A Rosh Hashanah Reflection

Responding to Critics

I got a lengthy e-mail today from someone who received my blog announcement from a friend of a friend. A self-described "conservative" he didn't have many nice things to say about my blog, or my positions, or Senator Obama. The point of this space is to have a conversation though, and the conversations with people who disagree with us matter more than the conversations with people who already agree, so I've posted his comments, and my replies below. Maybe some of you share some of his misgivings, or are trying to figure out how to have conversations with people who do. Please read and join in the conversation...

I've kept the e-mailer anonymous, but told him where he can find this post in case he wants to continue the conversation. My replies are indented, his original comments are not.
-----------------------

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply to my comments. Despite the unnecessarily condescending tone you strike I'll make a pass at answering some of your concerns. The purpose of the blog, after all is to generate discussion.

Please do us both a favor and do not forward any more blogs by Jennifer Simpson or someone of a similar ilk..

I'm not certain what "ilk" you lump me in with after reading one piece of my writing. I suppose from later comments that I've been grouped under some "liberal" umbrella. Fair enough, though it concerns me that you request outright not to be included in conversations that might challenge your own perspective. The purpose of a conversation, after all, is to explore an idea you don't already hold.

I am sure Ms. Simpson is a fine person but the way she goes on about Obama reminds me of a 14 year old high school freshman with a crush on the school's star quarterback. Please remind her that this is not American Idol but rather the election of the President of the United States. A pretty face, nice smile and the ability to read "inspiring" words from a teleprompter are not the criteria for the Presidency.

Personal insults aside, I'm not sure what to make of this claim. Senator Obama is a constitutional law scholar, was editor of the Harvard Law review, was professor of Constitutional Law for 12 years, spent 8 years in the Illinois state house and 4 years in the U.S. Senate. He has a long public and published record of advocacy for and positions on issues of major consequence for our world today. He's been thinking about and working on the issues that matter for decades. "A pretty face, nice smile and the ability to read "inspiring" words from a teleprompter" seems to describe your candidate for the Vice Presidency much better than Senator Obama.

On the other hand, I can appreciate that as a liberal, Ms. Simpson and others will vote for Obama because he is the Democratic nominee and liberals vote for Democrats. Quite frankly, John McCain was not my first choice as the Republican nominee and I disagree with him on several issues but, as a conservative, I will vote for him just as I understand that a liberal will vote for Obama. However, at least I know that McCain, although not my first choice, is qualified and has accomplishments that make him deserving of the Presidency. Does anyone voting for Obama, in his/her heart of hearts, truly believe that Obama is qualified or has accomplished anything which makes him deserving of being President of the USA?

Per the above, I absolutely believe Senator Obama to have qualifications to make good and considered decisions about issues that matter to the country. While I have had a degree of respect for McCain over his years in the senate he has lost that respect over the course of this campaign as he has

**refused to release his medical records (as a 72 year old with a history of cancer this is unconscionable),

**recklessly chosen a running mate who, while perhaps able to claim, technically, that she has "executive" experience has no public record and has not been able to demonstrate in any of the interviews she has been permitted to give that she has ever seriously considered or studied any of the major domestic or international issues facing our country, with perhaps the exception of her narrow view of energy policy.

**behaved impulsively and contemptuously toward the American public by racing from one gimmick to another while offering no substantive policy proposals for solving the economic crisis.

Obama has had an economic policy on record for months that would address several of the factors that have led to the current debacle and make real investments in the economy that will allow it to grow in the future.

As for Ms. Simpson's beliefs as raised in the bullet points, I find most of them to be, not merely from the dark side, but in some cases, almost incomprehensible. Consider her concern for how prisoners are treated. I assume she is referring to the the terrorists who are at Guantanamo Bay; you know, those nice Muslim fellows who indiscriminately bomb and murder innocent people. On the other hand, I guess she could be referring to our home grown thugs who commit murder and mayhem on our streets. In either case, contrast her concern for these individuals with her strong advocacy in her first bullet point for the murder of innocent unborn children, aka, "a woman's right to chose"? It is truly incomprehensible that the same person who, I assume very self-righteously, is unhappy about how prisoners are treated, strongly endorses the killing of unborn children.

This paragraph is so sadly entrenched in ideological rhetoric I'm not quite sure where to begin. I'll leave the first, incomprehensible, sentence aside. The concern for treatment of prisoners of war, as defined in and upheld by the Geneva conventions, is primarily for the State to hold prisoners only with just cause. If you have a case, make it. I'm not advocating the release of madmen or terrorists (though the fact that you equate "terrorists" with "nice Muslim fellows who indiscriminately bomb and murder..." is a stereotype of the worst and most dangerous kind), just that the American public be disturbed by its government sweeping people off the streets and throwing them in cells for years on end without formally charging them with anything. That does not make us more safe and it does not advance the cause of democracy around the world.

Next, that you equate a "woman's right to choose" with ""strong advocacy for the murder of innocent unborn children" would be laughable if it were not so sadly, heartbreakingly, wrong. Proponents of choice do not believe that abortion should be common--the position is very clearly that it be safe, accessible, and RARE. Protections for the health and life of the mother are paramount.

In other, more elective cases, there is a human recognition that conception of a child can, and often does occur in cases of rape, incest, and violence. Many women choose, nevertheless, to bring these children into the world, but I do not believe a rapist should be able to choose the mother of his children against her will. Finally, history demonstrates that making abortion illegal does not make it go away--there will always be cases of desperation when a woman is terrified she will not be able to care for a baby. When abortion is a safe and accessible option, she is more likely to have a conversation with her health care provider and understand her full range of options. If doctors are prohibited from discussing termination with those women, more of them will take drastic measures and the life of both mother and fetus will be at risk.

If we actually care about reducing the number of abortions in this country, the best way to do it is to create a climate of open discussion where teens are able to talk about the challenges and changes they face in puberty, learn the self-worth and self-respect that enables them to say no to sex until they are more mature, and understand how to use and access effective birth control when they are sexually active.

It still amazes me that the party who wants no government control over gun ownership because "guns don't kill people, people kill people" can advocate government intervention in such a deeply personal medical decision and advocate against the kinds of sex education that will empower our children to make better choices about their sexuality and never have to choose abortion.

I recently saw a bumper sticker that said "If you don't like abortion, don't have one". I found myself wondering if, 150 years ago, that same person would have had on the back of their buggy a sticker that said "If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave". I think we all agree that slavery was an evil. It was justified under the guise of "states' rights". Well, abortion is an evil justified under the guise of "a woman's right to chose". An evil is an evil, and the murder of an innocent unborn baby is evil. And please do not give me the "it's only a fetus" story. It has a beating heart. It feels pain. It is an unborn human, as we all were at one time. Thankfully our mothers decided not to kill us in the womb.

I agree that the bumper sticker you reference is crass. It does emphasize that MANY people who support the right to choose would not choose to have an abortion themselves and would help those they love make other choices, but as most bumper stickers do, it oversimplifies a complex issue. Per the above, my position does not rest on an "it's only a fetus" argument, though it also certainly does not rest on a good vs. evil argument that grossly oversimplifies ethical nuances.

Why should I have the right, under the second amendment, to use a gun to shoot a person (with a beating heart, who feels pain) who breaks into my home to steal my television (or to rape my child), but not have the right, if that rape is completed to deny life to that invader's offspring?

Different topic. Gas at $4 a gallon, we send $700 Billion a year out of our country for oil and she is against drilling here in the USA!!!!!! I could go on and on with the problems I have with just about everything Ms. Simpson believes in.

Where to start?! Like it or not, even at $4 a gallon gas is less expensive in the US than almost every other industrialized nation of the world because it is so heavily subsidized by the federal government. I agree that the cost of fuel for transportation is a burden on many Americans and that many years of poor infrastructure planning makes alternative transportation difficult to choose.

I don't believe I advocated anywhere that we shut down existing wells and cease all US Oil production. In fact, I'm certain that I did not. My concern with emphasis on more off-shore drilling is that it grossly distracts from the real problem, which is not only dependence on foreign oil, but dependence on oil period. As long as we are heavy consumers of oil and dependent on it for our energy needs, we will always be consumers of foreign oil--the US can never produce enough to satisfy demand.

When the Congress recently voted to open up the coast to more off-shore drilling, Representative Nick J. Rahall II, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Natural Resources Committee, said “We are opening up to 400 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling and expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels, and we have done so in a balanced, reasonable and responsible manner.”

Fine, this gets us 2 billion more barrels, most of which won't come on line for many years to come. This represents about a 3 week supply of oil. According to both Chevron and The Oxford Princeton Programme it took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil, and will take us about 30 years to use the next trillion.

Here's some quick math:

1,000,000,000,000 barrels

___________________ = approx. 91,000,000 barrels/day



30 X 365 days

At a rate of 91 Million barrels, give or take, a day, we'll burn through 2 billion barrels in just about 21 days. And, we wont see any of that production come on line for nearly a decade.

Whether drilling here and drilling now makes sense if we've got it is completely beside the point. Whatever we get from those sites will take years to come on line and won't create anywhere near the impact on the demand market to significantly impact prices at the pump or elsewhere.

The only way to address either your concern for prices at the pump or the $700 billion going to foreign oil producers is to become one of the world's leaders in alternative sources of energy. We have the scientific and engineering capability to be truly great there, and it is something that could actually form the basis for a strong economy. All we lack is political will.

Finally, with respect to the financial mess which you mentioned, I have attached an excellent video which explains how we got into this situation. It is a rather long video so, in case you decide not to watch it, permit me to quickly summarize it. Starting with the Clinton Administration, the government put pressure on banks to lower their requirements for obtaining mortgages. When the banks resisted, the liberals in Congress, particularly Barney Frank and several others, then said that the banks were discriminating racially and threatened action. The banks then started giving loans to people who, in reality, could not afford them. In 2003, John McCain co-sponsored a bill to bring more oversight to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was rejected by the Democrats. Now we have this crisis. I know this is happening on Bush's watch but this is one problem he is not responsible for creating. Liberal Democrats are responsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Though you've tried to paint me in clunky, broad brush strokes, I won't hold Democrats wholly blameless. A lot of people have made bad decisions that helped bring us to this point. The Community Reinvestment Act that Clinton championed was an imperfect approach to fixing the ills that were already starting to be seen in housing markets as the result of more than a decade of deregulation and speculation. This report looks specifically at the impact of economic policies of the Bush administration on this crisis:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/pdf/bushonomics.pdf

I frankly don't find "free markets are a fantasy" any more helpful an argument than "liberal democrats did it" though. Markets work best though when oversights are in place to protect against gaming the system. You are correct that McCain had his name on a bill that would have called for more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (though he was hardly a champion of it, and his campaign manager was receiving $15,000 a month from the housing giants to ensure access to a McCain White House).

You can find a fact-check story here.

Finally, I am not voting for Obama because I am a liberal. Both candidates are surely human and have both strengths and weaknesses. I am voting for Obama not because he's a pretty face and a good speaker, but because his policies demonstrate clear thinking and consideration of the issues I care about and because having a President who values a range of perspectives and doesn't jump to rash judgments will be a refreshing change.

I hope you will not vote for McCain simply because you are a "conservative" but will ask yourself whether a 72-year old man who has shown rash judgment and a running mate who shows no depth of knowledge on any important policy issue is really the best choice for the country.

A Global Mess

I've heard a lot of people in the last few days railing against the very prospect of a $700 Billion economic recovery plan. And why not? This administration has proven again and again that it will lie, cheat, and steal and never accept responsibility. It has cried "Wolf!" too many times to count, and been wrong.

Some think we should just trust the free market to correct itself--that sound companies will survive and bad ones will be "cleansed." The theory goes that companies that have planned wisely can ride out a few months of lesser access to credit, and that those that have been overextended should, rightly, fail.

Others would prefer we invest the $700 Billion in a great Public Works project to improve our nation's infrastructure and create the basis for a new economic boom (in say, renewable energy technology). Of course, having something to show for the investment would be better than the pile of bad debt we look to be holding if the "bailout" passes.

Unfortunately, I'm increasingly convinced that the ship has sailed on those options. They both simply overlook too many key issues in a global economy that I don't fully understand. The below is clearly over-simple, but I don't think wholly wrong. If any of you have tried to understand what's happening and glazed over sometime shortly after hearing or reading that "as LIBOR rates began to climb, credit markets began to freeze," I hope the below provides a capsule view of what is happening and will happen without intervention.

First, "credit markets" being frozen, isn't just about long-term lending for future capital projects, innovation, or even consumer purchases. In fact, as I understand it, it is only very loosely about those things. The credit markets are the lifeblood of global corporations. Every day, billions and billions of dollars are lent and repaid on a very short-term cycle (like 24-hours or a week). The (LIBOR) rates are generally fairly reasonable, but on large sums of money produce a nice profit for the lenders, and the comparably cheap price of the money makes it a good way to ensure cash flow for companies that have large accounts receivable-they pay today's bills, from leases, payroll, supplies etc... with the receipts they expect tomorrow (generally for goods and services already delivered and so a reasonably good bet). When the cost to borrow this money rises sharply, it becomes harder to borrow against tomorrow, and as the market contracts, it also becomes less likely that those who owe YOU money will repay it in full.

Given the interconnectedness of markets today, the housing bubble issue that we've heard is at the root of all this mess is related, but it is hard to pin down what is the chicken and what is the egg. Large investment banks were clearly heavily invested in "bundled" mortgages and as those have defaulted they've been less willing/able to lend, or only at higher rates, and the lifeblood that keeps the global economy moving is clogging up--some mortgages default, so investment firms lend less at higher rates, which makes it harder and more expensive for firms otherwise unassociated with the mortgage industry to meet expenses, including basic supply chain items and payroll, which leads to hiring freezes and fewer big purchases and investments first, then layoffs and plant closures, a declining tax base, increased cost of goods and services that are harder to afford by a public impacted by higher rates of unemployment and inflation, more people default on their mortgages and on and on.

I've heard a lot of people touting the "well I made good choices" or "my company only invested in THINGS" so they'll be ok, or they can ride out a few bad months. The problem is that the above scenario very quickly spirals into something that gets a whole lot worse for a lot of months before there is any hope of getting better, and it won't just be the "bad guys" that are impacted early or hardest. In an economy as globally interconnected as ours this will have global effects, not just national ones.

Sure, a public works project is more palatable--I'd much rather have my money invested in an enduring benefit than the "bad investments" the Treasury will be buying up--but sadly, if we've under-regulated the financial industry, we've probably over-regulated government contracting. A major Public Works project would take years to even get started and would not inject liquidity into the markets at all in the short term. If we'd started such a project 10 years ago we might now be reaping the benefits, and if Obama is elected I hope that we will still begin such an undertaking, but if some sort of rescue package doesn't pass it is a good bet that even if it bolsters Obama's chances of getting elected, it will profoundly undermine his ability to accomplish many of the things we care about.

Don't kid yourself. This is bad. The roughly 10% plunge that the stock market took today was based on a reasonable assumption that this thing will still pass, relatively soon. If it becomes clear that there will be no rescue, expect the market to lose closer to 50%. If that happens it will not just affect people who made bad choices, it will affect all of us, and our children. It will most certainly affect our parents who expect to draw on their retirement funds sooner than later and will not have the benefit of 30 years recovery in the markets. In a contracting economy, it is often the most senior employees, who get the biggest paychecks, that get laid off. If millions of late fifty or early sixty somethings lose their jobs a few years shy of retirement we'll both see a booming burden on their children who won't let them live in the poorhouse, and a faster than planned for crunch on social security.

If this isn't a happy enough scenario, all of the research that I have done on globalization and poverty tells me that as world markets start to collapse, there will be a swift and steady rise in violence and political instability around the world, and that while it may not start in the U.S., we won't be immune, and that many, many people who see their livelihoods go up in smoke globally will hold the U.S. culpable, and will distinguish little between Main and Wall Street. In the 1930s Wall St. was much more removed from the economies of Riyadh and Islamabad than today.

People are justifiably pissed. I am too. We have no good reason to trust the current administration. I agree wholeheartedly that any plan that is passed must have safeguards and accountability. In an email I received from my Congressman, who voted "No" today, Mark Udall writes:

I've always said that any response to this economic crisis must adhere to four core principles: no blank checks for the mistakes of Wall Street and the Bush Administration; a real crackdown on excessive executive compensation; help for small businesses and Main Street America; and strong taxpayer protections.

Unfortunately, while today's bailout proposal came closer to satisfying these principles than the blank check originally sought by the administration, it remains an incomplete response.

This bill does nothing to begin the fundamental reform that is needed to fix the broken financial system that led us to this crisis. Washington is painfully slow to make fundamental reforms except in times of extreme duress and real public outrage, so we must make sure this opportunity leads to real reforms to the laws governing our markets, financial institutions, and their regulation.

I cannot accept a solution that risks $700 billion to bail out the boat, but does nothing to patch up the hole.

Fine. I want a better bill too. But I don't want political posturing, or a "stick it to 'em" attitude.

Perhaps, just as too many trusted the "fundamentals" of the economy to sort themselves out, we've also been a bit too willing to trust in our political system to work itself out over time. This is not just about holding the fat cats accountable, though there will be more of that in the years ahead, it is also about recognizing the breadth and reach of the US economy around the world, and the financial and political catastrophe that will follow if we cross our arms and say "so there, take that." We may not be the first to feel the effects, but many people who were not part of the problem will lose everything. When that happens they will be angry, and grow desperate.

If we head down that path, you can forget about that public works project because we'll be tying up every dollar we have to try to staunch the bleeding fighting wars that can't be won.

That's not the future I want.

I wish we were in a different predicament. I wish we had leaders that hadn't lied and squandered our prosperity, but I'm not willing to risk further dooming our future to spite Bush or his cronies. It is time to stand up and take responsibility. Failure to pass real relief will be the ultimate gesture in cutting off our nose to spite our face. Worse, it will further demonstrate our disregard for the impact of our dominance on the rest of the world.

"Let them eat cake" has its consequences.

I want a great public works project, a burgeoning new economy, and leaders we can trust. I also want Obama to be able to actually accomplish at least some of his proposals. If the market tanks, I don't think any of those things will happen.

We have an opportunity in November to teach a lesson to those who got us into this mess. We can vote out everyone who has opposed the kinds of safeguards and fiscal reforms that might have averted this catastrophe. Right now, though, all of our representatives are running scared. They think they'll get voted out not for what they did yesterday, but for what they will do tomorrow (or Thursday...).

As Nate Silver points out:

This was predictable, I suppose, but it's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" bySwing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

I hope tomorrow you'll join me in calling our representatives and telling them to work their butts off to find something they can vote FOR. The American people may not like it, but we are not wholly blameless in this mess. It is time to be responsible and clean it up. Tell your representatives that your vote in November will be decided by the track record they already have, and that you expect them to pass a bill, with appropriate safeguards, and pass it soon.

Ultimately, voting against some financial rescue will be like standing around railing at the city government for cutting first responder funding while the town burns instead of forming a chain gang to save it.

We can, and should, vote the suckers out who created this mess. We should also show them what true leadership looks like by making sure it gets fixed.

Let's leave Obama a little something to work with.

Roger Ebert Reviews the Debate

Thanks Leasa for sharing this and to everyone who has been sending me news snippets.
Today I'll a bit of "what the readers are reading"...

Guess who's not coming to dinner
BY ROGER EBERT / September 28, 2008

I do not like you, John McCain. My feeling has nothing to do with issues. It has to do with common courtesy. During the debate, you refused to look Barack Obama in the eye. Indeed, you refused to look at him at all. Even when the two of you shook hands at the start, you used your eyes only to locate his hand, and then gazed past him as you shook it.

Obama is my guy. If you are rude to him, you are rude to me. If you came to dinner at my house and refused to look at or speak with one of my guests, that would be bad manners and I would be offended. Same thing if I went to your house. During the debate, you were America's guest.

What was your problem? Do you hold this man in such contempt that you cannot bear to gaze upon him? Will you not even speak to him directly?

Do you think he doesn't have the right to be running for President?

Were you angry because after you said you wouldn't attend the debate, he said a President should be able to concern himself with two things at the same time? He was right. The proof is, you were there. Were you angry with him because he called your bluff?

There's more...

Blogging suspended for birthday festivities...

I watched last night's debates and hope most of you did too. I'll post my own thoughts in the next day or so. Today, I have a 4-year-old's birthday party to orchestrate. If you haven't read the polls and punditry, there's some good analysis on fivethirtyeight.com to keep you busy.

And, here's a week-in-review from the late night comics.

Take a breather--it's been quite the week...

Ghosts of Crises Past

A fellow blogger highlights important reminders about McCain's history with the Savings and Loan Crisis.

And if anyone else had an eerie sense of déja vu while watching Bush's speech, check this out:

Palin "Out of her league on National issues"

Palin has not only failed to impress in her recent interviews, but is turning some of her most ardent supporters against her. I guess some might still watch the below and chastise a "liberal media" for being unfairly harsh (though among those who actually saw the interview that number might dwindle significantly)



Today, however, even Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of the National Review, one of Palin's earliest and most vocal advocates, admits

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion...

Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

Ouch.

Suspension of Disbelief

Suspension of Disbelief is the "willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible" and appears to be what is on the Political Menu this week.

First, it looks like Congress has reached some agreement on what the ginormous-sorry-we-took-our-eye-off-the-ball-can we-have-some-more-of-your-money-please bailout will look like.

They made the announcement shortly before McCain and Obama met with the President, but after the meeting, Republican leaders who were in the room emphatically stated: "we will not have a deal."

I'm sure glad that McCain forced a rush on Washington to save the everyone-thinks-its-a-bad-idea plan from certain death.

It also looks like the debates will go on, with or without McCain, with Obama pledging to be available to the media for Q & A from them and/or from the audience. CNN's Paul Begala writes today that we need a debate now precisely to help the country differentiate between the actually very different economic and foreign policy positions.

In other exciting news, Palin held her first "press availability" today after being raked over the coals for days for being so unavailable. A select group of reporters from her press corps were told 20 minutes before she finished touring Ground Zero in NYC that she would make a statement and "take a few questions." She took five. And answered four, sort of:

PALIN: Every American student needs to come through this area so that, especially this younger generation of Americans is, to be in a position of never forgetting what happened here and never repeating, never allowing a repeat of what happened here. I wish every American would come through here. I wish every world leader would come through here, and understand what it is that took place here and more importantly how America came together and united to commit to never allowing this to happen again. And just to hear and from and see these good New Yorkers who are rebuilding not just this are but helping to rebuild America has been very, very inspiring and encouraging. These are the good Americans who are committed to peace and security and its been an absolute honor getting to meet these folks today.

CNN: On the topic of never letting this happen again, do you agree with the way the Bush administration has handled the war on terrorism, is there anything you would do differently?

A: I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them. We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy, but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.

POLITICO: Do you think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and our continued presence there is inflaming islamic extremists?

A: I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. Do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction. Terrible destruction on that day. But since September 11, Americans uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.

POLITICO: Do you support the reelection bids of embattled Alaska Republicans, Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens?

A: Ted Stevens trial started a couple days ago. We’ll see where that goes.

POLITICO: Are you gong to vote for them?

[no answer.]

JERSEY JOURNAL: What do you think of the bailout package before congress?

A: I don't support that until the provisions that Sen. McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson's proposals.

Whew. Who knows what we will be asked to believe tomorrow.

McCain's Duck and Cover

As I posted this morning, McCain has been hard hit in the polls by this week's economic crisis. Even the FOX News Poll had Obama up 46% to 39%.

In response, McCain, who has missed 109 out of 110 votes in the Senate since March so he could stay on the campaign trail, announced he was "suspending" his campaign and rushing back to Washington.

Oh, and can we cancel the debates? Well, postpone really. Sarah would gladly give up her spot on October 2 so that the Presidential debates can be rescheduled. Really. All this while Palin, who has been scrupulously shielded from the media was being interviewed by Katie Couric. How was she doing? You tell me:



No time to watch? Here's the highlight of this one:

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

During this time, McCain was supposed to be taping an appearance on the David Letterman show. He called on short notice to cancel, explaining that he had to rush back to DC, but managed to stop by the CBS studios for an exclusive with Katie Couric before going.

Letterman, who was alerted to McCain's side trip to Katie's desk was not impressed, remarking, "You heard it here first. This doesn't smell right. This is not how a tested hero behaves. Somebody's putting something in his Metamucil"... and yes, there's more...

Obama meanwhile emphasized that this is precisely the moment when the American people need to hear from whomever will inherit the financial mess and that the President will often have to be able to juggle more than one thing at once.

This evening, President Bush intervened by inviting both candidates and a group of Congressional delegates to a meeting at the White House on Thursday afternoon. Obama has accepted, so we will see what tomorrow brings...

More Press Access to Ahmadinejad than Palin

Andrew Sullivan points out today that:

Since Sarah Palin was selected for the vice-presidential nomination, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given more press conferences than she has. That's the country John McCain believes in.

And, if you missed Campbell Brown's pointed (but oh so true) rant yesterday, check her out calling McCain's camp on their sexist, kid-glove treatment of Palin and the Press...

Today's Polling: Obama opens up big lead

Well, the economy is still a mess and it isn't clear how it is going to be fixed and who will pick up the tab, but today's news brought a small smile to my face... when real issues start to affect the American people, the impact of their choices are brought in sharp relief...



Today's Washington Post / ABC News Poll has Obama up 52% to 43%. This is good news, but not a reason to stop working hard--with the debates starting tomorrow we can either seal the deal or backslide.

I was motivated two weeks ago to start this blog by the high number of white moms with kids at home who were being drawn to the McCain-Palin ticket. Obama has made some gains there this week, but that demographic is still his weakness. The Gallup Poll focuses in on this issue today:



Keep spreading the word...

Obama's Economic Recovery Plan

Obama is calling for an economic recovery plan based on three key principles:

No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.

Show your support for a measured approach by signing the petition at

http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan

Photo (sh)op-ing Palin's Foreign Policy Experience

The McCain campaign has strategically arranged for Sarah Palin to meet with 9 international leaders (one of whom is Bono of U-2 fame) over the next day and a half as foreign dignitaries are in NY for a United Nations meeting. Network and print news outlets were outraged, however, that Palin initially refused to allow any press coverage.

As CNN reports:

"The appearances with world leaders, taking place on the sidelines of the United Nation's General Assembly meetings in New York, come as the campaign of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain tries to convince voters that Palin is ready for the world stage.

Palin is holding photo-ops with the leaders, but she is not taking questions from any reporters.

The Alaska governor initially said no reporters would be allowed to sit in on her meeting with Karzai. She planned to allow in only photographers and one television crew, but she changed her position after at least five U.S. news networks protested.

CNN does not send cameras into candidate events where editorial presence is not allowed."

Even FOX News expressed outrage:

The NY Times opened their report this way:

"Live from New York, it’s Gov. Sarah Palin’s top-secret foreign policy tutorial!

Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, is scheduled to meet Tuesday in New York with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger.

But the McCain-Palin campaign’s sharp limitations on coverage of the meetings have sparked a mini-revolt – and a threatened boycott — among the press corps..."

Similar frustrations were voiced by ABC News, Yahoo! News, MSNBC, and others.

Finally, after intense media pressure and not having given a press conference since before either political convention (and well before the selection of his running mate) McCain took questions for 11 minutes after a campaign stop in Michigan.

While McCain and Palin dodged the press, Obama held a press conference to answer media questions about the economy. Here's a piece of it:



I wonder how the McCain-Palin camp feels about this rendition of Palin's meetings:

"Ms. Palin and Mr. Kissinger sat on blue couches, separated by an end table with photographs of President Nixon and President Reagan on it. As photographers were led in, Mr. Kissinger could be heard saying that he gave someone “a lot of credit for what he did in Georgia,” according to a reporter who was allowed to watch...

“Good, good,’’ Ms. Palin said. “And you’ll give me more insight on that, also, huh? Good.”...

The next stop on Governor Palin’s whirlwind diplomatic tour was a meeting with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. Mr. Uribe has a warm relationship with Senator John McCain, who paid him a visit during extremely unusual campaign trip to Colombia over the summer where he expressed support for a free trade agreement.

The meeting was held in the residence of the Colombian Mission on the Upper East Side in an ornate room with a pink stuffed chair and a chandelier, according to an account provided by the reporter allowed to accompany her into the event, Ms. Palin was overheard telling Mr. Uribe, “Thank you for your work.’’...

This reads more like a society column than a foreign policy testimonial to me...

Conservatives: McCain "Unsuited" for the Presidency

The Wall St. Journal rips the economic credentials of the Rebublican candidate and the nicest thing that the Washington Post's conservative commentator can say is

"Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?".

That's not a good day for McCain.

Debate #1 Primer: Troop Surge a Success?

The first Presidential debates air Friday night, September 26th at 9pm Eastern from the campus of the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss). The topic will be foreign policy, which some say favors McCain. This week I'll be posting some interesting pre-reading for the debates.

Today, check out these several stories that challenge the notion that the "troop surge" in Iraq has been a success. This has been one of McCain's chief critiques of Obama, since McCain called for more troops early on in the war and Obama opposed the surge. Recently, Obama has even conceded that the surge was more successful than he anticipated, but there is a great deal of evidence that the surge is correlated to the decrease in violence, but not its cause.

As early as June, Max Bergmann was highlighting that McCain, not Obama, misunderstood the impact of the surge, chronicling the increase in violence during and immediately after the troop increase and demonstrating how a confluence of other factors could more accurately be credited with the subsequent decrease in violence. Most notably, Bergmann argues that we cut deals with the enemy--basically paid them off to stop fighting, and allowed ethnic cleansing to be near-complete in the most violent neighborhoods. So, violence decreased not because we prevented ethnic cleansing or achieved some kind of reconciliation, but because we allowed it to continue until the targets of opportunity were gone. In June, few people were listening.

Then in July, Joseph Palermo wrote about the fallacy of the "surge success story" saying:

"Any "success" that McCain or Bush or Kenneth Pollack or Michael O'Hanlon or Michael Gordon or David Petraeus and all the rest of the war-hawks talk about is delusional because it is proclaimed by willfully ignoring the humanitarian costs; the price in blood and treasure the Iraqis have paid, and to a far lesser extent, the Americans too. McCain is celebrating a Pyrrhic victory. The United States destroyed Iraq in order to save it."

Again, few people took notice.

This week, though Reuters published a story, complete with striking satellite imagery that confirms that entire neighborhoods have been cleansed of their pre-war population. The researchers behind the study confirm Bergmann's earlier assessment that ethnic cleansing was a primary contributor to decreased violence:


"By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.

Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict."



On September 19th, Bergmann wrote a follow-up piece titled "The Obvious Confirmed" and concludes:

"...when John McCain declares "victory" in Iraq and states that the increase of just 30,000 troops was the fundamental reason for the decline in violence, he once again proves that he has no idea what he is talking about."

Watch for this line of commentary to emerge in the debates and don't buy John's line that he was right all along.

Another Blank Check?

A lot of people today are trying to put the brakes on the proposed $700 billion dollar bailout of Wall St. that President Bush and the Treasury department are saying is needed NOW, NOW, NOW after months of saying no to more regulation and government intervention.

Why such urgency all of a sudden? And why, as Krugman asks in today's NY times, is it even reasonable to ask for the taxpayers to foot a $700 billion bill that would give Henry Paulson dictatorial authority regarding how and where the money is spent, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency”?

President Bush is urging swift and decisive action "to shore up our markets and prevent damage to our capital markets, businesses, our housing sector, and retirement accounts," and asking us to trust him and his delegates with our money. Hey, why shouldn't we?

For an administration with an egregious record of squandering taxpayer money to expect a blank check takes a lot of gall.

While most economists agree that some action is needed, there is growing skepticism and unease about the speed with which such an enormous federal bailout is being pushed forward by people who only weeks ago were saying that governments shouldn't meddle with free markets. At a campaign rally yesterday, Obama had this to say about the bailout plan:



What can you do?

Find the contact information for your senators.

Call and let them know that while you support preventing financial collapse, a bill that doesn't provide accountability, oversight, or ensure that returns on the investment come to taxpayers before Wall St. executives is unacceptable.

Then, report that you called so your input can be tracked.

You can also sign a petition asking Congress to put Main St. before Wall St.

The terms of this bailout will significantly influence the economy that the next President inherits and shape how much control any of us has on where our money is spent, and if or when we see any return on investment.

The long reach of politics

Americans all over the world are working to register expats living abroad and get them to apply for absentee ballots. The internet has greatly aided registration efforts, with expats able to request absentee ballots from their living room or laptop.

Democrats are still using good old-fashioned leg work too...that's my mom registering voters in Strasbourg, France with Debbie Raeis and Philip Ellison:



Gwynneth Paltrow is voting from London. Where will you vote from?

The Many Faces of McCain

There's been a lot of press lately about the ever-shifting commitments of John McCain.

In a September 17 Op-Ed, Gail Collins wrote about the new and improved "populist" McCain that showed up at a campaign rally in Ohio. This McCain, who in a prior incarnation was not only for deregulation, but actually called for a moratorium on all new regulation, was now in favor of clamping down on rampant Wall St. greed. Collins wrote:

"Really, if McCain is going to keep changing into new people, the campaign should send out notices. (Come to a rally for the next president of the United States. Today he’s a vegetarian!)

We’re going to put an end to the abuses on Wall Street — enough is enough!” this new incarnation yelled, complaining angrily about greed and overpaid C.E.O.’s. Slowly, people begin to peel out of the crowd and drift away. Even in these troubled times, there are apparently a number of Republicans who think highly of corporate executives and captains of high finance."

McCain has also been criticized recently because, while once a champion of immigration reform, he has steadily backed away from his earlier positions to appease a conservative base that wants much tighter restrictions on immigration than he advocated. So, how does he use the immigration issue to bolster his position with some voters without alienating others? He runs the ad only in Spanish. The NY Times reviews the ad, and includes a translation in a recent article,



McCain also likes to remind people that part of his "Maverick" persona was crafted as the champion of campaign finance reform. In fact, the McCain-Feingold legislation was one of his proudest pieces of bipartisan legislation, yet when asked several months ago at at town hall meeting which Supreme Court Justices he would not have appointed, he named Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Those four, along with Sandra Day O'Connor formed the majority that upheld his campaign finance legislation. Now, far from working to close loopholes in campaign finance legislation, the NY Times reports that McCain is exploiting them:

"Senator John McCain toiled for years to push a campaign finance overhaul through Congress. After the measure finally passed, Trevor Potter, a lawyer and vigorous advocate for reforming the system, was instrumental in defending the law from challenges and pressing for strict enforcement.

Now, as Mr. McCain makes his final sprint for the White House, Mr. Potter is again helping Mr. McCain, but this time by maneuvering to wring the maximum out of campaign finance laws in ways that some contend are at odds with the spirit of the reforms they championed."

Now since Wall St. has been imploding, McCain has come under attack because he favors increased privatization of both social security and health care. Critics argue that the events of this week demonstrate how dangerous it could be to put the retirement and health care security at the whim of volatile investment markets--yes the potential for return might be greater in some cases, but for those disinclined to follow markets carefully, their life savings could also be much less secure. You can read the full story, or check out the highlights below.



So let's recap:

McCain was for deregulation, but now more regulation is better
He was for immigration reform before he was against it, but don't tell that to the Spanish-speaking voters
He wanted to close campaign finance loopholes until his opponent raised more money, then loopholes were good
He was for privatizing social security but doesn't want you to call it that anymore

As Frank Rich notes today:

"All campaigns, Obama’s included, engage in false attacks. But McCain, Sarah Palin and their surrogates keep repeating the same lies over and over not just to smear their opponents and not just to mask their own record. Their larger aim is to construct a bogus alternative reality so relentless it can overwhelm any haphazard journalistic stabs at puncturing it."

For a man who built a reputation as a "straight talker," more and more people are asking "what's up with John McCain?!?" Perhaps fittingly, a member of McCain's press corps notes:

"There are now not one but two drawn curtains on Mr. McCain’s plane separating his spacious quarters from the press corps. Left idle is the couch that was built in the front of the plane — called “Straight Talk Air” — to reproduce at 30,000 feet the freewheeling chats with reporters that were the stock-in-trade on his bus; the other morning it was covered with newspapers."

McCain may be clamping down on his straight talk, but his recent actions speak volumes.

Feminist Majority Endorses Obama

The Feminist Majority has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Their press release reads, in part:

“Obama/Biden are running on the strongest platform for women’s rights of any major party in USA history,” said Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority. “But it’s not just platforms. Voting records show the stark difference between the Obama and McCain tickets...

It’s no wonder teachers, nurses, social workers, businesswomen and women business owners, and feminists stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden,” said Smeal. “Whether it is work and family issues, combating wage discrimination or violence against women, or keeping abortion safe and legal or birth control accessible and affordable, the Obama ticket is 100% on record supporting women’s rights while the McCain ticket often rates a zero on issues impacting millions of women and girls’ opportunities, prosperity, health, education, and very lives.”

I'd embed the press release video, but sadly the videographer left a bit to be desired. You can see it on the C-span site.

Protect Women's Health BEFORE the election

Ok, we all have our eye on the November prize, but we also mustn't lose sight of the fact that there are a whole bunch of legislative and policy initiatives already on the table that, if decided before the end of the current administration, could be hard to unravel.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (you know who she is, right?) and Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, have a piece in today's NY Times that draws attention to one such policy initiative.

The short of it is that the Bush administration is working to issue a rule through the Department of Health and Human Services that would require any medical office that receives federal funding--whether a doctor in private practice, a hospital, or a clinic--to sign a statement saying that no one who works there will be required to "assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable."

This goes far beyond legislation, which already exists, that exempts medical professionals from performing an abortion if they object on moral grounds, and opens the door for individuals to deny women access to a whole range of services from contraception to sterilization if the provider doesn't like the idea. And, as Clinton and Richards point out:

"The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?"

Because we know that the best way to reduce abortion is to provide good information about and access to birth control, this policy seems completely at odds with a pro-life agenda except in its most narrow individual, self-interested interpretations.

Clearly, policy such as this would be more likely to be supported by a McCain-Palin administration than an Obama-Biden one, but by November 4th the damage may already be done.

The 30-day comment period on the rule expires on September 25th.

If this is an issue you care about you can take action by learning the details of the rule, submitting comments opposing the policy, forwarding this blog post by clicking on the envelope below, and Digging this story so more people hear about it and take action.

Slip of the tongue?

Palin today outlined the approach that a "Palin and McCain" administration would take in helping small businesses (by helping them keep more so they can do more, and stuff). Was her reversal of the ticket an innocent slip of the tongue? Perhaps, but on Sept 14., Frank Rich said in the NY Times that

"No longer able to remember his principles any better than he can distinguish between Sunnis and Shia, McCain stands revealed as a guy who can be easily rolled by anyone who sells him a plan for “victory,” whether in Iraq or in Michigan. A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.

The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation...

The cunning of the Palin choice as a political strategy is that a candidate who embodies fear of change can be sold as a “maverick” simply because she looks the part. Her marketers have a lot to work with. Palin is not only the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket, but she is young, vibrant and a Washington outsider with no explicit connection to Bush or the war in Iraq. That package looks like change even if what’s inside is anything but."



Palin talks a good game as a "down home" hockey mom who rose to the national stage on sheer pluck, but there are some powerful evangelists behind her rise that like her a lot better than they like McCain.

The Rain in Spain

So we've been harping a bit on Palin's foreign policy credentials and mostly trusting that as a veteran of a foreign war and a senator for more than a quarter century McCain had a good handle on foreign affairs.  Except that yesterday in an interview, McCain couldn't name the president of Spain, referred to him as a leader of a Latin American country, and seemed to imply that if he didn't get his drug-dealing house in order he could forget about cordial relations with the U.S.  Yikes.

After the interviewer presses him a couple times on the point and tries to focus him on the fact that Prime Minister Zapatero isn't from Mexico and isn't a drug lord either McCain comes back at her saying, "All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the Hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."

Then there's a moment of awkward pause before she says. "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."

McCain: "What about me, what?

You can read the full story here. 

Or, just watch for yourself.  The Spain bit starts at about 2:55 in.

Don't you love headlines?

This one at CNN reads "Administration Rips Democrats' Bill as Waste of Time". It could just as easily have read: "Dems to GOP: Thanks But No Thanks on Drilling our Heads into the Sand".

It remains to be seen if the bill passed by the Senate, which does allow drilling 50 miles off shore if adjacent states agree and 100 miles off shore whether they do or not, and includes a repeal of some tax breaks for oil companies and incentives for renewables, will make it out of the Congress. Either way, it is a bill that leaves some Dems feeling that it is too permissive, and some Republicans feeling that it is too restrictive.

The irony though, is that the NY Times quotes Representative Nick J. Rahall II, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Natural Resources Committee, as saying “We are opening up to 400 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling and expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels, and we have done so in a balanced, reasonable and responsible manner.”

Responsible or not, 2 billion barrels, most of which won't come on line for many years to come, represents about a 3 week supply of oil. Yup. According to both Chevron and The Oxford Princeton Programme it took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil, and will take us about 30 years to use the next trillion.

Here's some quick math:

1,000,000,000,000 barrels 
___________________________ =       approx. 91,000,000 barrels/day

30 X 365 days 

At a rate of 91 Million barrels, give or take, a day, we'll burn through 2 billion barrels in just about 21 days.

Whether drilling here and drilling now makes sense if we've got it is completely beside the point. Whatever we get from those sites will take years to come on line and won't create anywhere near the impact on the demand market to significantly impact prices at the pump or elsewhere. Waste of time indeed.

Marketing 101

I know a lot of people who have watched the rise of Sarah Palin with something akin to a "deer in headlights" (or perhaps "moose in floodlight" is more apt here) look in their eyes. "How can people fall for this?," they ask.

Well, the truth is they'll fall for it the same way people who would otherwise never even shop at WalMart would line up at midnight to buy a Wii or stand in line for hours in the heat with small kids for an iPhone (note finger pointed squarely back at self...). Now one can argue that "because it's cool" is a more justifiable reason to select a video game system or a cell phone than the leader of the free world, but there's a reason companies pay big bucks for market research and branding efforts. They work.

Amazingly, slight changes to the shape or color of a product's packaging, or even splashing "NEW" across the side of the box can draw in new customers and bring back old ones. It gets people to take a second look, and curiosity often drives them to give it a try. I've been saying for weeks that Sarah Palin's story is a perfectly good reason to attend a rally--she IS a phenomenon, and a historic one--but I don't think her story is a good reason to vote for her ticket.

Beyond generating brand recognition and initial excitement, marketing professionals also tend to worry about staying power and generally speaking that has more to do with what is inside the box. Is it good enough to keep people coming back once they are no longer drawn for curiosity's sake?

That will be the test with Sarah Palin, but the GOP was not foolish in announcing her so late. The public will have barely 60 days to whet their curiosity and scrutinize their choice before they have to make a decision with lasting and irreversible consequences. On November 5th, a new guard will have been chosen and we'll all have to live with it.

There's a piece on CNN today that talks about this marketing effect but to my mind there are a few things for those of us who are still scratching our heads to keep in mind:

Sometimes the best way to satisfy curiosity is to just get it out of your system. Anyone who has ever had a "seemed like a good idea at the time" moment (is there anyone who hasn't?) knows that even if someone had tried to talk you out of it ahead of time, you probably wouldn't have listened. It is in all of our interests to have people's curiosity about Palin satisfied before they pull the lever on election day so that more rational decision-making forces prevail on November 4th. Even the most conservative of commentators are turning on the ticket so I'm holding out hope.

People respond badly to being treated like idiots or children. I think the McCain-Palin camp underestimates the extent to which people won't be roiling mad when they peel back the covers to find they are being blatantly lied and condescended to. But for those who are already steaming mad, taking it out on the curiosity seekers will only have them turn their anger toward you (us) for being elitist and condescending. If we can instead find some degree of compassion for the curiosity, people will feel supported and heard by one camp, and lied to and misled by the other. THAT is the outcome we want.

We have our own brand to worry about.The next few weeks will both help define the outcome of the election and the ground on which a new administration can be built. If McCain's camp is trying to fuel a culture war and we respond by calling names, shaking heads, or using our own arguments against them we only reinforce the perception that we're elitist and detached, and reinforce the "down home" appeal of the other side. When Obama chose Biden as his running mate, he sacrificed some of the cool new brand he'd been building. As a leader, I think it was probably a good choice. As a market strategy it doesn't seem to be so great. Obama and Biden need to lure people back to their brand and give them something they are excited to be for.

Today, Obama has a new ad out that seeks to engage people in the substance of his plan for the country and refuses to engage in the pettiness of the last few weeks (his own Rubik's cube, McCain's so old ad probably didn't help matters). The "Two-Minute Address to the Nation" does a good job of showing people who Obama is and what he's about, and invites people to learn more about his detailed economic plan.



I find this message compelling and am proud of the honor and truthfulness it displays. It remains to be seen, though, whether it is enough to draw voters back to the Obama brand.

Health Care in the New Economy

I know we've been a little distracted by pigs and pitbulls and lipstick, oh and then the entire economy tanking, so you might have good reason to not have read the details of McCain's health care plan. Basically, he wants less insurance to come through employers and more people to buy their own, funded in part by a new payroll tax to "help you pay for it."

If the thought of having to shop for your own insurance plan, weigh the pros and cons of each and figure out what you can actually afford sounds like fun to you, you might want to consider some of these fun facts:

"For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on...

According to a study, just released [from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan] 'The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now'...

The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We’re seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)

Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It’s the beginning of the end.

When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans — either to buy cheaper insurance on their own or to go without coverage.

That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover. That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employers to give up on the idea of providing coverage at all."

And the reading just gets more fun from there...

Colorado Woman?

If you're a Colorado Woman looking for other ways to get involved you can join Colorado Women for Obama.

Not from Colorado? Find your state and local information about how to get involved on the Sates Page.

No matter what they say...

From Slate:
Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't
AND THE NUMBERS SHOW THAT DEMOCRATS ARE BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REPUBLICANS.

"If you're wondering why a formerly honorable man like John McCain would build his presidential campaign around issues that are simultaneously beside-the-point, trivial, and dishonest (sex education for kindergartners, lipstick on pigs), the numbers presented here may help to solve that mystery. Since the conventions ended, McCain has mired the presidential race in dishonest trivia because he doesn't want it to focus on what voters say is the most important issue this year: the economy.

There is no secret about any of this. The figures below are all from the annual Economic Report of the President, and the analysis is primitive. Nevertheless, what these numbers show almost beyond doubt is that Democrats are better at virtually every economic task that is important to Republicans.

In other words, there are no figures here about income inequality, or percentage of the population with health insurance, or anything like that. This exercise implicitly assumes that lower taxes are always good and higher government spending is always bad. There is nothing here about how clean the air is or how many children are growing up in poverty. The only point is that if you find the Republican mantra of lower taxes and smaller government appealing, and if you care only about how fast the economy is growing, not how that growth is shared, you should vote Democratic. Of course, if you do care about things like economic inequality and children's health, you should vote Democratic as well."...

Worth (Several) Thousand Words

The national media showed us a lot of "We love Sarah" signs when Palin flew back to Alaska last week but the national press gave little to no coverage to the much bigger rally happening down the street. The pictures say it all:



For those who want to see what people who were there thought

Check out this blog: Mudflats: Tiptoeing through the Muck of Alaskan Politics

The Daily Kos has commentary from someone who was there too, including this fun video



This ABC blog is also starting to cover women who have BIG problems with the McCain-Palin ticket.

Keep making noise!

Palin's Favorability Numbers Eroding

The website fivethirtyeight.com has some interesting data on how voters are responding to new information about Palin:

"As voters have taken a second look at Sarah Palin in venues like the Charlie Gibson interview and even Tina Fey's SNL sketch, they may not be as enamored of what they're seeing."

Ok, I'm glad you're smiling. Now, look at today's electoral college projections. McCain is polling at 274 (you only need 270 to win...) with Obama at 264. The analysts say though:

"With Colorado sitting at McCain by 0.3%, any tiny movement and a 9-EV flip would change the winner of the 2008 presidential race."

If you are in Colorado and think your vote and the vote of everyone you know doesn't matter, think again...

We still have a lot of work to do, folks, and if your state is pastel, meaning it is a battleground state leaning one way or the other, your work can especially make a difference. If you live in one, or know people who do, forward this far and wide...

The Palins are the Poster Family for Choice

This was published on September 6 as a Guest Opinion in our local paper but I've had some requests to repost it here. Happy reading:

First, let me be clear that I agree wholeheartedly with Barack Obama that candidates' families should not be used as evidence for or against their ability to govern. I take no issue with the Palin family. What I do take issue with are the right-wing extremists who are trying to hold up their family's story as a shining example of "family values."

Pro-life pundits have clamored to congratulate 44 year-old Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin's choice to give birth to a fifth child who was diagnosed in prenatal screenings as having Down's syndrome. These same "pro-family" groups have also publicly applauded her support for her 17-year-old, unmarried daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and plans to keep her baby and marry the father. The religious right hails these choices as "evidence" for Palin's staunch commitment to the pro-life position. Both the Palins and the McCain campaign, however, have gone out of their way to emphasize the choice Sarah made to not terminate her pregnancy, and that Bristol made her own choice to carry her pregnancy to term. Contrary to what evangelical leaders would have us believe, the Palins are a poster family for choice.

For those of us who support a woman's right to choose when and how she becomes a mother, the intimation that we see babies as a burden rather than a blessing, or that we support the right to a safe abortion, performed by trained medical professionals, because we think more people should have abortions is heart-wrenching and simply wrong.

Rather, the pro-choice position supports a woman's right to understand and explore all the possible outcomes of pregnancy with her doctor, her clergy, and her family without fear of reprisal so that she can make the best choice for herself, her family and her community.

If the pro-life position were simply about supporting social policy that gave women greater access to early pre-natal screening, and fostering supportive family and community environments that make it easier to choose life, I'd be all for it. This is what the Palins' story is after all -- the story of a family with access to health care and economic resources, the story of a family that is open and accepting of their daughter's difficult situation. Many women who are pro-choice would make the same choices as the Palins in similar circumstances.

The problem with the pro-life agenda is not that they value life (we all do), it's that they think the government is a better judge of circumstance than women and their communities of support. Not everyone enjoys circumstances similar to the Palins'. I find Governor Palin's story both heartwarming and heart wrenching, as do many, but she is not a case study for the pro-life cause. She and her family had choices, and they made the ones that were right for them. That is the pro-choice position.

I hope that the millions of us who know that people who are pro-choice choose life most often, will see in the Palins' story one that exemplifies the advantage that comes from living in a society where mothers can make choices about their lives and their bodies in ways that are most in line with their personal beliefs and circumstances. I hope those that wear the pro-life label will see how having a choice helps people make good choices and re-examine their policy positions.

In Palin's case, she has made her policy position perfectly clear: she believes that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, and when the health of the mother is at risk. The only exception she would make is if the mother's life is imminently threatened by continuing to carry the baby. She has also explicitly stated that she does not support comprehensive sexual education -- abstinence-only programs are the only ones she will support.

The pro-choice position is a pro-dialogue, pro-conversation position that enables life to be freely chosen. I remain concerned that Governor Palin so staunchly supports legislating the outcome of wanted or unwanted pregnancies. She should know better than anyone what a deeply personal choice that is for mothers and families.

Simply Put

Why the Financial Meltdown Reflects the Fundamental Failure of the Bush-McCain Economic Philosophy.

"The financial meltdown on Wall Street is more than a cyclic correction brought on by a mismanaged business cycle. It is emblematic of a problem at the very foundation of the right wing economic philosophy that became conventional wisdom during the Bush years -- and would be continued in a McCain presidency.

The zealots of unfettered "free markets" cast aside the critical lesson that the world learned during the Great Depression: left to their own devices, unregulated financial markets do not necessarily function to benefit the society as a whole -- or, in the end, even many individual market participants."...

While we can perhaps all agree that over-regulating stifles free markets, the "get government out of the way" philosophy of the McPalin ticket encourages the kind of greedy free-for-all that gets a very few people very rich and a whole lot of people very screwed.

Economic Redux

There is a detailed piece in the NY Times today outlining the differing approaches the two candidates have proposed and their records suggest. Here are a few highlights:

"On the campaign trail on Monday, Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, struck a populist tone. Speaking in Florida, he said that the economy’s underlying fundamentals remained strong but were being threatened “because of the greed by some based in Wall Street and we have got to fix it.”
But his record on the issue, and the views of those he has always cited as his most influential advisers, suggest that he has never departed in any major way from his party’s embrace of deregulation and relying more on market forces than on the government to exert discipline…

Mr. Obama set out his general approach to financial regulation in March, calling for regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds much as commercial banks are. And he would streamline the overlapping regulatory agencies and create a commission to monitor threats to the financial system and report to the White House and Congress… In March 2007, he warned of the coming housing crisis, and a year later in a speech in Manhattan he outlined six principles for overhauling financial regulation. On Monday, he said the nation was facing “the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression,” and attributed it on the hands-off policies of the Republican White House that, he says, Mr. McCain would continue."

Other News Bits

Well, I went on a bit about the economy today, and that IS the big news, but here are some other news bits you might want to browse…

Biden, McCain’s colleague in the senate for more than two decades, says he hasn’t seen anything that suggests McCain’s policies will be a departure from those of the Bush Administration.

So, does that make Biden an insider unprepared to change too? I don’t think so. First elected at age 29, Biden lost his wife and toddler daughter in a car crash before he was even sworn in to his office, and has since commuted EVERY DAY between Delaware and DC by train so he could be home for his surviving boys (3 & 4 at the time of the crash) as much as possible.

As Obama said when he tapped him to be VP—Biden has spent years changing Washington but it has done little to change him.



Also, this weekend, the New York Times published one of the first in-depth analyses of Palin’s governing style and how her “reformer” images maps onto her policies and practices once in office. The piece opens:

“WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal. So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages” …and goes on from there…