy proposals will have mainly “psychological” benefits.

Well, you know, America already has one Dr. Phil. When it comes to the economy, we don't need another.

Joan Blades On The Media Trolls

Elstun — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:40:31 EDT

> Joan Blades is one of my favorite commentators regularly featured on the HuffingtonPost.com.Here she nails an easy target: the corporate media and their treatment of the non-issue of the day: Jesse Jackson's off-the-on-mike comments about Senator Obama. The fact that it was in the studios of "Fox and Friends" gives me pause to wonder how much of a 'mistake' the hot mike was.

****************************************************************************

I was on Jet Blue yesterday and had the time to watch the news -- CNN, ABC, FOX and I can only begin to tell you how much the news folks were nattering about Rev. Jackson's remark about Sen Obama -- talking in shocked or righteous tones about what was said,"I can't even put it on the air!", interviewing this person and that asking loaded questions "Does the Black community...". I'm feeling angry about this use of prime media time because this is a pure media issue creation. Rev. Jackson thought he was off the air and speaking privately when he spoke. He apologized as soon as he realized what had happened. In a world with responsible media this would not have been the top story of the day.

The media is manufacturing its own headline news and I don't like it. I feel manipulated. You are not going to tell me that a whispered comment was the most important thing that happened yesterday. These folks are working to stir up a fight for their own purposes. That is irresponsible and self serving. Worse, this is business as usual in American news. I bet most folks viewing thought this was news because this is what they have become used to. No wonder so many people watch the Daily Show instead of the news or turn to other trusted sources to become informed. Yesterday's coverage of Rev. Jackson's aside sure didn't cause me to understand national or world events better. It was more of a brain twist -- is there a more devious underlying motivation behind this media circus? Are the media trying to manipulate the election? or are they just craven lovers of discord? Hard to say.

I want to propose a new term for news people that are purveyors of negative personal gossip rather than hard news -- Media Trolls. The "reporters" lurk near prime public figures intent upon digging for media gossip that is salacious. The newscasters are seeking the emotional and shocking. Their work lacks the underlying motivation of keeping the public informed about key issues. This used to be the territory of the supermarket tabloids. News outlets that have historically been our serious news providers are now right in there with the tabloids. This is death to democracy.

Obama Campaign's Unprecedented Rural Alaskan Push

Elstun — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:19:00 EDT

Last night, I had a chance to hear Jonathan Teeters explain the plan for rural engagement by the Obama campaign and I am impressed! Not since the effort to defeat an anti-subsistence ballot initiative in 1982 have I seen such a plan to reach out and engage rural Alaska. All the tools to build active networks are going to be available to villages, Each village will be treated like a precinct and the power of social networking, which many young rural Alaskans already are familiar with through Facebook and Myspace, will be harnessed through the MyBo network.

I have been involved in rural and Village Alaska poltiics and development for over 30 years and what is being proposed by Teeters and the Obama campaign could usher in a generational change in rural politics. Why do I say that? Because when the campaign is over and Senator Obama is elected president, the politics of Alaska will have changed and the network that made it happen will still be stay in place.

This is a peaceful revolution, folks; but a revolution all the same!

Jonathan will be discussing the plan for the Rural Campaign at one of the conference rooms kindly donated by the IBEW tomorrow (Thursday) night at 6PM. The address:

3333 Denali Street Anchorage AK 99503-4038

I plan to be there and I hope any of you with family in or a commitment to rural Alaska will join us.

Miigwetch and quyana cakneq!

IRAQ'S PRIME MINISTER APPEARS TO AGREE WITH BARACK OBAMA...

Elstun — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:44:48 EDT

...and rejects the foundation principle of McCain-Bush: "We can't set a timetable for withdrawal"

Somebody send al-Malaki a donation envelope, please...

Iraq raises idea of timetable for US withdrawal

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated Press Writers1 hour, 32 minutes ago

Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security.

In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely sure what al-Maliki had said.

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going to talk about every single development, every single development in the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

"The goal is to end the presence (of foreign troops)," al-Maliki said.

Some type of agreement is needed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires at year's end. But many Iraqi lawmakers had criticized the government's attempt to negotiate a formal status of forces agreement, worried that U.S. demands would threaten the country's sovereignty.

U.S. officials have said little publicly about the negotiations. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not comment directly on the specifics when asked about it on a trip to Baghdad.

"We'd all like to see U.S. troops get out of here at some point in time," Mullen said. "However, from a military perspective I need the laws and the regulations and the agreements from the government of Iraq in order to continue operations beyond the 31st of December of this year."

With the latest moves, Iraq's government appeared to be trying to blunt opposition in parliament to any deal.

Al-Maliki also could be trying to avoid parliament altogether. He has promised in the past to submit a formal agreement with the U.S. to the legislative body.

But his spokesman indicated Monday that the government might feel no need to get approval from parliament for a shorter-term interim deal.

"It is up to the Cabinet whether to approve it or sign on it, without going back to the parliament," said spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

Legal experts said the form of the deal was less significant than its substance.

"You could theoretically include everything in a memorandum of understanding that you could in a formal status of forces agreement," said Michael Matheson, an expert on international law at George Washington University Law School.

The Bush administration has said it doesn't need congressional approval even for a full status of forces agreement — a position criticized by some U.S. lawmakers.

The contentious issues have been U.S. authority to carry out military operations in Iraq and arrest the country's citizens, along with legal immunity for private contractors and control of Iraqi air space.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said last week after a visit to Washington that the U.S. had agreed to drop immunity for private contractors and give up control of Iraqi air space if Iraq guaranteed it could protect the country's skies.

But those concessions, never confirmed by the U.S. side, were apparently not enough to cement a formal agreement, leading Iraq instead to pursue the memorandum.

Iraq's government has felt increasingly confident in recent weeks about its authority and the country's improved stability.

Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level in four years. The change has been driven by the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni tribal revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and crackdowns against Shiite militias and Sunni extremists.

Despite the gains, frequent attacks continue.

A roadside bomb killed four people and injured three others Monday close to the Iranian border near Khanaqin, 90 miles northeast of Baghdad, said border guard Capt. Sarchel Abdul-Karim.

Another bomb near a dress shop in Baqouba killed one woman Monday and wounded 14 other people, police said. Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, and the surrounding Diyala province remain one of the country's most violent regions.

Also Monday, gunmen killed a member of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party in Tal Afar, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, said police, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Progressives Must Guard Against Helping to Promote Republican Narrative That Alleges Obama "Flip Flops"

Elstun — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:35:29 EDT

>NOTE. Time and again, progressives have shown a willingness to politically cannibalize their own. Litmus tests cause the fragmentation of the whole; this one is not pure, therefore he must be destroyed. I am on the Left and I despise The Middle just as strongly as my counterpart on the Right does. Our tension makes the Middle the arbiter of the national agenda. We might understand this better if we had a parliamentary system with proportional respresentation and dozens of "litmus" parties that come together in a "Center-Left" coalition. But we don't. We have the Democratic and the Republican parties. Let's make the best of this opportunity for a Democratic victory.

Robert Creamer

Posted July 6, 2008 | 07:53 PM (EST)

The Republican spin machine is locked and loaded to promote the notion that Barack Obama is a "flip flopper." Four years ago it was their principal line of attack against Kerry and it worked like a charm.

In 2004, the goal of this narrative was to convince swing voters that Kerry had no core values -- that his positions and commitments were blown by the winds of public opinion just as he was blown right and left in the notorious campaign ad of Kerry wind-surfing.

Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked. "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I asked. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper."

People want leaders who are firmly committed to their values. The key thing that affected the New Jersey cabbie's view wasn't the positions or views of the candidates. It was whether they stood up for what they believed. There are many independent voters just like him.

I believe that John Kerry has very clear values, but he left himself open to be defined to swing voters as if he didn't.

Barack Obama is firmly committed to progressive values that contrast sharply with the values implicit in necon foreign policy and dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest Bush-McCain economic policies.

Obama is much less likely than Kerry was to allow himself to be characterized as a flip-flopper without core values, because his entire campaign is rooted in the discussion of values. It has drawn very sharp distinctions with Republicans on the critical symbolic questions of Iraq, the economy and health care. But that won't keep Republicans from doing everything they can to try to make Obama look like he is a "typical politician" without a moral core the same way they did with Kerry.

Last week's near-frenzy in the media over Obama's alleged "move to the center" on Iraq had no substance whatsoever. It was fed, virtually entirely, by the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign that simply asserted that his statements on Iraq represented a "change " from earlier positions. That narrative was picked up and parroted by various media pundits as if it were true.

Unfortunately, some Progressives fell prey to the media wave and actually gave credence to this non-story, when the fact is that Obama has consistently supported ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing all combat troops within 16 months, at a pace that is responsive to the situation on the ground.

Progressives have to remember that the Republicans don't care about the nuances of these issues. Their goal is simple: make Obama look like he is changing his position.

All Progressives don't agree with every position Barack Obama has taken, but the fact is that very few of his positions have changed since the campaign began.

Progressives who disagree with Barack Obama but at the same time don't want to help Republicans usher in a third Bush term need to remember three things:

1). Go right ahead and disagree with an Obama position or statement -- but disagree on the substance. Don't impute some venal motive. Remember that even when you disagree with him on an issue or policy, Obama shares our progressive values.

2). Don't reinforce the Republican narrative that Obama is a "flip flopper." Disagreeing with an Obama position is very different from arguing that he agreed with you once, but now has changed positions just to win favor with the voters. First, that is generally wrong. Second, if Obama emphasizes one aspect of a position instead of another in order to attract a particular group of voters, that does not mean he "changed" his position. Third, remember that the Republicans are desperate to get Progressives to confirm their narrative and convince guys like my New Jersey taxi driver to elect John McCain.

3). Remember that there is a huge gulf between the values of Obama and McCain. Obama stands clearly in the progressive tradition of giving every human being equal opportunity to fulfill their potential. McCain stands squarely on the side of ultra-conservative values that protect the power and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us.

Obama stands firmly against the neocon foreign policies of preemptive war and unilateral action that lay at the root of the worst American foreign policy disaster in a generation. McCain stands just as firmly for the neocon vision and the Bush approach to the rest of the world.

Obama believes that economic growth happens from the bottom up and doesn't trickle down on the rest of us. He supports the rights of workers to organize to defend their standard of living, and a world where we're all in this together, not all in this alone. McCain intends to continue Bush's economic policies that have assured that all of the economic growth in the last seven years has gone to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Obama understands that our world faces the greatest environmental crisis in history as we seek to prevent human beings from altering our climate. First and foremost, John McCain's loyalties lie with the oil industry.

We need to remember that John McCain's campaign is managed by lobbyists from the biggest special interests in America, while Barack Obama understands the need to mobilize tens of millions of Americans to change Washington from the ground up.

Progressives should go right ahead and question Obama's positions on issues -- and they should continue to hold him accountable when he is elected president. But remember that the Republicans are desperate to convince independent voters that Obama is "just another politician" whose values flow from the latest poll instead of his own commitment to principle. Don't help them. If you do you will be wrong, and you will also help the Republicans fulfill their unthinkable fantasy of a third Bush term.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on Amazon.com.

Senator Obama & Media Silliness

Elstun — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:45:24 EDT

It's probably because he is new, fresh and interesting that every comment and every phrase is examined with the weight of consequence in disproportion to what was intended. Take the case of his comments about Iraq. Senator Obama dared to suggest that he comes to the issue ofg Iraw with flexibility based upon what he learns on the ground and in light of new circumstances as they arise. Oh my...you would have thought that he had become a holocaust denier or something. Oh the hand-wringing by the Left and the face-spitting screaming by the Right.

Give it an effing rest, folks.

Here are his comments on the airplane today with reporters.

Earlier in the day as he flew from Montana to Missouri, Obama told reporters he was surprised at how the media has "finely calibrated" his recent words on Iraq, and reaffirmed his commitment to ending the war if elected.

"I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off by what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement," he said. "I am absolutely committed to ending the war."

On Thursday in North Dakota, Obama said that "I'll ... continue to refine my policy" on Iraq after an upcoming trip there. With a promise to end the war the central premise of his candidacy, the Obama campaign has struggled over the past two days to push back against Republicans and others who say his recent statement could be a softening or change in policy.

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility.

"The tactics of how we ensure our troops are safe as we pull out, how we execute the withdrawal, those are things that are all based on facts and conditions," he said. "I am not somebody — unlike George Bush — who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions."

Why Are Americans Miserable?

Elstun — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:33:38 EDT

Americans aren't happy. The scientists quoted in the article below didn't say that 8 years of George W. Bush are responsible for the negative mood, but they don't have to. We can all read between the lines. So is THIS why the Obama message of "Hope" has so many of us engaged. And is this why the disciples of cynicism call us "Obamabots" or "cultists" or worse? I believe that for some, like the Right-Wingers over at FreeRepublic.com and Charles Krauthammer, it is merely name-calling from the bunker. But hearing that kind of nonsense from Clinton supporters compels a more subtle explaination--one that John McCain can understand. It is reported that some Korean War Prisoners of War were reluctant to leave their encamptments when American forces arrive to liberate them. For those who had survived, the terms of their life had been altered to accomodate their circumstances. Faced with the possibility of a fundamental change in the game of survival that they had learn to play, the POWs resisted. So it is with some Clintonistas. "You've got to be an SOB to survive in this game" one Clinton supporter told me during the primaries. Well, Obama--and his supporters--are saying maybe that isn't so. Maybe we can change the game. In so doing, maybe America can find happiness again.

**************************************************************************************************************

A Happiness Index created from the answers rose in 40 countries between 1981 and 2007, and it fell in the other 12.

Scientists had thought happiness is stable over time when looking at entire societies. "Most previous research suggests that people and nations are stuck on a 'hedonic treadmill,'" Inglehart said. "The belief has been that no matter what happens or what we do, basic happiness levels are stable and don't really change."

So Inglehart's team was surprised that happiness "rose substantially." They speculate reasons for the sunny outlooks include societal shifts in recent decades: Low-income countries such as India and China have experienced unprecedented rates of economic growth; dozens of medium-income countries have democratized; and there has been a sharp rise of gender equality and tolerance of ethnic minorities and gays and lesbians in developed societies.

Previous research has found that happiness is partly inherited and that money doesn't buy much of it.

Yet the new survey finds people of rich countries tend to be happier than those of poor countries. And controlling for economic factors, certain types of societies are much happier than others.

"The results clearly show that the happiest societies are those that allow people the freedom to choose how to live their lives," Inglehart said.

A survey released last week found one reason America doesn't top the list: Baby Boomers are generally miserable compared to other generations. Further, a public opinion poll released by the Pew Research Center in April found that 81 percent of Americans say they believe the country is on the "wrong track." The response is the most negative in the 25 years pollsters have asked the question.

The World Values Surveys, led by Inglehart, was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Swedish and Netherlands Foreign Ministries, and other institutions.

Read the full article:

http://www.livescience.com/health/080630-world-happiness.html

Obama Read Zimbabwe Right... More Than a Year Ago

Elstun — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:06:14 EDT

John NicholsSun Jun 29, 8:54 AM ET

The Nation -- The world is suddenly paying a measure of the attention that is necessary to the democratic crisis in Zimbabwe, where strongman President Robert Mugabe has used violence and intimidation to prevent the competitive election that would surely have forced him from office.

Former South African President Nelson Mandela is leading a chorus of condemnation for what Mandela describes as the "tragic failure" of Mugabe as a leader of his country and as an advocate for Africa.

Even President Bush, who has not exactly been a leader when it comes to addressing the concerns of southern Africa or promoting democracy (in Africa or the U.S.), has denounced Mugabe's use of military, police and paramilitary thugs to impose a result that could not have been secured by the electorate.

Bush is right to be making noise now. And he may even be right to propose sanctions against the Mugabe government, although sanctions always seem to fall harder on innocent citizens than upon the dictators they are supposed to target.

But, as usual, even when Bush gets a foreign-policy issue, he does so after he might have been able to avert murder and mayhem.

The same goes for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who can barely be bothered to pay attention to African affairs.

And what of Barack Obama, who critics, including McCain, suggest is inexperienced and inept when it comes to scanning the globe for trouble-spots and responding to their challenges?

The likely Democratic nominee, far from having to play catch-up, is in the forefront.

Having rallied fellow Senators Joe Biden, D-Delaware; Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut; Dick Durbin, D-Illinois; Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin; Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska; John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, as co-sponsors -- and working in conjunction with the late Tom Lantos, the California congressman who made human rights in Africa a priority during his tenure as chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs -- the senator from Illinois moved last spring to get the Congress to pay attention to what was unfolding in Zimbabwe.

On June 26, 2007, Obama won unanimous Senate support for a resolution condemning Mugabe's disregard for democratic processes and calling for U.S. action to prevent the degeneration of circumstances on the ground in Zimbabwe.

Obama's resolution condemning violent acts by the Zimbabwe government, serves as a powerful reminder that some officials get it while others get lost.

Here's the Obama resolution on Zimbabwe:

Whereas in 2005 the Government of Zimbabwe launched Operation Murambatsvina (``Operation Throw Out the Trash'') against citizens in major cities and suburbs throughout Zimbabwe, depriving over 700,000 people of their homes, businesses, and livelihoods;

Whereas on March 11, 2007, opposition party activists and members of civil society attempted to hold a peaceful prayer meeting to protest the economic and political crisis engulfing Zimbabwe, where inflation is running over 1,700 percent and unemployment stands at 80 percent and in response to President Robert Mugabe's announcement that he intends to seek reelection in 2008 if nominated;

Whereas opposition activist Gift Tandare died on March 11, 2007, as a result of being shot by police while attempting to attend the prayer meeting and Itai Manyeruke died on March 12, 2007, as a result of police beatings and was found in a morgue by his family on March 20, 2007;

Whereas under the direction of President Robert Mugabe and the ZANU-PF government, police officers, security forces, and youth militia brutally assaulted the peaceful demonstrators and arrested opposition leaders and hundreds of civilians;

Whereas Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangarai was brutally assaulted and suffered a fractured skull, lacerations, and major bruising; MDC member Sekai Holland, a 64-year old grandmother, suffered ruthless attacks at Highfield Police Station, which resulted in the breaking of her leg, knee, arm, and three ribs; fellow activist Grace Kwinje, age 33, also was brutally beaten, while part of one ear was ripped off; and Nelson Chamisa was badly injured by suspected state agents at Harare airport on March 18, 2007, when trying to board a plane for a meeting of European Union and Africa, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States lawmakers in Brussels, Belgium; Whereas Zimbabwe's foreign minister warned Western diplomats that the Government of Zimbabwe would expel them if they gave support to the opposition, and said Western diplomats had gone too far by offering food and water to jailed opposition activists;

Whereas victims of physical assault by the Government of Zimbabwe have been denied emergency medical transfer to hospitals in neighboring South Africa, where their wounds can be properly treated;

Whereas those incarcerated by the Government of Zimbabwe were denied access to legal representatives and lawyers appearing at the jails to meet with detained clients were themselves threatened and intimidated; Whereas at the time of Zimbabwe's independence, President Robert Mugabe was hailed as a liberator and Zimbabwe showed bright prospects for democracy, economic development, domestic reconciliation, and prosperity;

Whereas President Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF government continue to turn away from the promises of liberation and use state power to deny the people of Zimbabwe the freedom and prosperity they fought for and deserve;

Whereas the staggering suffering brought about by the misrule of Zimbabwe has created a large-scale humanitarian crisis in which 3,500 people die each week from a combination of disease, hunger, neglect, and despair;

Whereas the Chairman of the African Union, President Alpha Oumar Konare, expressed ``great concern'' about Zimbabwe's crisis and called for the need for the scrupulous respect for human rights and democratic principles in Zimbabwe;

Whereas the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Council of Non-governmental Organizations stated that ``We believe that the crisis has reached a point where Zimbabweans need to be strongly persuaded and directly assisted to find an urgent solution to the crisis that affects the entire region.'';

Whereas Zambian President, Levy Mwanawasa, has urged southern Africa to take a new approach to Zimbabwe instead of the failed ``quiet diplomacy'', which he likened to a ``sinking Titanic,'' and stated that ``quiet diplomacy has failed to help solve the political chaos and economic meltdown in Zimbabwe'';

Whereas European Union and African, Caribbean, and Pacific lawmakers strongly condemned the latest attack on an opposition official in Zimbabwe and urged the government in Harare to cooperate with the political opposition to restore the rule of law; and

Whereas United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Christopher Dell, warned that opposition to President Robert Mugabe had reached a tipping point because the people no longer feared the regime and believed they had nothing left to lose:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That-- (1) it is the sense of Congress that--

(A) the state-sponsored violence taking place in Zimbabwe represents a serious violation of fundamental human rights and the rule of law and should be condemned by all responsible governments, civic organizations, religious leaders, and international bodies; and

(B) the Government of Zimbabwe has not lived up to its commitments as a signatory to the Constitutive Act of the African Union and African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights which enshrine commitment to human rights and good governance as foundational principles of African states; and

(2) Congress--

(A) condemns the Government of Zimbabwe's violent suppression of political and human rights through its police force, security forces, and youth militia that deliberately inflict gross physical harm, intimidation, and abuse on those legitimately protesting the failing policies of the government;

(B) holds those individual police, security force members, and militia involved in abuse and torture responsible for the acts that they have committed;

(C) condemns the harassment and intimidation of lawyers attempting to carry out their professional obligations to their clients and repeated failure by police to comply promptly with court decisions;

(D) condemns the harassment of foreign officials, journalists, human rights workers, and others, including threatening their expulsion from the country if they continue to provide food and water to victims detained in prison and in police custody while in the hospital;

(E) commends United States Ambassador Christopher Dell and other United States Government officials and foreign officials for their support to political detainees and victims of torture and abuse while in police custody or in medical care centers and encourages them to continue providing such support;

(F) calls on the Government of Zimbabwe to cease immediately its violent campaign against fundamental human rights, to respect the courts and members of the legal profession, and to restore the rule of law while adhering to the principles embodied in an accountable democracy, including freedom of association and freedom of expression;

(G) calls on the Government of Zimbabwe to cease illegitimate interference in travel abroad by its citizens, especially for humanitarian purposes; and

(H) calls on the leaders of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the African Union to consult urgently with all Zimbabwe stakeholders to intervene with the Government of Zimbabwe while applying appropriate pressures to resolve the economic and political crisis.

As a first-term senator with little more than his conscience and his understanding of the world to guide him, Obama read the circumstance in Zimbabwe right -- and he did so before the crisis spun out of control.

Imagine what might have been if George Bush and Condoleezza Rice had taken the situation in southern Africa as seriously as did Obama -- and responded in so savvy and responsible a manner as the Illinoisan.

Imagine what someone who actually paid attention to the world -- and recognized the responsible role that the United States can and should play in rallying world opinion to stand on the side of human rights -- could accomplish as president.

Unmasking The Source of an Internet Rumor

Elstun — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:53:38 EDT

Dr. Danielle Allen

An Attack That Came Out of the Ether
Scholar Looks for First Link in E-Mail Chain About Obama

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 28, 2008; C01

PRINCETON, N.J.

The e-mail landed in Danielle Allen's queue one winter morning as she was studying in her office at the Institute for Advanced Study, the renowned haven for some of the nation's most brilliant minds. The missive began: "THIS DEFINITELY WARRANTS LOOKING INTO."

Laid out before Allen, a razor-sharp, 36-year-old political theorist, was what purported to be a biographical sketch of Barack Obama that has become one of the most effective -- and baseless -- Internet attacks of the 2008 presidential season. The anonymous chain e-mail makes the false claim that Obama is concealing a radical Islamic background. By the time it reached Allen on Jan. 11, 2008, it had spread with viral efficiency for more than a year.

During that time, polls show the number of voters who mistakenly believe Obama is a Muslim rose -- from 8 percent to 13 percent between November 2007 and March 2008. And some cited this religious mis-affiliation when explaining their primary votes against him.

As the general-election campaign against Sen. John McCain has gotten underway, Obama's aides have made the smears a top target. They recently launched FightTheSmears.com to "aggressively push back with the truth," said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, and go viral with it. The Web site urges supporters to upload their address books and send e-mails to all of their friends. "

But long before this, Allen had been obsessing about the origins of her e-mail at the institute, which is most famous for having been the research home of Albert Einstein. Allen studies the way voters in a democracy gather their information and act on what they learn. She was familiar, of course, with the false rumors of a secret love child that helped sink McCain's White House bid in 2000, and the Swift boat attacks that did the same to Democrat John Kerry in 2004. But the Obama e-mail was on another plane: The use of the Internet made it possible to launch anonymous attacks that could reach millions of voters in weeks or even days.

As an Obama supporter -- she had met the senator while she worked as a dean at the University of Chicago -- it made her angry. And curious.

"I started thinking, 'How does one stop it?' "

Allen set her sights on dissecting the modern version of a whisper campaign, even though experts told her it would be impossible to trace the chain e-mail to its origin. Along the way, even as her hunt grew cold, she gained valuable insight into the way political information circulates, mutates and sometimes devastates in the digital age.

How Rumors Are Born

Allen was ideally suited to embark on such a difficult hunt. She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.

While Allen was already an expert on the mechanics of politics, she fast began to learn the mechanics of the Internet. She discovered, for instance, that the recipe for launching a chain e-mail attack is not as simple as typing it up and hitting the send button to a long list of recipients. It takes effort to seed a chain mail that spreads as widely as the Obama missive, explained Jeff Bedser, president of the Internet Crimes Group, a company that helps corporations battle such broadsides. "Lighting that fire, getting something to have momentum, takes work," he said.

For this kind of chain-mail message to gain traction, it must be plausible, and it has to resonate, said Eric Dezenhall, a public relations specialist who once worked in the Reagan White House. Obama was vulnerable, Dezenhall said, because of his unusual name, his childhood in Indonesia, a foreign-born father, and his sudden arrival on the national stage without a fully fleshed-out biography. "All of these things gave it merchandising legs," Dezenhall said.

As Allen scrolled through the e-mail about Obama, she saw that the list of people who had received the missive consumed several full screens. Her first thought was to try to learn about the people behind the addresses. She traced a number to North Carolina Web sites about golf, but quickly hit a dead end. Then she had another thought: What if she took some of the unusual phrases from the text of the e-mail and Googled them?

Her eyes fell on this untrue sentence: "ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Kuran (Their equivalency to our Bible, but very different beliefs)."

The use of "their equivalency" and the spelling of "Kuran" instead of "Koran" made the sentence her point of departure.

That search showed that the first mention of the e-mail on the Internet had come more than a year earlier. A participant on the conservative Web site FreeRepublic.com posted a copy of the e-mail on Jan. 8, 2007, and added this line at the end: "Don't know who the original author is, but this email should be sent out to family and friends."

Allen discovered that theories about Obama's religious background had circulated for many years on the Internet. And that the man who takes credit for posting the first article to assert that the Illinois senator was a Muslim is Andy Martin.

Martin, a former political opponent of Obama's, is the publisher of an Internet newspaper who sends e-mails to his mailing list almost daily. He said in an interview that he first began questioning Obama's religious background after hearing his famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. In an Aug. 10, 2004, article, which he posted on Web sites and e-mailed to bloggers, he said that Obama had concealed his Muslim heritage. "I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama," Martin wrote in an accompanying press release, "but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage." Martin's article did not suggest an association between Obama and radical Islam.

Martin was trying to launch a Senate bid against Obama when he says he first ran the Democrat's name by a contact in London. "They said he must be a Muslim. That was interesting to me because it was an angle that nobody had covered. We started looking. As a candidate you learn how to harness the Internet. You end up really learning how to work the street. I sort of picked this story up as a sideline." Martin said the primary basis for his belief was simple -- Obama's father was a Muslim. In a defamation lawsuit he filed against the New York Times and others several months ago, Martin says that Obama "eventually became a Christian" but that "as a matter of Islamic law began life as a Muslim" due to his father's religion.

The belief that Obama unavoidably inherited his religion was not uniquely Martin's -- as recently as May, it was proffered by Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, in a New York Times op-ed piece.

(After the Times was deluged with complaints, the paper's public editor, or ombudsman, later wrote that he had interviewed five Islamic scholars, at five American universities, recommended by a variety of sources as experts in the field. All of them disagreed with Luttwak's interpretation of Islamic law.)

Martin said he posted his 2004 article on Web sites, and distributed it by e-mail to authors of other popular blogs. But he said he had nothing to do with the chain e-mail that got Allen's attention. "I'm not trying to smear anybody," Martin said. "I just felt that was an underreported story."

But Martin said he understands how his initial article has taken on a life of its own. "There's nothing sinister here. I was thinking of running for Senate and was looking for a story to put some sizzle on the plate."

Other articles followed Martin's. Andrew Walden, the founder of an alternative Hawaiian newspaper with the motto "The untold story, the unspoken opinion, the other side," published an article with many of the same false biographical details from the e-mail in the weeks before Obama announced for president -- that he was "Raised in Muslim lands and educated in Muslim schools." He said in an interview that Obama's "alliance with Islam" was "all over the Internet," a source he often considers more trustworthy than the mainstream media.

Around the same time Ted Sampley, a North Carolina man who runs his own Web site, published a similar piece. In an interview, he denied authorship of the e-mail, but said he did not doubt that his article had provided source material. "That's the miracle of it," Sampley said. "Once it takes off, and people start posting it on Web sites, you really have no idea how far it goes or who reads it. You get a ripple effect. It's like a little pebble and then it gets bigger and bigger."

Poring over these early articles on the topic, Allen noticed what she thought was an important pattern. In each instance, someone had posted the articles on the Free Republic Web site, prompting a discussion involving the same handful of people, with several expressing a desire to spread the word about Obama's supposed faith.

Keeper of the Obama File

Of the file folders that are spread in neat rows across Allen's desk, only one is bulging. It holds printouts of the reams of conversations about Obama's religion appearing on Free Republic. Since its start in 1996 by Jim Robinson of Fresno, Calif., the site has grown into a home for discussion of all types -- though it is particularly noted for spirited political discussions dominated by conservatives and libertarians. Freepers, as they're called, converse with a varying degree of transparency. Most remain anonymous.

Allen counted 23 freepers among those engaging in regular discussions about Obama's religion, and isolated a handful whom she began to suspect as having a role in the e-mail. Sifting through hundreds of postings, she began to piece together their identities. There was "Beckwith," whom she pegged as a veteran from Boston, old enough to vote for John F. Kennedy, in uniform by 1964, and host of a Web site that devotes considerable space to an "Obama file" that says the senator is "by birth, blood and training, a Muslim."

Allen found Beckwith discussing the matter in a Jan. 13 clip from a Web-based conservative radio show based in San Diego. In his thick Boston brogue, Beckwith told hosts Jeff Lynch and Mike Howard that Obama's "relationship to Islam is the big question. When one investigates the background of Obama's conversion, I can find no record of his baptism."

"Wow! Interesting!" Lynch gasped.

"This guy could easily be the Muslim Manchurian candidate," Howard said.

As Allen scanned his postings on Free Republic, she noticed that Beckwith repeated several phrases that also surface in the e-mail. Beckwith called Obama "an apostate Muslim, educated in madrassas." And when Beckwith later repudiated the "madrassa" claim -- after it was debunked by the mainstream media -- the term disappeared from subsequent versions of the chain e-mail. The Post located Beckwith in a Boston suburb, and he agreed to be interviewed under the condition that he not be identified because "I get a lot of really nutty stuff and some of it's threatening." The 69-year-old said he is retired as a software engineer and lives alone, but for brief stints babysitting for his grandchildren. He said he started a Web site in 2005 "because I don't play golf." His initial goal was to take swats at the liberal left. "Then this new guy comes along called Obama," he said.

Beckwith said he built a Web site that features hundreds of pages of material intended to undermine Obama. "If 20 percent of what's on my Web site is true, this guy is a clear and present danger," Beckwith said. (He later added, "I try very hard to be accurate.") But while Beckwith speaks with pride about his research -- much of which he credits to an unnamed "colleague" in Europe -- and to his extensive Obama files, he rejects outright the suggestion that he authored the chain e-mail. "I've never been involved with any e-mailings. Period," he said.

Another Free Republic participant who attracted Allen's interest went by the handle "Eva." She was one of the first to write on the site about Obama's religion -- in November 2006 she began repeating the phrase "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim," when discussing Obama.

With the help of Allen's biographical sketch, The Post located Eva in rural Washington state. She is Donna Shaw, 60, a teacher who said Obama's ability to captivate audiences made her deeply uneasy because his "tone and cadence" reminded her of the child revivalist con-man preacher Marjoe Gortner.

Shaw says she has done extensive online research about Obama but believes many of the initial sites that provided "proof" of his Muslim background have been removed from the Internet: "Everything about his Muslim background was readily available on the Web in 2004. But they were all cleared from the Internet before he ran for Senate." Shaw says she's always had a hankering for politics. Probably, she muses, that's because her father served for a spell as a New Jersey state assemblyman. He was driven out, she notes without a hint of irony, when he became the victim of a 1950s smear campaign that wrongly accused him of being a communist.

When asked about the Obama e-mail, she says evenly: "I've never seen the e-mail. I don't get any political e-mails. I have a good filter on that."

Old Tactic, New Twist

The idea of unsubstantiated charges whispered through gossip trails has been a tried-and-true political technique since well before Machiavelli's time, Allen said. Traditionally, the best approach to combating them has been to "flush the charges out into the open."

That was easier when the rumors flew off a printing press, or when they appeared -- as with Swift boat attacks against Kerry -- in television ads paid for by a well-funded group of partisans. The attacks on Obama are different, Allen says. The level of anonymity, the technical efficiency, and above all the electoral impact of Internet-based smears all represent a new challenge.

"What I've come to realize is, the labor of generating an e-mail smear is divided and distributed amongst parties whose identities are secret even to each other," she says. A first group of people published articles that created the basis for the attack. A second group recirculated the claims from those articles without ever having been asked to do so. "No one coordinates the roles," Allen said. Instead the participants swim toward their goal like a school of fish -- moving on their own, but also in unison.

Obama's campaign, for better or worse, is writing the manual on combating this new asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. Obama has not shied away from the rumors -- he mentions them frequently. "Before I begin," he told a pro-Israel group this month, "I want to say that I know some provocative e-mails have been circulating throughout Jewish communities across the country. . . . They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is -- let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty frightening."

Allen says the casual pushback and aggressive response plan could provide the model politicians will follow in the future. But she remains uncertain it will work.

"Citizens and political scientists must face the fact that the Internet has enabled a new form of political organization that is just as influential on local and national elections as unions and political action committees," she says. "This kind of misinformation campaign short-circuits judgment. It also aggressively disregards the fundamental principle of free societies that one be able to debate one's accusers."

For proof of this, Allen says, she need look no further than her e-mail inbox. After months of research, a new chain-mail smear against Obama arrived with an innocuous subject line: "Food for thought."

Research editor Lucy Shackelford and polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

Elstun — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:50:34 EDT

By Sharon Churcher
Last updated at 1:45 AM on 08th June 2008

Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain.

While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

Forgotten woman: But despite all her problems Carol McCain says she still adores he ex-husband

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons

had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.

Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

Golden couple: John and Cindy McCain at a charity gala in Los Angeles

Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’

she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

He first met Carol in the Fifties while he was at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He was a privileged, but rebellious scion of one of America’s most distinguished military dynasties – his father and grandfather were both admirals.

But setting out to have a good time, the young McCain hung out with a group of young officers who called themselves the ‘Bad Bunch’.

His primary interest was women and his conquests ranged from a knife-wielding floozy nicknamed ‘Marie, the Flame of Florida’ to a tobacco heiress.

Carol fell into his fast-living world by accident. She escaped a poor upbringing in Philadelphia to become a successful model, married an Annapolis classmate of McCain’s and had two children – Douglas and Andrew – before renewing what one acquaintance calls ‘an old flirtation’ with McCain.

It seems clear she was bowled over by McCain’s attention at a time when he was becoming bored with his playboy lifestyle.

‘He was 28 and ready to settle down and he loved Carol’s children,’ recalled another Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy.

The couple married and McCain adopted Carol’s sons. Their daughter, Sidney, was born a year later, but domesticity was clearly beginning

to bore McCain – the couple were regarded as ‘fixtures on the party circuit’ before McCain requested combat duty in Vietnam at the end of 1966.

He was assigned as a bomber pilot on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin.

What follows is the stuff of the McCain legend. He was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967 on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam and was badly beaten by an angry mob when he was pulled, half-drowned from a lake.

War hero: McCain with Carol as he arrives back in the US in 1973 after his five years as a PoW in North Vietnam

Over the next five-and-a-half years in the notorious Hoa Loa Prison he was regularly tortured and mistreated.

It was in 1969 that Carol went to spend the Christmas holiday – her third without McCain – at her parents’ home. After dinner, she left to drop off some presents at a friend’s house.

It wasn’t until some hours later that she was discovered, alone and in terrible pain, next to the wreckage of her car. She had been hurled through the windscreen.

After her first series of life-saving operations, Carol was told she may never walk again, but when doctors said they would try to get word to McCain about her injuries, she refused, insisting: ‘He’s got enough problems, I don’t want to tell him.’

H. Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, future presidential candidate and advocate of prisoners of war, paid for her medical care.

When McCain – his hair turned prematurely white and his body reduced to little more than a skeleton – was released in March 1973, he told reporters he was overjoyed to see Carol again.

But friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

He bought her a bungalow near the sea in Florida and another former PoW helped him to build a railing so she could pull herself over the dunes to the water.

‘I thought, of course, we would live happily ever after,’ says Carol. But as a war hero, McCain was moving in ever-more elevated circles.

Through Ross Perot, he met Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing.

But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg.

McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.

He was also fiercely ambitious, but it was clear he would never become an admiral like his illustrious father and grandfather and his thoughts were turning to politics.

In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage.

Carol and her children were devastated. ‘It was a complete surprise,’ says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide.

‘They never displayed any difficulties between themselves. I know the Reagans were quite shocked because they loved and respected both Carol and John.’

Another friend added: ‘Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’

Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.

Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed.

McCain transferred the Florida beach house to Carol and gave her the right to live in their jointly-owned townhouse in the Washington suburb of Alexandria. He also agreed to pay her alimony and child support.

A former neighbour says she subsequently sold up in Florida and Washington and moved in 2003 to Virginia Beach. He said: ‘My impression was that she found the new place easier to manage as she still has some difficulties walking.’

Meanwhile McCain moved to Arizona with his new bride immediately after their 1980 marriage. There, his new father-in-law gave him a job and introduced him to local businessmen and political powerbrokers who would smooth his passage to Washington via the House of Representatives and Senate.

And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’

Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.

Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’

But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.

‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.

‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’

Additional reporting by Paul Henderson in Virginia Beach and William Lowther in Washington

GOP: "We Must Show Deep Empathy With Voters in November"

Elstun — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:59:16 EDT

>Note. The geniuses among the House GOP have concluded that the Republican 'brand' is in trouble with the voters. They are telling each other that they must start showing "deep empathy" with the voters in November. So here's a question: how do you teach 'deep empathy' to people who don't already have it? The Republican Party must now go to Oz in search of a brain, a heart, and courage. They'd better be careful, though...if they find what they're looking for they might join the Movement for Change!

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 28 minutes ago

House Republicans reviewing their recent election defeats have concluded their customary campaign themes failed to sway the voters and their candidates could not overcome negative perception of the national party.

An internal review says GOP candidates must show deep empathy towards the voters in November. The report was ordered by party leaders in the wake of losses of formerly safe seats in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Republicans reviewed their defeats as Democrats disclosed they intend to spend heavily this fall in three competitive seats in New York, Oregon and Colorado. Officials said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had reserved a combined $4 million worth of television advertising time.

Senator Obama Is Right: Shut Down Energy Speculators. Experts Agree.

Elstun — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:39:57 EDT

Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say
Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told
By Rex Nutting & Michael Kitchen, MarketWatch
Last update: 4:24 p.m. EDT June 23, 2008WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.
Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.
Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.
Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets.
"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."
Futures trading in London has not been a major factor in rising oil prices, testified Sir Bob Reid, chairman of the Chairman of London-based ICE Futures Europe. Rising prices are largely a function of fundamental supply and demand, not manipulation or speculation, he said.
"Energy speculation has become a growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the full committee. "We need to consider a full range of options to counter this rapacious speculation." It was Dingell's strongest statement yet on the role of speculators.
There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.
Dingell introduced a bill on June 11 that would ask the Energy Department to gather the facts on energy prices, including the role played by speculators. See full story.
There are two kinds of speculators in the futures markets, Masters said. Traditional speculators are those who need to hedge because they actually take physical possession of the commodities. Index speculators, on the other hand, are merely allocating a portion of their portfolio to commodity futures.
Index speculation damages price-discovery mechanisms provided by futures markets, Masters added
The committee will likely consider legislation that would rein in index speculation by imposing higher-margin requirements; setting position limits for speculators; requiring more disclosure of positions; and preventing pension funds and investment banks from owning commodities.
Both major presidential candidates have supported closing loopholes that encourage speculation in the energy markets. Read more on Election Blog.
However, other witnesses said that pure speculators have had little impact on energy prices, which have doubled in the past year to about $135 per barrel. Both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman have dismissed the impact of speculators on prices paid by consumers.
Speculators now account for about 70% of all benchmark crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000, said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the investigations subcommittee. Stupak introduced a bill on Friday that would limit index speculation.
There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.
Congress, however, has grown increasingly concerned over speculative investors' role in the energy market in comparison with those buying futures contracts to hedge against risk from price changes. Lawmakers are expected to consider legislation to set strict limits -- or in some cases, an outright ban -- on speculative trading in energy futures in some markets.
Dingell is looking into any legal loopholes that may have contributed to speculation in energy markets. In 1991, according to documents provided by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the committee's investigators, the agency authorized the first exemption from position limits for swap dealers with no physical commodity exposure. This began what Dingell said was "a process that has enabled investment banks to accumulate enormous positions in commodity markets."
Is Congress barking up the wrong tree?
Neal Ryan, manager at Ryan Oil & Gas Partners, said that if Congress develops regulations to cut back speculative trading, speculation will just find a new home.
"Speculation is the root of capitalism," he said. "If the speculation is forced out of the U.S. exchanges, it'll simply show up on other exchanges that are OTC like the ICE, or new exchanges will pop up to allow for the spec trades to continue functioning."
Ryan said he does see a reason for Congress to look at eliminating aspects such as allowing West Texas intermediate crude oil futures to trade on foreign markets and the "Enron loophole," but "these exchanges are currently functioning as they are supposed to in a free marketplace."
The creation of a comprehensive U.S. energy policy that tackles issues of increasing domestic supply and reining in consumer demand via conservation should be Congress' focus, Ryan said. "Instead we're on bended knee begging the Saudis to put more oil on the market and talking about shutting down spec trades."
Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.
Michael Kitchen is a copy editor for MarketWatch and is based in New York. Nate Becker contributed to this report from San Francisco.

WILL SENATOR OBAMA MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE EXXON DECISION?

Elstun — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:46:41 EDT

There were TWO questionable decisions on the same day, Senator...

1. Child rapists can live;

2. Environmental rapist don't pay

You've been all over the news about the first; now let's hear some comments about the second.

EXXON DECISION: WHY ALASKANS MUST VOTE FOR CHANGE...

Elstun — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:41:37 EDT

>Note. The following is from the Anchorage Daily News comments on the Supreme Court's decision handed down today. For the information of non-Alaskans, Cordova has come to typify the "oiled communities" impacted by the EVOS (Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill). Over the years, we have all been by-standers to the continuing insult that remains on the beaches and in the waters of Prince William Sound. The fisheries have declined, residents forced to abandon their homes and lifestyles; cultural decline can be symbolized by the death of the last Eyak speaker from the region. The two Bush appointees on the supreme court provided the margin of victory for Exxon.

Here is the presidential vote results from 2004 and 2000 from Cordova. Talk about some people voting with their heads up their @ss3s!

The Exxon decision is a final warning to Alaska: Change in 2008!

Respect to "Rockin_Mel_Slurrup who posted the info on the ADN Website.

In 2004, Cordova residents voted for President in the following manner:

Turnout: 46.08%
Kerry/Edwards: 303 votes
Bush/Cheney: 483 votes
Loonies: 35 votes

In 2000, Cordova residents voted for President in the following manner:

Turnout: 41.64%
Gore/Lieberman: 256 votes
Bush/Cheney: 469 votes
Loonies: 162 votes

Cordova has approximately 2,300 residents. If the conservative U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Exxon by either reducing or eliminating the punitive damage amount, I will only feel sorry for exactly 42.7% of Cordova's residents: those who did not or could not vote against their own self-interests by voting for George Bush and Dick Cheney and the right-wingers that they have appointed to the Supreme Court.

May those 42.7% shun the other 57.3%.

Senator Obama's Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings

Elstun — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:02 EDT

in today's RealClear politics...

Obama Favorability/Unfavorability Ratings

RatingAverage

Favorable 60.6

Unfavorable 32.8

Spread:Fav./Unfav. +27.8

Cynthia Tucker on the Iraq Oil Contracts 'Mission Accomplished'

Elstun — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:19:29 EDT

Cynthia Tucker

CONTRACTS FOR BIG OIL IN IRAQ CONFIRM EARLIER SUSPICIONS

By Cynthia TuckerSat Jun 21, 8:01 PM ET

Didn't you just know this was coming?

A consortium of Western oil companies -- the very definition of Big Oil -- is on the verge of receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq, giving them access to one of the most sought-after prizes in the petroleum industry, according to The New York Times. Can it be mere coincidence that the leading companies in the deal -- ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total -- are the very same companies that Saddam Hussein threw out when he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry more than three decades ago?

The American public has been reassured, repeatedly, that petroleum had absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. President Bush, the oilman from Texas, has scoffed at the idea. So has Vice President Dick Cheney.

When I raised the specter of "petroleum wars" in a column dated Sept. 9, 2002, just as Bush was selling the idea that Saddam posed an imminent threat, I was assailed by critics who called me "naive," among other choice descriptives. While I never believed that oil was the only reason for toppling Saddam, my critics weren't willing to concede petroleum played any role. ("The Bush administration is saturated with oil industry bigwigs. ... Their natural mindset is to assume that oil must be consumed ever more abundantly, even if that means going to war to preserve access to the supply," I wrote.)

Yet, despite the vociferous denials, the four original partners of the Iraq Petroleum Co. (a misnomer, since all the companies are multinationals based in the United States or Western Europe) are about to receive contracts that allow them to service the fields in the country with the world's second-largest proven oil reserves. According to The New York Times, these are service contracts -- paying the companies for their work -- instead of the more lucrative licenses for oil deposits. But the contracts will give the global oil giants a leg up on more lucrative deals later on.

"It's been a long road, but the oil companies seem set to get much of what they have been seeking," said James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum. "The Iraqi public is overwhelmingly opposed to this privatization of Iraqi oil, just like they are overwhelmingly opposed to the so-called security pact with the U.S."

Not that the opinions of Iraqis matter to everybody. There is a rather significant segment of Americans who believe that we have a God-given right to take what we want (though they'd never be so forthright in saying so). The United States is the world's remaining superpower; we have the biggest, baddest military. A belief in American exceptionalism leads some of us to think that we should stand astride the globe.

Writing in the London Review of Books in October 2007, American journalist Jim Holt observed that "the U.S. may be 'stuck' exactly where Bush et al want it to be," in a country with as much as 300 billion barrels of undiscovered oil reserves.

"Among the winners: oil-services companies like Halliburton; the oil companies themselves (the profits will be unimaginable ...); U.S. voters, who will be guaranteed price stability at the gas pump (which sometimes seems to be all they care about)," Holt wrote.

And even those Americans who recoil from the notion that "might makes right" would be hard-pressed to object to a deal that allows Big Oil to extract more petroleum from Iraq's rich fields. After all, gas is $4 a gallon. Aren't we salvaging some good out of a rotten war if access to Iraqi oil drives down the price?

Perhaps. But that's not the only cost. To protect those oil fields, the United States would have to station troops in Iraq indefinitely. That may explain why Bush has been so determined to work out a deal for more-or-less permanent military bases before he leaves office.

The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II, and the projected cost is around a trillion dollars. That doesn't count the human toll -- more than 4,000 U.S. troops dead and tens of thousands maimed and shattered, physically or mentally. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and millions displaced.

The U.S. government could have spent $500 billion on an Apollo mission-like search for alternative energy and still had about $500 billion to hand to Americans as gasoline subsidies. And we would have been well on the way toward freeing ourselves from the troubled Middle East.

Senator Obama Faces First Real Challenge From His Base...

Elstun — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:20:21 EDT

...The netroots are restless. This is an emal that just went out from MoveOn.org. There is no campaign spin involved here. Everyone is watching what Senator Obama does about this.

****************************************************************************

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=758&tg=479

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

Supporters of today's deal say it doesn't guarantee immunityâ€”it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that's deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:

"It gives [Bush's] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn't spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a 'permission slip' from the president is not court review."5

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group working with the ACLU to hold these companies accountable, adds, "whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity for phone companies that broke the law is anything but a compromise...no matter how they spin it, this is still immunity, period."6

President Bush and the phone companies know that the facts are against them. A judge appointed by President Bush's father already wrote one opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."7

But we'll never know how far their illegal actions went unless we fight back now. Can you tell Barack Obama you're counting on him to keep his word and block any compromise that gives immunity to lawbreaking phone companies?

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=758&tg=479

Thanks for all you do,

â€“Nita, Adam G., Patrick, Ilyse, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, June 21, 2008

Sources:

1. "George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 19, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html

2. "Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the FISA Deal," Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, June 19, 2008
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm

3. "Obama Backing FISA 'Compromise," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, June 20, 2008
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php

4. "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, October 24, 2007
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

5. "Facts on the Senator Kit Bond's (R-Mo.) FISA Proposal," June 13, 2008
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35652res20080613.html

6. "Prepared Statement of Eff Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston on Immunity 'Compromise,'" Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 18, 2008
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_bankston.pdf

7. "Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 17, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/index.html

GOP frets Barr could play spoiler in prez race

Elstun — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:34:46 EDT

> Note. One of the elements in the 'perfect storm' for John McCain is the selection by the Libertarian Party of America of right-wing Libertarian Bob Barr over left-wing Libertarian Mike Gravel. While McCain is trying to reinforce his 'centrist' reputation (undeserved) in an effort to win over disaffected Clintonistas and independents, he is also struggling to consolidate his Right-Wing credentials with the ideological base of his party. Hence his 'flip-flops' on everything from torture to oil development off California and Florida. Bob Barr will not make things any easier for Jon McCain.

By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer

A fiery former GOP congressman who gained national prominence for doggedly pursuing impeachment of President Clinton has some Republicans worried he'll play spoiler in a tight presidential contest.Bob Barr's Libertarian Party bid for the White House is the longest of long shots, but political experts say he may be able to exploit the unease some die-hard conservatives still feel about Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting. Combined with the surge in turnout among Democrats during the primaries and a difficult political climate for Republicans, they see what could be a recipe for trouble for the GOP."Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008," said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant in California who worked on McCain's 2000 campaign but is not involved in this year's contest. Consumer advocate Nader is the third-party candidate many Democrats blame for helping George W. Bush narrowly win in 2000.Rep. John Linder, a Republican who defeated Barr in 2002 after Georgia's Democratic-controlled Legislature redrew congressional boundaries to put the two lawmakers in the same district, said he didn't think Barr would top 4 percent of the vote."But in some states that may be enough," Linder said.Democrats seem gleeful at the prospect. Tad Devine, a Washington-based Democratic strategist, said Republicans "are crazy if they aren't worried about Barr.""Undoubtedly any votes he gets come out of McCain's votes," Devine said. "He hurts them."Barr, a former federal prosecutor, was swept into Congress with more than 70 other House GOP freshmen in 1994. An articulate, sometimes outspoken orator, he gained attention as the first lawmaker to call for Clinton's resignation over the Monica Lewinsky scandal and was one of the House prosecutors who pressed the impeachment case in the Senate.Barr also was known during his four terms in the House for his opposition to softening drug laws, including the medical use of marijuana, and his support for gun rights. He tried unsuccessfully to bar military bases from according witchcraft adherents the same accommodations as other religious worshippers.Even after Clinton left office, Barr continued to pursue him. He asked congressional investigators to study the extent of White House damage done by departing Clinton staffers and tried to build a "Counter Clinton Library" in Little Rock, Ark. He filed a $30 million lawsuit against Clinton, adviser James Carville and Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt for causing him "emotional distress" in retaliation for the impeachment proceedings.Some Republicans aren't worried about Barr's candidacy. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said voting for Barr is the same as voting for Democrat Barack Obama, and said he's confident most GOP voters will understand that."No reasonable conservative is going to vote for anyone except McCain," Gingrich said.Even so, Barr campaign manager Russell Verney said he expects Republicans to mount challenges to keep Barr off the ballot in a number of states, much like Democrats did to Nader in 2004.Verney was campaign manager for H. Ross Perot, who rocked the political establishment with his 1992 independent presidential bid that drew 19 percent of the vote.The Libertarian Party hasn't cracked 1 percent of the national popular vote in a presidential race. But it bills itself as the third-largest political party and is already on the ballot in 30 states, with petition drives this summer aiming at 20 others.The toughest obstacles are likely to be in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Illinois and Washington, D.C., where ballot access rules are prohibitive, said Libertarian Party political director Sean Haugh.Democrats also have had success knocking third-party candidates of the ballot in Pennsylvania, considered a swing state.But Barr may have the most impact in his home state of Georgia, where he is still well-known. In recent years, Barr has earned a reputation as an iconoclast. A National Rifle Association board member, Barr has joined with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union against the Bush administration-backed Patriot Act and reversed himself on medical marijuana use, now lobbying in favor of it. He said it is the unchecked growth of government that led him to abandon the GOP two years ago. In the coming weeks, Barr plans to open a campaign headquarters in Atlanta. "I think John McCain is going to have to battle for Georgia, a state that was a gimme for George Bush," said Matt Towery, a former Republican state lawmaker in Georgia who runs a political media company. Georgia and its 15 electoral votes have been expected to go Republican on election night, and McCain spokesman Jeffrey Sadosky said he remained confident they still would. Still, the enthusiasm Obama has generated among Georgia's large black population continues to worry McCain strategists. Far from writing off Georgia, Obama has a campaign team registering voters and is airing a TV ad in the state. Barr scoffs at talk that he will play spoiler, saying he is in the race to win it and it won't be his fault if McCain loses. "If Senator McCain is not successful, it will be because his message and his vision did not resonate with a plurality of the voters," Barr said in an interview with The Associated Press. Barr also hopes to tap into the zealous grass-roots network of Rep. Ron Paul, who recently dropped his bid for the GOP presidential nomination and pledged to support "Libertarian-leaning Republicans." Paul, a Texas Republican who ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, drew hefty campaign contributions online, but did not win any primaries. Paul supporters said they're giving Barr a look. Some are skeptical. "We're waiting to see if he's deliberately moving toward Ron Paul's principles to be politically popular," said Marlane O'Neill, a Paul supporter in Atlanta.

___ On the Net: Bob Barr for President: http://www.bobbarr2008.com

Republican 527's Lament Hillary's Loss

Elstun — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:04:59 EDT

>Note. In the post-mortems of the Clinton campaign, we should note that perhaps the greatest mourners of Senator Obama's primary victory--after Senator Clinton and her family--are the Republican 527s that were counting on her polarizing presence at the top of the Democratic ticket to fire up and energize the faithful. Alas, it turns out, Senator Obama is a much less attractive target and his candidacy is failing to fuel the money engines of the Right. The following is excerpted from Jonathan Martin's piece for Politio today. The full article can be read at the following link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11220.html

Aside from fears about antagonizing McCain, there is palpable disappointment over the failure of Hillary Clinton to claim the Democratic nomination. Many in the GOP were gearing up for, and were energized by, the prospect of a run against Clinton.

Several Republicans, including the Vice-President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, talked about creating an independent group at the end of last year but the group fizzled out during the course of the long Democratic primary, sources say.

They weren’t alone.

Richard Collins, a wealthy Dallas-based entrepreneur, bankrolled “StopHerNow," an entity set up to defeat the former First Lady.

“For six months, it’s been do we stop her, stop him or stop somebody else?” he notes.

“We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,'" laments David Bossie, head of Citizens United and a longtime Clinton tormentor. “We’re incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore.”

Bossie is now rushing out an Obama movie for later this summer that he promises will include Wright and other controversial figures from the Democrat’s past. But while promising that they’ll also do TV spots, Bossie’s outfit faces the same challenges as other third-party groups hoping to engage in the race – a lack of money.

Obama Is Surprisingly Strong in Alaska!

Elstun — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:34 EDT

>Note. The following is from the Anchorage Daily News 'Politics' Blog.

Is Obama competitive in Alaska? (Updated)

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: June 18, 2008 - 4:49 pm

From David Hulen in Anchorage --

Another new poll from Rasmussen Reports, and it shows Obama "potentially competitive" with McCain in Alaska.

The poll is fodder for a fairly meaty item in the Washington Post politics blog, the Fix.

From Rasmussen:

In one of the bigger surprises of Election 2008, early polling shows Barack Obama as potentially competitive in Alaska.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Alaska voters finds John McCain earning 45% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts 41%. Seven percent (7%) say they’d vote for some other candidate while another 6% are not sure (see video report). This is the third straight poll showing Obama within single digits of the presumptive GOP nominee. A month ago, McCain was up by nine. Two months ago, it was McCain by nine.

The analysis notes that Lyndon Johnson is the only Democrat presidential candidate to ever win in Alaska, and despite the latest findings, Rasmussen gives Republicans an 89 percent chance of winning Alaska's three Electoral College votes in the fall.

From the Fix:

...Is it possible then -- given that mountain of contrary evidence -- to believe that Obama can carry Alaska in the fall?

Probably not. But Obama's ability to remain within shouting distance in a place like Alaska means other down-ballot Democrats -- Begich in particular -- won't have to run 25 points ahead of their party's presidential nominee in order to win in the fall.

Back in 2004, as Bush was winning the state by 26 points, newly appointed Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) was in a extremely tight race with former governor Tony Knowles. Despite myriad problems with the campaign -- including the shadow of her unpopular father who also happened to be the state's governor -- Murkowski beat Knowles 48.6 percent to 45.5 percent.

Anyone familiar with that race acknowledges that without the Bush-Kerry matchup at the top of the ticket, Knowles might well have won. As it was, he overperformed the Democratic presidential nominee by ten points but still came up short.

Meanwhile, there was this in the lib-leaning Huffington Post making the case for Obama to come to Alaska to campaign for Begich and other Dems.

How does all this track with your perceptions of how things are looking here?

O.K., KIDS...YOUR HOMEWORK FOR TODAY...

Elstun — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:50:46 EDT

The economic proposals of Obama v McCain.

>NOTE. Remember the 'peace dividend'? Real spending on the military was never reduced, but it was held somewhat level after the end of the Cold War. And yes...economic growth under Clinton allowed the savings to be reinvested in job training and education. While the economy grew, the deficits declined and when George W. took office, there was nearly a $1 Trillion surplus. Thanks to Tom DeLay and the K-Street bandits who ran congress and complementary Bush economic policies ginned up by American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, George W will be leaving office as he hands over a $4 Trillion deficit to his successor.

If President Obama succeeds in withdrawing troops from Iraq within two years and saves 50% of the current cost of the war, there will be funds to 'reinvest'--as much as $100 Billion--that would not be available under McCain and his '100 year war'. Besides reinvestment, there is a shift-share plan to retain a revenue neutral movement of tax burden from the middle-class to the wealthy. The stimulus resulting from moving tax breaks from the people who buy yachts to the people who buy bread will have a broader impact on the economy than the Bush-McCain program.

Finally, stimulating job growth by eliminating tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas and creating tax breaks for companies that create jobs in the U.S. is another difference. Associated with this policy is the proposed initiative to increase investment in entrepreneurs and seed the soils of our economy with a million blossoms.

Here is a comparison chart provided by the Wall Street Journal of the tax and spending plans of the Senators.

McCain Blows It Explaining 'Cap and Trade'

Elstun — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:40:02 EDT

McCain muffs description cap-and-trade

Kate Sheppard at Grist picks up on something I noticed at this morning's press conference -- McCain seemed to get the basic details of a cap-and-trade program wrong. And, as she points out, it's not the first time this has happened:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

As Kate notes, for a cap-and-trade system to work, the caps need to be mandatory:

This isn't the first time McCain has misunderstood his own policy on cap-and-trade. In the Republican debate in Florida in January, he also denied that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap on carbon.

He also appeared confused about the definition of cap-and-trade in an interview with Greenwire ($ub req'd):
It's not quote mandatory caps. It's cap-and-trade, OK. It's not mandatory caps to start with. It's cap-and-trade. That's very different. OK, because that's a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. So please portray it as cap-and-trade. That's the way I call it.

Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll

Elstun — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:19:15 EDT

Sunday, June 15, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 39%. When “leaners” are included, Obama holds a six-point advantage, 49% to 43%. This is the eighth straight day that Obama has enjoyed a lead of five-to-seven points (see recent daily results). Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters say they are certain to vote for Obama and will not change their mind. Thirty-one percent (31%) are that certain to vote for McCain. Tracking poll results are updated at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. Each weekend, Rasmussen Reports takes a look at Key Polls from the preceding week.

New polling released today shows McCain with a nine-point lead over Obama in Arkansas. With this poll, Arkansas moves from “Safe Republican” to “Likely Republican” in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. Obama leads in states with 185 Electoral College votes while McCain has the advantage in states with 174 votes. A total of 141 votes are in states that merely lean towards one candidate or the other while 38 votes are in four states rated as a Toss-Up.

Obama is now viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. The numbers for McCain are 52% favorable and 45% unfavorable. Opinions are held more strongly about Obama--32% have a Very Favorable opinion of the Democratic hopeful while 27% hold a Very Unfavorable opinion. For McCain, those numbers are 16% Very Favorable and 19% Very Unfavorable (see recent daily favorables).

Obama is viewed favorably by 58% of women and 50% of men. McCain earns favorable reviews from 54% of men and 50% of women.

Among voters under 30, 62% have a favorable opinion of Obama. Those ratings decline steadily by age—just 49% of seniors (65+) have a favorable opinion of the Democratic candidate. McCain is viewed favorably by 59% of seniors, his highest rating from any age group. His weakest reviews come from 30-somethings. Among these young adults, 49% have a favorable opinion of the Republican standard bearer.

Few surprises are seen on a partisan basis. Obama is viewed favorably by 82% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans. McCain is viewed favorably by 81% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats. For all the talk of post-partisanship, the campaign is shaping up so far along fiercely partisan lines. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, McCain is viewed favorably by 55%, Obama by 51%.

Public perceptions of the candidates are changing rapidly in Election 2008. More changes can be expected as voters get to know two men who are not nearly as established in the public mind as the candidates in other recent elections. See recent demographic notes (Note: Premium Members can review crosstabs for the last full-week of polling).

Other recent polling shows that 32% of voters are still “angry” about the immigration issue. However, they are not mad at immigrants, their anger is directed towards the government. Also, 57% say it’s not possible to run a Presidential campaign without ties to lobbyists and special interest groups. Most expect either Obama or McCain to be influenced by these groups but still consider both men at least as ethical as most politicians.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Each update includes approximately 900 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 800 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

GOP Political Prospects? Prepare for a 'Generational Change'

Elstun — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:07:16 EDT

>NOTE. As the state of the economy goes from worse to freaking awful, the party that has held the white house for 3/4 of the last 30 years and held absolute power for most of the last 8 has no political currency. The political coffers for the GOP have dried up. Small donors to the party have dried up and the big donors have already headed to the bunkers. One historian says that the propspects for Obama V McCain are roughly equivalent to what the prospects were when Roosevelt ran against Hoover. The following article from Politico surveys historians about the current race for the White House. There is consenses: this this be a year of defeat for the Republicans that could be a blow-out that will resonate for a generation. Prepare for the responsibilities of being in charge, people...

Many historians see little chance for McCain

David Paul KuhnSun Jun 15, 8:05 AM ET

One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.

Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.

“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.

“McCain shouldn’t win it,” said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain’s prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.

“It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II,” added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. “It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won,” Abramowitz said.

What’s more, Republicans have held the presidency for all but 12 years since the South became solidly Republican in the realignment of 1968 — which is among the longest runs with one party dominating in American history. “These things go in cycles,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “The public gets tired of one approach to politics. There is always a measure of optimism in this country, so they turn to the other party.”

That desire for change also tends to manifest itself at the end of a president’s second term. Only twice in the 20th century has a party won a third consecutive term in the White House, most recently in 1988, when George H.W. Bush replaced the term-limited Ronald Reagan, who was about twice as popular in the last year of his presidency as President George W. Bush is now.

But the biggest obstacle in McCain’s path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least the advent of modern polling. Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men’s parties lost the presidency in the following election.

Though the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says the Democrats’ 2006 midterm wins resemble the midterm congressional gains of the out-party in 1966 and 1974, which both preceded a retaking of the White House two years later.

One of the few bright spots historians noted is that the public generally does not view McCain as a traditional Republican. And, as Republicans frequently point out, McCain is not an incumbent.

“Open-seat elections are somewhat different, so the referendum aspect is somewhat muted,” said James Campbell, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in campaigns and elections.

“McCain would be in much better shape if Bush’s approval rating were at 45 to 50 percent,” Campbell continued. “But the history is that in-party candidates are not penalized or rewarded to the same degree as incumbents.”

Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate decides McCain is “center right” while Obama is “far left.” Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal, and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-identified liberals.

Campbell also notes that McCain may benefit from the Democratic divisions that were on display in the primary, as Republicans did in 1968, when Democratic divisions over the war in Vietnam dogged Humphrey and helped hand Nixon victory.

Still, many historians remain extremely skeptical about McCain’s prospects. “I can’t think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election,” said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential politics at the University of Virginia. Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”

BillionairesForMcCain.com

Elstun — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 05:47:52 EDT

June 13th at 10:57AM Billionaires Defend John McCain at $28,500-a-Plate Fundraiser in ManhattanPOSTED BY: Billionaires4Bush

Tuesday, June 14th -- When our dear chum, Henry Kravis sent out invitations for a tony $28,500-a-plate shindig at the 21 Club, all to raise money for John "100 More Years" McCain, we Billionaires were thrilled! It was a perfect opportunity to launch our new "Lobbyists for McCain" campaign. (Of course, all Billionaires For Bush are registered lobbyists. It's a birthright, like being a Halliburton board member.)

"I'm a Lobbyist for McCain, because some special interests are more special than others." –Phil T. Rich hobnobs with the press on his way into the 21 Club

Undeterred by the purple-shirted rabble chanting from their free-speech pen across the street, our Billionaire cohort followed McCain into the club shortly after 6:30pm. Thurston Howell IV, dashing in yacht attire complete with captain's hat, strode into the cocktail area, sampling a pig-in-a-blanket from a passing tray. "I'm sure these appetizers are meant to be ironic," he commented to a fellow billionaire. "I'm looking forward to the Congressional Pork Medallions and Chickenhawk Cordon-Bleu, myself." Overheard elsewhere: "I heard Cindy McCain's Ahi Tuna was on the menu, but they pulled it when they found out it was lifted from the Food Network website."

Meanwhile, trouble was brewing outside. The SEIU and Working Families Party demonstrators had grown more vocal, proclaiming that billionaires like buyout kingpin Henry Kravis should NOT pay a lower tax rate than their servants. Preposterous! The First Amendment is such a bother. The Billionaires rushed outside to defend McCain and his pet fundraiser Kravis, telling protesters, "Buy your own president!"

Black conservatives conflicted on Obama campaign

Elstun — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:02:54 EDT

> NOTE. The Republican Party rails against Affirmative Action and so-called "quotas". But, as the Book of James says, '...by your actions shall ye be judged...'

Thurgood Marshall was a towering legal figure--regardless of his race. He was a deep and powerful analyst of the law and a dedicated Constitutionalist. When he died, during the George H.W. Bush term, who did Bush appoint? Clarence Thomas...a man so narrow and insular in his view of the judiciary that even Antonin Scalia scoffs at his colleague's disregard for Stare Decisis. Why did George 41 appoint Thomas? Because of the color of his skin and not the content of his character.

When the Republicans had to find someone to run against Barack Obama in the 2004 U.S. Senatorial election, who did they get? They carpetbagged Alan Keyes into the state to 'balance' the Obama candidacy. What are Keyes' qualifications to run for Senate against Obama, besides being a perennial presidential candidate and a right-wing big mouth? He's black.

When JC Watts left politics, the Republican party lost one of its most effective--and smart--congressional operatives. Why did he leave? In part he felt that he was becoming identified as a "go to" guy when the Republicans needed a black face in front of the cameras and he was annoyed by the "racialization" of his intellectual and policy messages. In other words--tokenism.

We certainly were treated to "tokenism" in the 2004 Republican Convention. Remember the great initiative by the Bush-Cheney campaign to "go after" blacks and other minorities. At one point, as Jon Stewart later satirised, the convention managers "rounded up every black delegate and alternate they could find and herded them in front of the cameras..."

What a difference 4 years makes.

The following is a story of the potential defection of Black Conservatives from McCain to Obama. Add this to the long list of problems the Republicans are facing in 2008.

*********************************************************************

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer

Black conservative talk show host Armstrong Williams has never voted for a Democrat for president. That could change this year with Barack Obama as the Democratic Party's nominee.

"I don't necessarily like his policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it," Williams said. "I can honestly say I have no idea who I'm going to pull that lever for in November. And to me, that's incredible."

Just as Obama has touched black Democratic voters, he has engendered conflicting emotions among black Republicans. They revel over the possibility of a black president but wrestle with the thought that the Illinois senator doesn't sit beside them ideologically.

"Among black conservatives," Williams said, "they tell me privately, it would be very hard to vote against him in November."

Perhaps sensing the possibility of such a shift, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has made some efforts to lure black voters. He recently told Essence magazine that he would attend the NAACP's annual convention next month, and he noted that he recently traveled to Selma, Ala., scene of seminal voting rights protests in the 1960s, and "talked about the need to include 'forgotten Americans.'"

Still, the Arizona senator has a tall order in winning black votes, no doubt made taller by running against a black opponent. In 2004, blacks chose Democrat John Kerry over President Bush by an 88 percent to 11 percent margin, according to exit polls.

J.C. Watts, a former Oklahoma congressman who once was part of the GOP House leadership, said he's thinking of voting for Obama. Watts said he's still a Republican, but he criticizes his party for neglecting the black community. Black Republicans, he said, have to concede that while they might not agree with Democrats on issues, at least that party reaches out to them.

"And Obama highlights that even more," Watts said, adding that he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy. "Republicans often seem indifferent to those things."

Likewise, retired Gen. Colin Powell, who became the country's first black secretary of state under President George W. Bush, said both candidates are qualified and that he will not necessarily vote for the Republican.

"I will vote for the individual I think that brings the best set of tools to the problems of 21st-century America and the 21st-century world regardless of party, regardless of anything else other than the most qualified candidate," Powell said Thursday in Vancouver in comments reported by The Globe and Mail in Toronto.

Writer and actor Joseph C. Phillips got so excited about Obama earlier this year that he started calling himself an "Obamacan" — Obama Republican. Phillips, who appeared on "The Cosby Show" as Denise Huxtable's husband, Navy Lt. Martin Kendall, said he has wavered since, but he is still thinking about voting for Obama.

"I am wondering if this is the time where we get over the hump, where an Obama victory will finally, at long last, move us beyond some of the old conversations about race," Phillips said. "That possibly, just possibly, this great country can finally be forgiven for its original sin, or find some absolution."

Yet Phillips, author of the book "He Talk Like a White Boy," realizes the irony of voting for a candidate based on race to get beyond race.

"We have to not judge him based on his race, but on his desirability as a political candidate," he said. "And based on that, I have a lot of disagreements with him on a lot of issues. I go back and forth."

Michael Steele, the Republican former lieutenant governor of Maryland who lost a Senate race there in 2006, said he is proud of Obama as a black man, but that "come November, I will do everything in my power to defeat him." Electing Obama, he said, would not automatically solve the woes of the black community.

"I think people who try to put this sort of messianic mantle on Barack's nomination are a little bit misguided," he said.

John McWhorter, a self-described political moderate who is a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a New York Sun columnist, said Obama's Democratic Party victory "proves that while there still is some racism in the United States, there is not enough to matter in any serious manner. This is a watershed moment."

"Obama is probably more to the left than I would prefer on a lot of issues," he adds. "But this issue of getting past race for real is such a wedge issue for me. And he is so intelligent, and I think he would be a perfectly competent president, that I'm for him. I want him to get in because, in a way, it will put me out of a job."

James T. Harris, a Milwaukee radio talk show host and public speaker, said he opposes Obama "with love in my heart."

"We are of the same generation. He's African American and I'm an American of African descent. We both have lovely wives and beautiful children," Harris said. "Other than that, we've got nothing in common. I hope he loses every state."

Moderate Republican Edward Brooke, who blazed his own trail in Massachusetts in 1966 as the first black popularly elected U.S. senator, said he is "extremely proud and confident and joyful" to see Obama ascend. Obama sent Brooke a signed copy of his book, inscribed, "Thank you for paving the way," and Brooke sent his own signed book to Obama, calling the presumed Democratic nominee "a worthy bearer of the torch."

Brooke, who now lives in Florida, won't say which candidate will get his endorsement, but he does say that race won't be a factor in his decision.

"This is the most important election in our history," Brooke said. "And with the world in the condition that it is, I think we've got to get the best person we can get."

Williams, the commentator, says his 82-year-old mother, who also hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, has already made up her mind.

"She is so proud of Senator Barack Obama, and she has made it clear to all of us that she's voting for him in November," Williams relates. "That is historic. Every time I call her, she asks, 'How's Obama doing?' They feel as if they are a part of this. Because she said, given the history of this country, she never thought she'd ever live to see this moment."

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 20 minutes ago