don’t make him angry. . .

. . . because you won’t. . . oh, never mind. . . .

prop 8: Nate Silver has my back

Last week, I wrote this:

The implication [of the AP story] is clear, and has been said outright, first-time non-white voters brought into the system by the Obama campaign provided the margin necessary to pass Prop. 8.

Except that if you look at the data from the AP exit poll [now a pdf], that isn’t clear at all.

Unless there are cross-tabulations from this poll that have not been made publicly available, I cannot see how the numbers support the certitude of the claim. . . .

Democrats overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, first-time voters overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who are in accordance with Obama’s positions overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who supported Obama in the primary overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8, those who voted for Obama on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected Prop. 8.

Five days later, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote this:

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California's black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.

Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

There are few quantitative analysts I would trust more than Silver (and his presidential predictions were the best of the lot this cycle), so it is a real confidence builder for me to know that when he looks at the data he sees the same thing that I see—or, more accurately, he doesn’t see the same thing that I don’t see. There is nothing in the exit polling to support the narrative that the first-time African American voters brought to the polls by Barack Obama’s campaign provided Prop. 8 with its margin of victory—and, in fact, most evidence seems to point the other way.

Silver believes that the ballot measure owes its passage to older voters, noting that if no one over 65 had voted, Prop. 8 would have failed by “a point or two.” Silver suggests that as that demographic ages out of, um, life, bigoted efforts such as this one will eventually fail.

While I tend to agree overall—the younger you go, the more comfortable most seem with diversity—I think that Silver should take a look at the family factor. Those that are married and have children (31% of the sample) voted in favor of the measure 68% to 32%. All others voted against the gay marriage ban by a ten-point margin.

(I know what you’re thinking: “All others” includes most of the voting homosexual population. That’s probably true. Alas, there is no cross-tabulation for “married heterosexuals without children”—however, because the “all others” segment is so much larger than the “married with children” slice, even if you could subtract the gay vote, I suspect that this segment would still have rejected the proposition.)

The question becomes “Are beliefs about gay marriage static?” Will the young segments that voted against Prop. 8 continue to feel the same way, even as they age and/or have children? To ask it another way: Do those married with children tend to favor the ban more because they would tend to be older than those without kids, or did those that are younger reject Proposition 8 because they had yet to reproduce?

To my eye, the history of civil rights movements in the United States would favor Silver’s take on the numbers, but the numbers don’t confirm this, at least not with absolute certainty. I guess, as they—and the numbers—say, time will tell.


(cross-posted on Daily Kos, capitoilette, and The Seminal)

yes we brand

It’s been a long time coming.

The first time that I ever voted was the first time that I was eligible—the 1980 general election. And if that’s not enough of a humbling admission, I’ll go a step further: I voted for Barry Commoner. It was a protest vote in a non-competitive state, but the reasons for that protest formed the foundation of my complaints about Democrats—or, if not Democrats, Democratic strategy—for the rest of my political life.

At least until today (more on that in a minute).

I didn’t have a neat phrase in 1980, because the trend did not yet have a name, but I would eventually topline my criticism by saying, “Why vote for the ersatz Republican when you can vote for the real thing?”

The point of that flip and bitter but all too often prescient comment was that Democrats, by pursuing what came to be called “Reagan Democrats”—conservative or right-leaning voters who, by some freak of demographics or inertia, had failed to change their party affiliation even though their worldview had left the Democratic party with the creation of Medicare, the signing of the Voting Rights Act, or protests over the Vietnam War—had so muddied their brand that they turned off or failed to inspire their core audience while failing to convince the so-called center that a second-to-market mishmash was better than almost just-as-good as the original. And when Democrats did manage to tilt Reagan-ward enough to grab the odd brass ring, the result was even worse—for the party and the country—for, you see (and this quickly became the corollary to my first proclamation), in a contest between an old Republican and a new Republican, the victor is guaranteed to be a Republican.

By the 1990s, the Democratic elite had evolved enough to believe that they shouldn’t so much follow the voters as they should follow the money. The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton did manage to divert their way some of the rivers of cash that had been flooding GOP coffers, but, to my mind, they did so at the expense of the party’s natural reservoir of votes.

Flash forward another decade, and suddenly “values voters” were all the rage. Democrats, apparently, didn’t know how to talk about religion—apparently the font of all positive values—and so were losing white evangelicals. Until Democrats embraced the naturally conservative (some might say reactionary) beliefs of this highly organized voting bloc, they would never feel the electoral love. The dreadful results that befell Democrats for more than a decade, or, depending on how you evaluated, perhaps more than a generation, stood as some kind of unmistakable verification of this trope.

Chasing Reaganites, millionaires, or evangelicals all required the same tactic, however (and not surprisingly), and that was a full-throttle fudge to the right.

What the ever-shifting boundaries of this monotonous, mono-directional, and monumentally flawed brand strategy always failed to understand, though, was that the group of habitual voters that Democrats supposedly just had to win-over to win was so very much smaller than the group of natural constituents who had become disenchanted enough to disengage, or who had never been inspired enough to participate in electoral politics at all.

To again put it in a tidier package: Instead of chasing the money, Democrats should have been chasing the voters. There are so many of them naturally predisposed to love Democrats for who they are—or recently were—that if you could just get them excited and invested in the outcome, they would swamp any numbers you might be able to pick off from the Republican base.

Which brings us to the here-and-now.

Though I have some reservations about what type of president Barack Obama might be, I have never failed to praise him as a candidate. The genius of the Obama campaign, and what I have loved most about the last year, is the ability of Barack Obama to reach out to, excite, inspire, and organize a part of the Democratic base that had long been either taken for granted or left for dead. With the voter registration drives, the canvassing, the outreach, and the GOTV, Obama didn’t have to sweat the right—he had something bigger and better: a broader definition of the American electorate.

For, while Obama and his surrogates might talk of an America beyond partisanship, the values and, indeed, the proposals that drove the Obama campaign were solidly Democratic. The fairness he preached and the cool reason he seemed to embody contrast favorably with the selfishness and base emotion of the Bush years. Proposals like more equitable taxation, universal access to affordable, quality healthcare, and a belief in the importance of organized labor feel like the Democratic Party I remember from my pre-voting youth. And a pro-active, fact-based approach to combating global warming is a refreshing reproach to the reactive and reactionary anti-science stance that drives today’s GOP.

Embodied in all of that, too, is the inherently Democratic (and democratic) sentiment that we are all in this together, rather than the sad ethos of the right—that we are all in this for ourselves.

And, amazingly, in returning to Democrats’ core principles and best practices, and not pandering to the Reagan Democrats or values voters or whatever we will now decide to call them, Obama was able to win (win back?) some of their votes. Obama’s victory is a monument to good branding—and I mean that wholly as a statement of admiration (I am, after all, a brand strategist). Barack Obama and many other Democrats this cycle (and I would be remiss if I did not single out DNC Chair Howard Dean for special praise) have proven that crafting a strong brand, behaving as a distinct brand, and not being simply a “not” brand—and then selling the distinct benefits of that brand—is the best route to victory.

After a lifetime of railing and flailing, I feel, well, not vindicated, but, at least, validated. I hope that Obama and other Democrats see it the same way—even if not all will admit it in public. Candidate Obama preached hope while implementing a strong and identifiably Democratic brand strategy. My hope is that President Obama sees that this would be a solid strategy for governing, as well.


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

America hits "refresh"

. . . here's my little part. . .

There is much still to do, but, for now, at this historic moment, all I feel is:

THANK YOU, AMERICA.

let’s just call this inspiration

Funny/chilling. . .



. . . and just chilling. . .



And this bears repeating:

If you are a regular reader, then I expect that you can guess what I’m going to say when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States. If you call yourself a liberal, or a progressive, or a lover of individual liberty and reproductive choice; if you want quality, affordable healthcare to be accessible to all Americans, if you want to restore some modicum of equity to the tax code, and some degree of sanity to our foreign policy; if you want to approach energy independence and global warming with the seriousness and the urgency those matters deserve; if you want a government staffed with experts instead of ideologues that is led by a man who trusts his intellect enough to be intellectually curious—or even if you just want some portion of all this—then there is only one way to vote on Tuesday: Barack Obama for president.

If you vote on an electronic machine, check your paper receipt to verify your votes.
If you have any trouble voting, and want legal advice,
call 1-866-OUR VOTE.
And, trouble or no, you can be, like, your own election monitor: video your vote and post it at VideoTheVote.org.

Now get out there and vote!


[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

more why we vote

Whether you live in the swingin’est swing state or a solid party stronghold, there are many important reasons to vote on Tuesday beyond the crucial contest at the top of the ticket. Over at The Seminal, where I blog as “Red Wind,” I have been running a series highlighting some of these races.

Each post includes a little bit about the candidate and his or her positions, a brief synopsis of the contest, and a sample campaign ad. I’ll admit to putting in a fair amount of work on this little project, so I would greatly appreciate it if you click on over and take a look.

More importantly, if you live in one of these places or know someone who does, make sure to vote yourself and/or get out your friends’ votes.

I covered a passel of races yesterday (and there are a couple of updates), and here are a few more:

Alaska – Mark Begich for Senate

Nebraska – Scott Kleeb for Senate

New York – Alice Kryzan for Congress

Washington – Darcy Burner for Congress


In case you missed it, I urge New Yorkers to vote Row E (Working Families Party)—with the exception of the US House race in NY-26 (there, please vote for Kryzan on the Democratic line). New York is a fusion voting state, and a vote in Row E counts just as much as a Dem vote, but says you want to see our state and country move in a progressive direction.

And, just in case you just woke up from a 21-month nap, today is November 4th—aka ELECTION DAY! Get out there and vote. Call your friends—all of them—and make sure that they get out and vote.

Finally, and this is important, you can use the tools below to find your proper polling place, if you vote on an electronic machine, check your paper receipt to verify your votes, and if you have any trouble voting, and want legal advice, call 1-866-OUR VOTE.

And, trouble or no, you can be, like, your own election monitor: video your vote and post it at VideoTheVote.org

OK, that wasn’t quite “finally”. . . this is:

To everyone who has volunteered, donated, phone-banked, organized, or blogged this election cycle: Thank you and good luck!

(cross-posted on capitoilette)

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

why we vote

Whether you live in the swingin’est swing state or a solid party stronghold, there are many important reasons to vote on Tuesday beyond the crucial contest at the top of the ticket. Over at The Seminal, where I blog as “Red Wind,” I have been running a series highlighting some of these races.

Each post includes a little bit about the candidate and his or her positions, a brief synopsis of the contest, and a sample campaign ad. I’ll admit to putting in a fair amount of work on this little project, so I would greatly appreciate it if you click on over and take a look.

More importantly, if you live in one of these places or know someone who does, make sure to vote yourself and/or get out your friends’ votes.

California – three House races and four ballot measures. (post will be up this afternoon it's up)

Georgia – Jim Martin for Georgia.

Michigan – Mark Schauer for Congress.

Minnesota – Al Franken for Senate. (post will be up in a couple of hours it's up)

New Mexico – Martin Heinrich for Congress.

North Carolina – Kay Hagan for Senate

Oregon – Jeff Merkley for Senate.

Virginia – Tom Perriello for Congress.

Washington – Reelect Governor Chris Gregoire

And, as I have mentioned before, if you live in New York, vote Working Families Party, Row E.


It’s been a long, hard road to get to this point, but we have to push on for one more day. If everyone who reads this could make a few extra phone calls, or volunteer to help get out the vote, we can all cross the finish line in style. . . and with a smile. . . or something like that.


(cross-posted on capitoilette)


[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

Palin punk’d—by a Canadian!

Actually, they call it “pranked,” and you probably think I’m talking about famous Canadian-born SNL producer Lorne Michaels, but no, no, no. . . or should I say “non, non, non?”

Canadian radio host Marc Antoine Audette convinced Republican VP wannabe Sarah Palin that he was French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a six-minute conversation that aired on Montreal station CKOI.

The pretend président told a giggly Palin that they had much in common—like they both can see foreign countries from their homes (Sarkozy/Audette said he could see Belgium), and how both loved to hunt:

Mr Audette said he would be keen to join her on a helicopter hunting trip.

"I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun," he said in an exaggerated French accent.

"I'd really love to go, so long as we don't bring along Vice-President [Dick] Cheney."

In 2006, Mr Cheney infamously shot and injured a hunting partner while quail-hunting in Texas.

Mrs Palin responded: "I'll be a careful shot."

Audette throws out the wrong name for the Canadian PM, and another for the “Prime Minister of Quebec,” but the Alaskan governor, who often references the border that her state shares with Canada to claim foreign policy cred, not only doesn’t notice, she replies as if she knows these guys.

A star-struck Palin later attempts to compliment Sarkozy’s wife, Carla Bruni—Palin praises her beauty repeatedly, but clearly can’t remember Bruni’s name.

But the very best part for me is right up top when the pseudo Sarko says that he follows Palin’s campaign with his “special American advisor” Johnny Hallyday.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mesdames et Messieurs, I present to you, je me présente vous, Johnny Hallyday:




Insta-update: Just discovered that the BBC link above has an edited audio excerpt—the full interview is even more brutal:



. . .

A friend just sent in a suggestion for a different Johnny Hallyday number, and it is so much more, um, what’s that French word. . . apropos!








[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

endorsement: vote row E for WFP

If you are a regular reader, then I expect that you can guess what I’m going to say when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States. If you call yourself a liberal, or a progressive, or a lover of individual liberty and reproductive choice; if you want quality, affordable healthcare to be accessible to all Americans, if you want to restore some modicum of equity to the tax code, and some degree of sanity to our foreign policy; if you want to approach energy independence and global warming with the seriousness and the urgency those matters deserve; if you want a government staffed with experts instead of ideologues that is led by a man who trusts his intellect enough to be intellectually curious—or even if you just want some portion of all this—then there is only one way to vote on Tuesday: Barack Obama for president.

BUT, if you live in New York, there are actually two ways you can vote for Obama—you can go the old, stodgy, predictable route, and pull the lever or mark your box for Barack Obama (D), Democrat, or, if you really, really believe in all that I laid out above, you can vote for Barack Obama (WFP), Working Families Party.

As I have discussed in elections past, New York has something called “fusion” voting; this allows a candidate to receive the endorsement of more than one party, and to be listed on the ballot under multiple party lines. All the votes for a single candidate, however, are combined to count for the final total. A vote for Obama on Row E—the Working Families Party line—counts just as much as a vote on the Democratic line. . .

. . . and more.

More, because the Working Families Party is more than a social club or the vestigial organ of some moribund New York political machine, the WFP is an active and organized party that has been fighting for progressive ideals for better than a decade. They stand for universal healthcare, tax equity, and equal representation under the law. They have lead fights for a living wage, for green jobs and green homes, and affordable housing. They advocate for better-funded public schools so that every child gets a quality education, no matter where he or she lives, and the public financing of elections to get the corrupting corporate money out of the system.

Earlier this month, WFP teamed with organized labor and local activists to protest New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Speaker Chris “Quisling” Quinn’s naked power grab vis-à-vis term limit “extensions.” The effort did not prevent Bloomberg from buying enough influence on the City Council to win his rule change, but working together, the WFP and the people of NYC made a lot of noise and called a lot of attention to the undemocratic way that the mayor and speaker went about overriding the existing law. Because of this effort, the fight to unseat these arrogant plutocrats next year has a big head start.

By voting for Obama—and for other cross-endorsed candidates—on the Working Families line, you are showing candidate and country that you stand for these kinds of progressive ideals. A vote for BHO (WFP) Row E shows that you want our next president to embrace the progressive potential that has brought you to his side.

By voting for state candidates on the WFP line, you will help shape the next generation of New York politics. Democrats are poised to gain the majority in the state senate for the first time in over 40 years, and thus will control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion. It will present a tremendous opportunity to reform a dysfunctional state government; a vote for the Working Families Party will give the left better leverage in the battles that lay ahead.

The Nation, The Albany Project, Daily Gotham, and Democrats.com have all endorsed a Row E WFP vote because they all know that strengthening the role of the Working Families Party is a solid step toward building a statewide progressive movement. Voting for Obama on the same line brings that voice to the national dialogue.

Barack Obama has promised change, and I truly believe that his election will noticeably transform the style and substance of our national leadership. What kind of change, how much change, and how directly that difference will affect the lives of hard working Americans, however, still hangs in the balance. The progressive direction advocated by the Working Families Party is the kind of change Democrats have been fighting for lo these many months and years—it is change we can believe in.

Vote Row E.


UPDATE: Thanks to the courts, we have a late-breaking exception to this rule in Western New York—NY-26, to be specific. Please vote for Democrat Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line.


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)



[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

can he? can we?

(Bowery & 4th • photo by me)

Who knew that the “B” on the sign for the Bowery Bar actually stood for Barack?

There were a handful of things I could quibble with in last night’s Obama infomercial (Barack’s word, not mine)—I thought several of the transitions went “bump,” his office setting was ambiguous to me, and I swear if I hear about “clean coal technology” one more freakin’ time, I’m gonna lose it—but I’m not in the hatin’ mood. . .

. . . and in part that is because of that infomercial.

You see, I can excuse the overly dramatic score and the unfortunate idea that the entirety of the “real America” seems to live outside of America’s biggest cities; I am not the target audience, after all. But, that said, at times, this thing still hit me. I mean it got me, I dunno, a little verklempt.

I’m not sure it was any one thing; it was more like the everything of it. The idea that just maybe this guy is smart enough to get it, if only a little—get that everything is sort of interrelated. If you want to stimulate the economy, you have to restore tax equity, and solve the healthcare crisis, and move away from hydrocarbon-based energy—and I’m hoping that he holds fast to this understanding when, come January, all the serious people in the village start telling him, “It’s too much,” and, “It’s too expensive,” and “America isn’t ready,” and “Just do a little test something first. . . then we’ll see,” because you know they will.

For me, I’m just trying to adjust to the idea that I might have a president, for the first time in my memory, that actually teases me with the idea that he might grow into a better leader once he gets to Washington. . .

. . . that is until he brings me right back down to earth with more “clean coal,” or more FISA “compromises,” or more reasons why we can’t completely leave Iraq or completely close Gitmo, or. . . no, no, no, not today, no. . . . Today: Yes we can!


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

it takes chutzpa to question Obama’s commitment to Israel

Or, in lieu of chutzpa, an RNC-financed 15 minutes of fame will do.

Perhaps you’ve heard of this guy, he’s a plumber—OK, an unlicensed, non-union plumber—I think his name is Joe? Anyway, even though he’s a member of the Natural Law Party, and as low as a low-info voter can go, the McCain campaign has wrapped its arthritic arms around him. Yesterday was day one of the Joe the dumber plumber bus tour, and JtP decided to use the opportunity to say that an Obama presidency would mean “death to Israel.” It was so inane and so nakedly hatemongering that even Shepard Smith of FOX News had to speak up:




Smith's indignation deserves praise—it’s nice to see a FOX-er realize that he’s still got to live in the America that the McCain-Palin team is trying to rip apart.

But why just let Shep Smith speak for Israel? We’ve got actual Israelis (and in such a nicely made little film, too):




And, if the Israelis won’t do, how about Barack Obama:

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security...I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran.... Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it.

Need a little more, Joe? How about this (from the Obama-Biden campaign website):

Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East. They support this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.

“Never” is a pretty strong word, there, hey Joe? (It’s probably a stronger word than I would use if I were running for president, but I’m not, so Joe shouldn’t worry his bald little head. . . .) I will personally add that Obama’s stated goals of opening a serious diplomatic channel with Iran and encouraging a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would do more to ensure the security of Israel than pretty much anything the Bush Administration has done in the last eight years. . . which means it would do more than anything proposed by John McCain.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

landslide or no, we’ve got a lot of work to do

In the last 48 hours, I have received a couple of interesting emails from a friend. My friend has been a supporter of Barack Obama since early on, and she has two siblings—one who stands outside McCain-Palin rallies with a sign that says “I AM a real American,” and then posts YouTubes of the experience:




And another who sends e-mails that say things like this (reproduced verbatim and unedited):

I can give you at least 5 reasons why working class people don't want Obama elected. Never once have I heard "secret Muslim" on that list, nor "black man" on that list. Not once. Here's what I have heard:

• Obama supports making union membrship mandatory vs. optional, taking away one's freedom to decide whether one wants to join the union - and making the $500 annual dues mandatory as well. Big deal for the working class.

• He further supports taking secret ballots away from unions, making all votes known - increasing the potential for manipulation and lobbying within unions.

• He voted against funding for the Iraq war when their friends, neighbors, and colleages were serving there - directly endangering their lives.

• His tax policies make the American dream of work-hard-become-successsful that much less attainable by making the marginal tax rate after $250K up to 70% by some projections (oh, and that $250 is per household - so it's $125K for a single person. Do you think that a single person living in Manhattan or LA is so filthy rich that they should give 70% of their taxes after $125K to the ineffective US Government?)

• When you live in a working class neighborhood, you know that the biggest problem with assistance for the needy is not the lack of it, but that it goes to the wrong places (like the family who lived across from us for 2 years when we first moved here. The stayed up partying with their friends- and their baby- every night until midnight or later, had cases of beer in their trash every trash day, had the smell of pot constantly wafting from their garage accross the street. And they were on food stamps. Nice.)

I don’t post either of these to make fun of these people or try to shame them. I feel I am better informed and perhaps less afraid than the folks that shout epithets or trade in absurd rumors, but I don’t feel superior. Instead, I post this for all the ‘sphere to see because I have question: Now what?

I have to admit that I pounced on the misperceptions and outright lies in the forwarded e-mail, and I sent a point-by-point refutation, replete with links, but I also thought, if this is what this voter believes this late in the election cycle, even a close relative will probably not succeed in winning the argument—or winning another vote for Obama. After writing my comprehensive reply, I had to add, if your sib doesn’t live in a swing state, you should probably save your breath.

At this stage of the race, that might or might not be good advice, but I am pretty sure that come November 5th, I should come up with a different answer.

I will need a different answer because, rest assured, an Obama victory, no matter how large, will not put an end to the arguments, will not silence all of the doubters, will not pacify all the haters, and will not convince all of the unconvinced.

Over time, I would hope that an Obama Administration could produce results that might ease some minds and even win some converts, but I am not a Pollyanna. Not only will there be people who, for whatever reason, will never accept Obama as president—not to mention, as a successful president—there will be political interests that will work overtime exploit those people and their beliefs, laying the groundwork for the next neoconservative and/or corporatist putsch.

So, what should we do? I can think of all kinds of small-bore things that might work here or there in a specific situation with a specific person, but I want to think in broader terms. We have to live with the people in that video—and I would even like to get some of them to help with tall task of undoing the disasters of the last decade—is there anything that can be said besides “let’s just agree to disagree”. . . or “stfu”. . . or “please stfu!”?

I don’t have a lot of good answers right now, do you?



(cross-posted to Daily Kos and The Seminal)

nyt endorses Obama; makes a mistake

Easy, easy. . . there’s a semicolon up there. . . so, please, just read on.

counterpoint taken

I agree with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter:

The question for the new president then becomes not whether he's moving too fast but too slow. The test becomes whether he can use the powers of government to act on behalf of the American people. That is a fundamentally liberal idea.

This was offered as a “counterpoint,” as the magazine calls it, to Jon Meacham’s cover story—to which I say, point not taken.

But who do you really love?

Just a quick observation:

Number of times John McCain mentioned Senator Joe Lieberman in the two presidential debates: 4

Number of times McCain mentioned his vice presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin: 0


. . . .

Bonus observation regarding McCain’s affinities:

Number of times John McCain said “My friends” in the first debate: 2

Number of times McCain said “My friends” in the second debate: 19

Olbermann puts the blame on Mame

On last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC host delivered one of his patented “Special Comments,” this time raking Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin over the coals for yet again cheapening the quality of debate in the presidential race, this time by accusing Senator Barack Obama of “pallin’ around with terrorists.”





While I don't disagree by-and-large with the substance of the segment, Olbermann failed to do what I think is most important when attacking Palin.

Palin is, to my eye, a horrible person, certainly unqualified, overtly corrupt, viciously ambitious—a joke, really (and a bad one)—but at the end of the day, no one votes for the Veep. The biggest problem with Palin is that John McCain picked her. McCain showed in this, like in so much else, his complete lack of sound judgment, his fascination with the maverick-ie gamble to buttress his bogus brand, and his track record of putting his own ambition above any other consideration.

Any attack on Palin has to remind voters that she was put in this position by a cynical candidate McCain. Keith came close to that point when he explained that he forgives Palin—because she is in a situation “beyond her ability to cope”—but he needed to make it explicit: You can't forgive Palin without blaming McCain.

. . .

As for the title, I think I’ll let Rita explain:

“ace” McCain

The LA Times goes somewhere I have resisted going for a very long time:

Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator

Three crashes early in his career led Navy officials to question or fault his judgment.

Yup. It’s not like many didn’t know this, it’s just that we weren’t supposed to talk smack about a “hero.” Well, the LAT has the goods: John McCain was a shitty pilot, a “flat-hatter” or show-off, who was reckless and negligent in the cockpit. McCain’s actions were found to be suspect in four of the five planes that he lost—including when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967—and in at least three of the incidents, McCain lied about the circumstances of his crash.

Hmmm. . . inattentive, reckless, an inability to learn from his mistakes, a cavalier attitude about the safety and property of others, and ready to lie to cover his ass. . . sounds pretty much like campaign ’08. More evidence that McCain is the same asshole he’s always been.

jeepers, veepers

Well, bygollygosh, Sarah—is it OK if I call you Sarah?—ya’ didn’t stare blankly into the camera like a moose in headlights, or make sick allover that pretty jacket yer wearin’, so I guess you can be vice president now fershure.

. . .

And let me use this opportunity to add a line I forgot to work into my other post:

Joe Biden: the attack dog you’d actually want as a pet.

I’ve already got a shoebox in the back of my closet with your name on it

Almost just in time for the debate:

Earlier this year, Topps issued a 12-card insert in its 2008 Topps Baseball product called “Campaign 2008” featuring Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden and nine other presidential hopefuls.

On Oct. 1, Topps announced that it has added an additional subject to the set: Republican VP hopeful Sarah Palin.

Palin will have 2 cards: Pictured as you see her today and pictured on a “rookie card” as an Alaskan Beauty Queen.

Topps says the Palin cards will be available the second week of October. . . about three weeks before most of us will resolve to forget about Sarah Palin forever.

I don’t think these will quite get up to, say, Nolan Ryan rookie card value, but, what with her flash-in-the-pan celebrity, maybe it will be a fun addition to your collection. In fact, that gives me an idea for tonight’s debate. . .

If anybody reading this can get the attention of Joe Biden, please forward him this guaranteed, sure fire, can’t miss zinger:

I knew Nolan Ryan, I saw Nolan Ryan play, and Sarah, you’re no Nolan Ryan.

(h/t LZ)

(cross-posted on The Seminal)

what is up with these McTies?

(M. Lyons, Getty)

Honestly, would you trust this guy to. . . well, to do much of anything? The eye rolling and sarcasm, the angry, whiny tone and manic behavior, that would be enough, but those ties! I previously decried Friday’s hypnotastic disaster, but I think Monday’s choice in neckwear may be worse. It looks like he forgot to pack a tie, so he just grabbed a tablecloth from that little Italian place on the corner and wrapped it around his throat.

The gingham check is bad, but the width is even worse. It is not completely obvious in this picture, but this tie is HUGE! It looked on TV like it’s five inches wide! Dare I suggest this was one he had leftover from his first campaign?

You know the joke “I’ve got neckties older than that”? Well, no one has ties older than John McCain, but, clearly, John McCain has ties older than many voters.