Are we no longer racist?

Let me apologize up front for this post. I don't want to rain on the parade. Obama's election is the most amazing thing I've witnessed and it is hard to overstate what happened in this country yesterday. Let me correct that. What happened didn't just happen last night, it's been happening for decades. Last night was just the finishing touch.

Now for the rain. It's worth investigating whether last night really was the end of racism in this country, as some seem to suggest. David Shuster and Chris Matthews were just on my TV talking about the racial barrier being shattered. The New York Times reported that the election swept "away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease." But I'm not convinced.

The first thing I woke up to this morning -- the Chicago Tribune -- had a different take. On its front page was a sobering thought: "The Obama presidency may be a sign that a country that all too recently tolerated segregation has moved irrevocably forward, or it may mean only that the nation is so hungry for change that it set racial struggles aside."

The racism in this country is too deep to be swallowed with one election. Dr. King's dream was not realized last night. This discussion is not over. 

It's a time to celebrate for sure. It's a time to cry in joy, no doubt. It's a time to reflect on where the country has been and how much we have accomplished. But it is also a time to realize that there is a lot more to do. 

It's hard to imagine a Democrat of any color would have lost this year's election. Not even John Kerry could lose after eight years of George Bush. In other words, this election was more about removing Republicans from office than burying our racist past. 

Before we start saying that last night was final proof that Jefferson's "all men are created equal" crede has finally become a reality, consider this: On the same day we elected our first black president, one of our most progressive states voted to ban gay marriage in the state's constitution. 

Stories from today

I've been struggling with how to write about this day, so let me direct you to a couple things I have found over the Internet or from friends. Here's a picture, via Andrew Sullivan, of a polling line in Washington, DC.

And here's a story posted on Talking Points memo. The story is about a father voting with his son. I don't have children, but I remember going to the polls with my parents and pulling the lever. Be sure to read to the bottom:

I have a confession to make.

I did not vote for Barack Obama today.

I've openly supported Obama since March.  But I didn't vote for him today.

I wanted to vote for Ronald Woods.  He was my algebra teacher at Clark Junior High in East St. Louis, IL.  He died 15 years ago when his truck skidded head-first into a utility pole.  He spent many a day teaching us many things besides the Pythagorean Theorem.  He taught us about Medgar Evers, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis and many other civil rights figures who get lost in the shadow cast by Martin Luther King, Jr.

But I didn't vote for Mr. Woods.

I wanted to vote for Willie Mae Cross.  She owned and operated Crossroads Preparatory Academy for almost 30 years, educating and empowering thousands of kids before her death in 2003.  I was her first student.  She gave me my first job, teaching chess and math concepts to kids in grades K-4 in her summer program.  She was always there for advice, cheer and consolation.  Ms. Cross, in her own way, taught me more about walking in faith than anyone else I ever knew.

But I didn't vote for Ms. Cross.

I wanted to vote for Arthur Mells Jackson, Sr. and Jr.  Jackson Senior was a Latin professor.  He has a gifted school named for him in my hometown.  Jackson Junior was the pre-eminent physician in my hometown for over 30 years.  He has a heliport named for him at a hospital in my hometown.  They were my great-grandfather and great-uncle, respectively.

But I didn't vote for Prof. Jackson or Dr. Jackson.

I wanted to vote for A.B. Palmer.  She was a leading civil rights figure in Shreveport, Louisiana, where my mother grew up and where I still have dozens of family members.  She was a strong-willed woman who earned the grudging respect of the town's leaders because she never, ever backed down from anyone and always gave better than she got.  She lived to the ripe old age of 99, and has a community center named for her in Shreveport.

But I didn't vote for Mrs. Palmer.

I wanted to vote for these people, who did not live to see a day where a Black man would appear on their ballots on a crisp November morning.

In the end, though, I realized that I could not vote for them any more than I could vote for Obama himself. 

So who did I vote for?

No one.

I didn't vote.  Not for President, anyway. 

Oh, I went to the voting booth.  I signed, was given my stub, and was walked over to a voting machine.  I cast votes for statewide races and a state referendum on water and sewer improvements.

I stood there, and I thought about all of these people, who influenced my life so greatly.  But I didn't vote for who would be the 44th President of the United States.

When my ballot was complete, except for the top line, I finally decided who I was going to vote for - and then decided to let him vote for me.  I reached down, picked him up, and told him to find Obama's name on the screen and touch it.

And so it came to pass that Alexander Reed, age 5, read the voting screen, found the right candidate, touched his name, and actually cast a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Oh, the vote will be recorded as mine.  But I didn't cast it. 

Then again, the person who actually pressed the Obama box and the red "vote" button was the person I was really voting for all along. 

It made the months of donating, phonebanking, canvassing, door hanger distributing, sign posting, blogging, arguing and persuading so much sweeter. 

So, no, I didn't vote for Barack Obama.  I voted for a boy who now has every reason to believe he, too, can grow up to be anything he wants...even President.

Down the stretch

The race is essentially over. The chance of McCain winning in every state he needs to win is so small that it's almost impossible. Yesterday, Mark Leibovich in the New York Times compared the scenario to a football play. He wrote, "Few spectacles are more satisfying than seeing a football player strutting toward the end zone, only to be tackled out of nowhere at the 1-yard line, causing a humiliating fumble." Today, the Obama campaign released its own sports analogy:

Learning to fly

Yesterday on NPR, Melissa Block interviewed black voters in St. Louis to hear what they thought about the opportunity to vote for a black person for president. The story ended with one man describing a text message he had received from a friend. The message read: "Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked, so Obama could run. Obama is running so our children could fly."

Gone til (almost) November

I'm peacing out for a few days and likely won't be posting much. Check back now and then, but chances are, you won't see anything new here until Tuesday. I'll be back for sure, though, for the last week of the campaign. 

How it's done

Every day I see a new version of the same thing: violence or bigotry against Obama or his supporters. I see reports that Obama volunteers are being assaulted. I hear about a man in Ohio who has a ghost with an Obama sign hanging in effigy from a tree outside his house. I read that Obama supporters had their tires slashed. And I see that a dead bear was covered with Obama signs in North Carolina. 

McCain stands silently by. This is not entirely his fault -- with the first black candidate to get this far, some of this was inevitable -- but it is undeniably at least partially the result of his campaign's hate. His surrogates have called Obama un-American; he has called Obama a "socialist;" his campaign is calling people to inform them that Obama may be a terrorist. There is no hiding the message. It is of hate and he can stop it. He chooses not to. He is responsible, no matter how much he denies it.

As I was thinking about this today, I saw a clip of Obama in Florida. Now, I understand that he is in front. He is playing defense, not offense. He has the luxury of taking the high road. But watch the clip below. Obama talks about the economy. He notes that he proposed a stimulus plan nine months ago. He ties McCain to Bush. And then he repeats McCain's famous line, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." Before he can finish the phrase, people start to boo. Obama interrupts to say, "No. No, we don't need that. We just need you to vote." That is how it's done, McCain.

The clip is long. The part I write of is a little more than 3 minutes in.

More hate

Via Ben Smith:

Leave Joe alone

The left has itself in a tizzy, trying to find every bit of information on Joe Wurzelbacher. The media is racing to do as much research on the guy is possible. We know he's not really a plumber. We know his first name isn't really Joe. We know he didn't pay his taxes. We know he's a registered Republican. We know that under Obama's plan he would actually get a tax cut. But who cares about any of that?

This guy is not a candidate for anything. Pundits have joked that Wurzelbacher, like Palin, wasn't vetted one iota before thrusted onto the national stage, but unlike Palin, Wurzelbacher isn't on a ballot. This hunt to prove that McCain may not have chosen the best example is a waste of time. The person he chose isn't the point. By fighting this fight, liberals are caught up in the same irrelevant politics as the people they oppose. They should instead stick to the issues; the ones that have propelled their candidate into a virtually insurmountable lead.

It gets worse

This thing has jumped the shark.

It isn't news to any of this blog's readers that I find the McCain campaign to be dinshonorable. McCain has shown his true colors for over a month now. The claims made by and on behalf of his campaign are regularly disgusting and commonly considered to be the lowest form of politics by people far less biased than me. 

Palin addressed a fundraiser claiming that some portions the country are "pro-America," a clear implication that other parts of the country are not.  And just now Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota was on Hardball repeating the GOP talking points about Ayers, ACORN, Rezko, yada, yada. Her conclusion was that Obama is anti-American and when pressed by Matthews to name other members of the United States Congress who are anti-American, Bachmann said that was a great question. She said the media needs to dig deep and find out which members of Congress -- the ones elected by Americans -- are pro-American and which ones are anti-American. Against Americans!

There is no better a gauge of a person than how he acts when he's down. McCain is panicking. The race is over. His career is finished. His legacy is tarnished. These comments aren't all made by him, but they are not refuted -- indeed, they are often approved -- by McCain. And in that moment of truth, he has proved to be absolutely despicable.

I'll post video as soon as it's up. 

UPDATE:

Re: Blue Michigan

A reader in Michigan who works for the obama campaign wrote to say that while some people are moving to Indiana, not a single office in Michigan is closing. Here is the reader's comment:

Those reports are false. Some people are going to Indiana but I am staying in Michigan. We are also not closing a single office in Michigan. Some people here are being redistributed and we are redrawing some territory so that those of us left have bigger responsibilities. But no, I'll be here until the election. 90 of the 90 offices are remaining open so that's not exactly a pull out, know what I mean? 

Blue Michigan

In another sign that Obama has a serious chance of taking a big bite out of Bush states, Marc Ambinder reported that Obama is pulling staffers out of Michigan. He is doing so not to save money and not because he's ceding the state. Staffers are moving away from Michigan because the state appears to be safely in Obama's territory, so they're moving to Indiana. 

It's easy in the hullabaloo of the campaign to ignore the amazing news here. Following the 2004 election I would have said Indiana may not vote for a Democrat for decades. The state went to Bush in 2004 with 60 percent of the vote. And yet Obama is throwing all he can there with three weeks to go, and Palin is reportedly campaigning in Indianapolis on Friday.

And in a related story, CNN switched Virginia to the lean Obama category following the release of its poll showing Obama in front by 10. Bush won that state by 9 in 2004.

Obama's everywhere

Yesterday I saw bloggers posting images from video games featuring Obama ads. It turns out the Obama campaign bought advertising with Electronic Arts, which is now featuring Obama in select video games. Be sure to check out these examples. 

Today I stumbled on an independent website called, Yes We Carve. It's a blog of pumpkins designed to look like Obama or his logo. The site feautres pictures from all over the country and even gives downloadable stencils so you can do your own. 

Right where he wants them

Usually when I play pick up basketball and my team is losing (and my team is usually losing), I will make the always funny joke that I've got my opponents right where I want them. I say it when we're down 10-1, playing to 11. I say it after a guy blows past me for an easy layup. It's an obvious joke because I clearly have no chance. 

I'm guessing that's not the image the McCain campaign wanted when it unveiled his latest stump speech. In it, he notes his campaign is down, that there's not much time left, that the current political environment is against him, that most people favor Democratic policies right now. Then he ends the long list of whining by saying, "My friends, we've got them just where we want them." 

What more do you need?

Obama made a big announcement today on his website. With North Carolina very much in play, Obama rolled out the biggest endorsement he could get. Check it out:

Join Dean and Linnea Smith in supporting Barack There is a point in every contest when sitting on the sidelines is not an option. Coach Smith and Linnea Smith are urging North Carolinians to get involved at this crucial moment. If you believe America needs to set a new course, then the time to join us is now. Get involved with Barack Obama's Campaign for Change by knocking on doors and talking to your neighbors about how Barack Obama and Joe Biden will bring the change we need. Ben Smith wrote that this endorement may not help Obama with the Duke fans. I want to remind him that those fans were already voting Republican.

Ashamed

McCain has finally pushed back at the anger he has incited on the campaign trail. He looks uncomfortable in these three moments as he explains to a rally that Obama is, in fact, a "decent" man and that there is nothing to fear in an Obama presidency. The crowd actually boos this line of talk.

This comes a week too late. He should've said it the moment someone yelled "terrorist" in response to McCain's question, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" McCain has no one to blame for the position he's in but himself. My guess is he will look Obama in the eye at the next debate and offer some kind of truce. But it's too late. It's too late to save his candidacy for president, and even more importantly, it's too late to save his legacy. McCain should, and will, spend the rest of his life feeling ashamed of the way he's acted over the last week. It trumps all else.

Scare tactics

Election Central flags an important story out of Georgia where the fear stoked by the McCain campaign is trickling to political rallies of all kind. During a debate between the candidates running for US Senate in Georgia, when Obama's name was mentioned, a member of the crowd yelled, "Bomb Obama!" It is time for the media to point out that this is not simply  a reflection of voters' fears about Obama, or a reflection of some peoples' unease about seeing a black president. This reaction, which we've now seen repeatedly on the campaign trail, is a direct response to the attacks heard by McCain's campaign. These outbursts were not reported until McCain started questioning Obama's character. A month ago I thought McCain had surrendered the moral high ground. I didn't think he could go lower. Watching his campaign is now like watching the stock market: you don't know where the bottom is.

Right response

The video going around today is of an interview Obama gave to ABC during which he addressed McCain's recent attacks on his character, particularly his ties to William Ayers. Obama's response: "Say it to my face." This afternoon on the campaign trail, Biden echoed that message, telling an audience in Missouri, "John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack OBama in the eye and say the same things to him." He added, "Well in my neighborhood, when you've got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him!"

Greg Sargent wrote that Obama is trying to bait McCain into taking him on at next week's debate. My guess is that that would be good strategy. Obama certainly is prepared in case that happens and would be ready with a sharp response. It's also smart politics. It's the anti-Dukakis, anti-Kerry way of doing things. The response to these attacks is "Bring it on!" Obama has nothing to hide and he knows it. This all plays into what I think is his greatest and most underappreciated traits: he is comfortable with himself. He knows McCain has nothing on him, and he's letting people know that.

Oh, and telling a crowd in a red state that you are ready for a fist fight is probably smart strategy, too.

More bad timing

There's certainly a strong case to made that McCain is out of touch based on his stance on the issues. But his recent and continued attacks on Obama's character are more proof than we've ever had that the man doesn't have a clue. The campaign started bringing up Ayers earlier this week, only to run away from it at the debate and even claim that they weren't going to talk about Ayers anymore. Today, they stepped up the Ayers attack and even released a 90-second ad about the Ayers-Obama connection. Now, a McCain co-chair brought up Obama's past admitted drug use. 

At first this all seemed desperate, like a campaign kicking and screaming as its poll numbers took a dive. Today, though, as McCain makes guilt-by-association claims left and right, the stock market fell 7 percent and is now at its lowest point since 2003. There's no end in sight to the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, yet one of the main presidential candidates doesn't even discuss the economy. 

As I'm writing this, I'm listening to Hardball and talk show host Michael Smerconish made the point I'm coming to. This tactic by McCain is certainly desperate, but what's more puzzling is that it's bad politics. It's the most glaring evidence yet that the man is out of touch. It's as though four months ago the campaign decided it was going to bring up Ayers in October no matter what. Well, the race has changed. You can't keep talking about a relationship someone had 10 years ago as people's pensions go down the drain.

ALSO: Drudge links to an exclusive report saying Obama has just purchased a half hour of network primetime television. 

Check this out

A lot has been made recently about the McCain campaign's attempts to label Obama -- to put questions in the minds of voters. I personally don't see it working, especially not in an election year when the economy is in the tank. But the yelling from the crowd that he's a terrorist, or "kill him" is disturbing. The attacks won't work on independents, I don't think, but they've done serious damage. They've pissed people off (on both sides) and riled up the Republican base to a point that it's scary. It's not scary because they could steal the election, but because someone could do serious harm. Check out the above video if you don't buy it.

Health care should be run like banking

The Huffington Post is leading with a story by Paul Krugman on his blog, in which he reports on a recent article written by McCain on his feelings about how health care should be run. In the Sept./Oct. issue of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain wrote his solution to the health care woes,

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Given the past week, McCain has some splaining to do.

Drilling is good for the environment

At a rally yesterday, McCain spoke about the benefits of drilling off the US shore. He made the standard case that we need to do this to get away from our dependence on foreign oil. He then talked about going to the rigs and seeing how safe and sturdy the rigs are. All of this we've heard before. What I had never heard before, though, is that the rigs are also environmentally friendly. Seriously. He said, "And by the way, on that oil rig — and I’m sure you’ve probably heard this story — you look down, and there’s fish everywhere! There’s fish everywhere! Yeah, the fish love to be around those rigs. So not only can it be helpful for energy, it can be helpful for some pretty good meals as well." Here's the video.

More on Spain

McCain's comments to a Miami radio station have caused quite a stir this afternoon. After hours of trying to figure out what McCain meant by his, at best, seeming unwillingness to meet with Spain Prime Minister Zapatero and, at worst, his seeming inability to remember who Zapatero is, things are becoming more clear. In a statement to the Washington Post, McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann said McCain heard the interviewer, understood the question and meant that he would not meet with Zapatero.

Scheunemann said, "The questioner asked several times about Senator McCain's willingness to meet Zapatero (and id's him in the question so there would be no doubt Senator McCain knew exactly to whom the question referred). Senator McCain refused to commit to a White House meeting with President Zapatero in this interview."

Aside from the obvious mistake of having a foreign policy advisor call Zapatero the president when, in fact, he is the prime minister, Scheunemann's claim is quite stunning. He is saying McCain would not meet with a NATO ally. He is saying that McCain has reversed the position he had in April when he said, "I would like for [Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together."

Walk softly and carry a big stick

Did the axis of evil just gain a member?

This one is pretty amazing. During an interview with Spanish reporters yesterday, Mr. Foreign Policy appeared to not know the prime minister of Spain. Sam Stein at the Huffington Post notes that after a discussion of policies toward Latin American countries, McCain was asked, "Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" McCain responded, "I will meet with those leaders who are our friends and who want to work with us cooperatively." 

The reporter, unsatisfied with the generic nonanswer, asked, "OK, but I'm talking about Europe - the president of Spain, would you meet with him?" Stein seems to think McCain was suggesting he would not meet with the Spanish leader -- that Zapatero, a member of the Socialist Party -- would not meet the threshold of foreign leaders worth talking to.

I think that gives McCain too much credit. I haven't heard the interview, but from the account Stein gives, McCain seems to simply not know who the reporter meant when he said, "Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" If true, that is remarkable. 

UPDATE: Here's the audio. The exchange in question is toward the end. It's worth noting that the original question, which is described in the post above based on the translation of the interview, was actually, "Senator finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected President, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House -- to meet with you."

Anti-women

There's plenty of chatter out there that Obama's press conference yesterday, during which he said to McCain, the media and the rest of the country, "Enough!" wasn't, well, enough. People think he should be doing more and that every moment he doesn't attack this ridiculousness head on, he loses.

Every time I heard that I wondered what more he is supposed to do. He has the will of the country on his side, and he should continue to talk about issues that matter to people.

Maybe there's a way to do both. Maybe he can blast McCain-Palin for their petty politics while simultaneously explaining that their policies are wrong for America. And even better, I think he can send out surrogates to do it for him. He should send out an army of elected women from around the country to put an end to this nonsense. Jennifer Granholm, Dianne Feinstein, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Christine Gregoire and, yes, Hillary Clinton should be out there explaining to voters that Sarah Palin is anti-women.

Their message is simple. They have all worked for decades for causes that are important to women. Palin has not. To the contrary, Palin opposes abortion, even in the instance of rape and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned (as opposed to leaving the decisions to the states, which many conservatives support). She is against equal pay for equal work. And when she was the mayor of Wasilla, her town had a law that charged rape victims between $500 and $1,200 "for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence," according to USA Today.

Polls out this week show a rise for McCain on the backs of women. White women supported Obama, 50-42 in an ABC/Washington Post poll before the Republican Convention. Now, McCain is ahead in that group, 53-41. My hunch is that result is based solely on the lipstick. If they knew about her policies on issues pertaining to women, those numbers would move back in Obama's favor.

(Photo courtsey: Getty)

Unift to serve

In light of the pig-lipstick ad (which has now been pulled from YouTube, per CBS's request) and the education smear ad that came from the McCain campaign, there is discussion on the blogosphere that McCain is no longer morally fit to be considered for the office of president.

It's an argument I've been making for a while now. It won't be news to the readers of this blog, but McCain is not the maverick he portrays. It is now clear to me that this is not just about policy, as the Obama campaign suggests. There is an argument to made that, despite the votes in lockstep with the Bush administration, McCain has separated himself from his ideological party on key issues, ranging from the environment to corruption to wasteful spending. But for a while now, he has embraced the partisan politics that have divided this country. He frequently says he would rather lose an election than lose a war, yet he continues to run the sleazy, mind-numbing kind of campaign that, despite his stump speech claims, is only about winning elections. 

Andrew Sullivan has a great post on just how morally defunct McCain has become. I urge you to read the entire post, but here's a snippet:

And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Lipstick

If you haven't heard already, you will soon enough: Obama ran off a long list of how McCain's policy is the same as Bush's and said, "That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing." The McCain camp and the media are drooling over this. It's on top of Drudge and Huffington Post. Scarborough hasn't stopped yapping about it this morning.

The McCain response was obvious. The campaign has released a web ad on the comments.



Anything that could possibly be portrayed as sexist will be. But the media's response is pathetic. Scarborough and Andrea Mitchell are airing the web ad -- in other words an ad the McCain campaign has not paid for, but is relying on the media to distribute -- and both have declared that this is working for McCain. Both have decided that everyone will be more sympathetic to McCain-Palin because of it. There's no evidence of it, mind you.

And one more thing. CNN, to its credit, was quick to note in its story that McCain used the same phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton -- in MAY! From the CNN report:

"In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current healthcare plan and the one she championed in 1993: 'I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig.' He used roughly the same line in May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination."

No mention of that by Scarborough.

Who cares?

There was a jaw-dropping moment this morning on MSNBC when Time's Jay Carney noted that Palin gave a great speech but that the real test will be when she is asked questions about health care and foreign policy. McCain spokesperson Nicolle Wallace answered that Palin doesn't have to answer to the press.  She said, "Who cares if she can talk to Time magazine, she can talk to the American people." Check it out: 

So there you have it. There's the strategy. The McCain campaign has 60 days to try and pull this off. For 60 days, Palin has to be the approachable small-town mother of five who can stick it to the big guys. The hope is that for that amount of time, she can memorize enough talking points that it won't matter that she hasn't traveled outside the country more than once. She will be the Avon lady for two months. She will impress during her debate with Biden. And how dare anyone question her. The McCain campaign will play the victim card for 60 days. Who cares that she doesn't know anything about fixing the problems in America, she's driven her kids to hockey practice.

It's infuriating to think such a strategy could work. Consider what Michael Scherer at Swampland wrote about the appeal of Palin. He wrote that Palin is not on the ticket to appeal to Hillary voters. He then quoted a pollster who said, "Hillary got about 10 million women's votes. There are going to be about 62 million wimen voters in November." He then added, "The Palin stuff is not aimed at the Hillary 10, it's at the other 52."

Asleep

Define "off limits"

In the wake of news that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant, both McCain and Obama said families were "off limits." Shortly after reporting the story as "breaking news" the cable networks sent out their talking heads to decry the stories. They were disgusted that such a thing would be discussed during a presidential race.

I don't actually disagree. It is a fact, and I don't have a problem with it being reported, but it should not decide how people vote. But I was furious at the people who said this delving into a candidate's personal background was unprecedented. My first thought was all the people who made jokes about Chelsea Clinton. In 1992, Chelsea was 12 years old. Her appearance (perm, braces, ugly dresses) was fodder for the late night talk shows. There was no MSNBC or Fox News at the time, but it's not hard to imagine the kind of off-hand remarks that would have been made about her.

Then I was reminded of an incident in 1998. At a Senate fund-raiser that year, John McCain said the following:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Families should be off limits. 12-year-old girls should be off limits. Pregnant teenagers should be off limits. But, as he has done throughout this campaign, McCain is pretending to play by rules that he doesn't actually follow.

On Palin

I thought I would be able to take Labor Day Weekend and come back and write about what it was like being at Invesco Field for Obama's speech Thursday night. But the announcement that Sarah Palin is McCain's choice for VP and the deluge of news stories introducing her to the country has led me to write about her instead. Since the announcement the race has flipped upside down. No one exactly know what impact McCain's selection will have, but I would like to offer my thoughts.

At first glance, it's a joke. Hell, at second and third glance, it's at best worth scratching your head over. It is so clearly pandering to Hillary voters that it's easy to laugh. She's a beauty queen winner for crying out loud. She has no experience that any of the talking heads would consider worthy of being president. And every few hours, a new story trickles out proclaiming to sink her -- pregnant daughter, troopergate, Ted Stevens, the secessionists. Everyone I've talked to sees right through it.

But the reaction -- albeit a predictable reaction -- from the McCain campaign to the attacks on Palin game me second thought. McCain hack Carly Fiorina came out swinging, saying the talk about Palin as inexperienced was sexist. CNN quoted Fiorina saying the following:

“I am appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin’s experience,” said Fiorina. “The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life.

“Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin.”

It was bound to happen eventually, but I didn't realize they would resort to that line so quickly. And while the argument is as transparent as the selection itself, it will work. It might not work on the East Coast, but that's not what they are after. It might not work with the feminists, but they were never going to win them anyway. The group it could work with are the people in the west and in the south. The people who have felt slighted by McCain for not being religious enough or conservative enough will hear the selection of Palin as a call to arms. And the victimization of her will only solidify that feeling.

Obama must be careful. He and Biden (who unthinkably described Palin as "good looking") need to think long and hard before they come out swinging. The media and the left are enjoying the apparent absurdity of this pick. They are licking their chops. But she will give the speech of her life tomorrow. She will say her daughter is off limits and the crowd will go nuts. She will introduce herself to middle America and those voters will be impressed. The pundits will go crazy for her. And when that speech is done, Steve Schmidt, Charlie Black and John McCain will have played everyone like a fiddle.

Acclamation

I finally made it to the convention floor yesterday. Everyone by now knows what kind of night it was. There are no adjectives I could write that haven't been written. I'll leave the descriptions of the Clinton speech, the Biden speech, the Kerry speech (everyone should check it out if they haven't already) and the surprise of Obama showing up at the end to the professionals. Instead of trying to describe what it was like standing there in person, I want to tell you about events earlier in the day that may not have received the same coverage as the big speeches.

Having heard about the long lines and tight security, I decided to go when the doors opened at 3. People slowly trickled in. I found a spot behind the Illinois delegation and stood until they kicked me out. I was told to move as the delegations began to announce their votes. I eventually made my way to the Pennsylvania delegation where I found a pocket of delegates standing behind the allotted seats. I stood next to Franco Harris and behind Morgan Fairchild. She was passing her phone to Governor Ed Rendell.

Each delegation stood, in alphabetical order. The tension was palpable. The entire hall seemed to hold its breath, hoping the states wouldn't give too many votes to Clinton. Each time a delegation gave votes to Obama, an ovation would follow.

A few announcements left us scratching our heads. California, led by Barbara Boxer passed. As did Mayor Daley and the Illinois delegation. We had heard rumors that the counting of the votes would end with New York, but I, at least, didn't know how that was going to happen.

By the time New Mexico announced, the Pennsylvanians started to stir, knowing their time was coming. New Mexico decided to give its votes to Illinois, the home state of Obama. Daley grabbed the mic again and announced that he was transferring the Prairie State's votes to the home state of Senator Clinton.

The cameras shifted to New York, and a roar went out as Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Charles Rangel appeared on the Pepsi Center screens. Clinton asked that Obama be named the nominee by acclamation. The place went crazy. The photo above is of Rendell grabbing the Pennsylvania post and shaking it as hard as he could. Someone nearby him said, "Governor, they're not going to count our votes." Rendell turned and said, "I don't think anyone gives a shit."

It was the most amazing moment of the day, as far as I'm concerned. I haven't had much exposure to the media since I've been here, but I'm assuming this moment has not received the coverage it deserves. If you missed it, check out the video here:

Kumar works the convention

I don't know why he was there, but he was. He told me to keep walking.

"She did it"

Day 2 was much like Day 1. I went from event to event -- some boring, some impossible to get into, some thrilling -- but mostly I spent the day waiting for the night. Late in the afternoon, I went to the Illinois delegate party, hosted by Mayor Daley. There were aldermen, state senators and the first appearance by the disgraced governor. Michelle Obama was there, too.

Following the event, and after failing to get a credential to be on the floor for Clinton's speech, I went back to a hotel to watch with a crowd. Judging from the few comments I've heard by the talking heads, the speech was as well received nationally as it was in the hotel lobby.

People were talking loudly during Warner's and Schweitzer's speeches -- which was too bad because from what I could hear, they were nearly as impressive as Clinton -- but when Chelsea took the microphone the noise stopped. From the first words, it was clear what the speech was going to do -- halt, at least until Bill talks tonight, the sense that the Clintons aren't on board. She ran off a list of things she was proud to be -- a mother, a Senator from New York -- and crescendoed to set the stage for the rest of the speech -- "And I am proud to support Barack Obama as president of the United States." She hit every note. And when she finished, the table next to me hollered, "She did it."

I've heard a few pundits say she was setting herself up for 2012 and the Republican talking point is that she didn't sell Obama as a candidate. The skepticism and criticism was inevitable. The golden rule in political coverage seems to be that the Clintons never do enough. The psycho-babble will only increase tonight. But there was no doubt in my mind that she is on board.

Sign of the day

"A hunger for change"

It's taken me some time to find a computer, but I finally found one for free at the Curtis Hotel. It's been an amazing experience so far, and I'm sure it's only going to get better. From the moment I got on the plane, I was in the middle of it all. Rahm Emanuel was sitting in first class and I shared a cab with the wife of Obama's finance chair leaving the airport in Denver.

The scene is about what you'd expect -- protesters, pins and political slogans everywhere. I walked down 16th St. to get a bite to eat and was confronted by three loud men shouting about the sins of homosexuality. Minutes later Medea Benjamin and the rest of her Code Pink posse rang their bells as they biked past.

But so much of the media's attention is on the Clinton factor. Indeed, their presence was felt, too, but hardly as strong as the network news would have you believe. There is a group here called PUMA -- Party Unity My Ass -- that is small, but loud. There were five PUMAs walking down the street wearing Hillary shirts and shouting, "Count every vote," "This is about democracy." Those five attention seekers were getting what they wanted; they were surrounded by six different cameras.

There was the expected sight-seeing too. I passed Reps. Charles Rangel and Gwen Moore. I saw Tammy Duckworth and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Everyone's here, walking from panel discussions or lunches or delegation parties.

The real fun, though, started when the sun went down. I was not able to grab a credential to the convention, so I went to the Mariott to watch the speeches in the lobby. I was met by a room full of others who were not able to make it into then Pepsi Center. And while I was not there to hear the roar when Kennedy walked out, it couldn't have been much louder than it was in the hotel lobby. I could not see Maria Shriver wipe tears away in person, but I witnessed others cry.

The Kennedy speech was so inspiring that I almost forgot Michelle Obama was yet to come. By the time her brother finished with her introduction, though, everyone was ready. Her pauses were met with applause, her statements with hoots and hollers. She spoke of the country's "hunger for change," and you could feel that hunger throughout the room. When she finished everyone stood in their seats because they couldn't contain their excitement.

After the speech, I went to a party held by Richard Durbin and Emanuel. Both were there, as was Al Franken, Sens. Bob Casey and Amy Klobuchar. But none of that starpower matched the two minutes when Michelle Obama walked onto the tiny stage and spoke for two minutes, thanking the crowd and the crowd's hosts.

Note: I have taken several other pictures with my phone since arriving, but am experiencing technical difficulties. I will try to upload them later. Be sure to check back.

Convention bound

Tomorrow is the one-month mark since I last wrote. Some interesting things in the political world, as well as in my life (more dog pictures) have happened. I'm not going to attempt to catch up. Instead, I'll pretend the absence never happened and pick up where I left off.

I choose tomorrow because I am leaving for Denver to go to the convention. I will not have a computer, so I'm not sure what my access will be, but every opportunity I have with an internet connection will be spent blogging. I'm looking forward to it and to writing about it, so please check back in.

Her favorite spot

A guy you could play pickup with

When Obama was visiting the troops during his foreign policy tour this week, he stopped by a basketball court and this is what happened.



The first time I watched the video, I thought, "Wow, that must drive Republicans crazy." It's not enough that he goes over and sits down with foreign leaders who endorse his plans. It's not enough that he speaks to a crowd of 200,000 about restoring America's image abroad. On top of all that, he gets to look cool, too.

This is not a perfect comparison, but the coolness factor Obama has in contrast to his opponent reminds me a little of all that nonsense in 2004 when voters said they'd rather have a beer with Bush than Kerry. That rightfully drove Democrats crazy. I imagine that is kind of how McCain supporters feel when Obama spots up from behind the arc.

Proof is in the pudding

McCain sees things where no one else does. He looks at the map to the left and sees a serious problem with the Iraq-Pakistan border. What, you don't see it? That's because you don't have the foreign policy experience McCain does.

Foreign policy experience

This is going to seem petty, but I can't avoid it. John McCain thinks this country on the left exists. In fact, it hasn't since 1992. McCain, whose main argument for his candidacy rests on his brilliant mind concerning foreign policy issues, during a press event yesterday, said, "I was concerned about a couple of steps that the Russian government took in the last several days. One was reducing the energy supplies to Czechoslovakia."

Today, a.k.a. one day later, he said it AGAIN; for the second time!

Not the biggest deal, I understand, and precisely the kind of silly slip up the media overblows, but it is a pretty silly mistake for someone who has made foreign policy his crowning achievement.

Two parents

I have not heard a lot about this from the mainstream media, but in an interview with The New York Times, John McCain said the he doesn't "believe in gay adoption." Actually, what he said, when asked if he agreed with Bush's belief "that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children," he answered, "we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption."

As a relative of two wonderfully loving gay parents to two adopted children, I'm not going to cite anything other than my personal experience to refute McCain's nonsense. I will, though, note that despite a blog post by the gossiper Perez Hilton, McCain's quote has gotten zero notice.

Satire

While spending the last few weeks on the sidelines, I wondered what it would take for me to be moved to write again. Unfortunately, it was a tie.

First, this cover. I'm baffled by all the attention this is receiving. The coverage, so far as I can tell, is being driven by the Obama campaign, which is rightfully sensitive to such images. The campaign lashed out, calling the cover "tasteless and offensive." But Obama's underlings are barking up the wrong tree this time.

It's stating the obvious to say the cover is satire. But that comment is not only obvious, it's an understatement -- it's smart satire.

Imagine a different scenario. Imagine that Frank Rich had written a column about the smears and rumors repeated about the Obamas. I'm not Frank Rich, but I would not be surprised to see him write something like this,

"This election, if the John McCains and Karl Roves have their way, will center on the image of Barack Obama standing in the Oval Office in traditional Muslim garb. But it won't be just about religion. The Republicans will portray him as having a portrait of Osama bin Laden (his namesake) resting above a fire fueled by a burning American flag.

But the image won't just be of the Senator from Illinois. The McCains and Roves will have Michelle there, too. She's the foot soldier, ready for battle. She'll hold an AK-47, boast a giant afro, huge lips and give a secret hand signal to her presidential hubby."

I doubt anyone would call those two paragraphs "tasteless and offensive." No one would think twice about seeing those paragraphs in the Sunday Times.

The cover is drawing the ire of the Obama campaign because it is exactly what is happening. It is great satire for the same reason.

Time off

It's been a long time since I've posted. I'm dealing with a busy personal schedule, but more importantly as far as the blog is concerned, I'm struggling with the letdown of the changing political season. The contrasts between the general election candidates is so vast that I find the topics of discussion to be obvious to anyone who follows politics. Indeed, the differences now are ones of policy, not politics. I will adjust, of course, and intend to continue posting as frequently as before. My apologies for the lull.

First cut

2004 is not 2008

The media continues to talk about the electoral map as though it's 2004. We hear that Obama is in trouble because he's behind in some polls in Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania. That's like analyzing the Lakers-Celtics series as though Magic and Larry were still playing. It's a whole new ball game now. To put it even more in perspective, here are some of the other things that were true in 2004.

• Freddy Adu was the man.
  

• No one knew who Barack Obama was.
  

• Kobe Bryant was charged with rape.

• The war was just a year old.
  

"You can't have him"

Sorry about the light posting; my other life has me distracted. I've been meaning to write about the MoveOn ad since I first saw it on Tuesday. In case you haven't seen it, here it is:



I sat in silence for a few moments after watching this initially. The ad is nothing if not powerful. But is it fair? And if it is, is it smart politics? My answer to both questions, after two days of thought, is yes. That probably isn't surprising given my past writings on McCain's "100 years" and "not too important" comments.

The ad is personal, and given the response from others that watched the ad in my presence, it is too personal for some. The idea of a webcam video, filmed in a new mother's bedroom makes it even more effective. The tone, though, is what makes the ad really work. The mother is joyful about her son, not angry at McCain. She is confident, not defensive. She is saying enough is enough.

Those who think McCain's comments have been taken out of context will surely cry foul at the ad, but they will be wrong. MoveOn has used the exact context of McCain's quotes and pushed back. He said that it doesn't matter if troops are in Iraq, so long as they aren't being killed. This ad shows that it clearly does matter; it clearly is "important."

My thoughts on the ad aren't surprising, but I would love to hear other people's views. To me, the ad goes to the heart of what this short general election has been about. It highlights the flawed McCain foreign policy strategy. And it's sure to pull at people's emotions. So, take a minute and give your thoughts. Does the ad work, and if so, why?

A difference of policy

A commenter wrote to say that McCain's "not too important" comment is not "outrageous" when read in context. The commenter went on to say that McCain "was saying that when the troops come home is less important than when hostilities end." This comment, combined with some reactions in the media prompted me to respond.

First of all, I think the commenter is right -- McCain's quote is not "outrageous" on its face. But what it shows is a fundamental disagreement on policy. I watched Susan Rice, Obama's senior foreign policy advisor, respond to McCain's quote. She correctly pointed out that this is the latest example of McCain misunderstanding the situation in Iraq. The word Rice used was "confused." She pointed out that McCain was "confused" about the difference between Sunni and Shia and had to have Joe Lieberman correct him. She noted that McCain was simply wrong when he claimed that the number of troops in Iraq had been "drawn down to pre-surge levels."

McCain's latest comments were not false, but they did demonstrate a lack of understanding. We -- the public and the military -- were told that this war would take a few months. Five years later, we still have 150,000 troops committed there, with no sign that anything is being done to bring them home. Meanwhile our government is banging the drums for more war, and getting further committed to the war we never completed in Afghanistan.

McCain's comments show a difference in policy. The commenter is right that the end to hostilities is important, but that end is no where in sight. After five years of stretching out our military, after four tours of duty, after over 4,000 deaths and no apparent political progress, saying that bringing the troops home is "not too important," may not be outrageous, but it sheds light into McCain's thinking. And when, as Rice described, it is presented along with several "confused" and false statements, it shows that McCain's perceived strength is really just bad policy.

The new "100 years"

This morning on the Today show, "100 years" said that it's "not too important" to bring troops home from Iraq. He said what is important is the decrease in casualties. He went on to justify his comments by saying that American troops are still in Korea, Japan and Germany. This is precisely the argument he tried to make when saying that there might be a military presence in Iraq for "100 years." He said American troops scattered throughout the world is "all fine."

Harry Reid has released a statement condemning the comments. If the Democrats are smart, this clip will become the talk of the political world for the next week.

Obama might be a terrorist

Media Matters picked up on a segment on Fox News in which host E.D. Hill discussed the meaning of the fist bump Barack and Michelle Obama had on Tuesday night. In leading into the discussion, Hill asked if it was a "terrorist fist jab." That's actually what she said.

Out of touch

In the latest example of McCain showing just how out of touch he is with the country, he compared Obama to William Jennings Bryan. Seriously.

Trying to emphasize his experience over Obama's oratorical skill, McCain said, "I believe that people are interested very much in substance." He added, "If it was simply style, William Jennings Bryan would have been president."

Next he's going to say that if the country wanted a basketball player, they would have elected George Gervin.

New Morning

First the Boss came out for Obama and now Bob Dylan has thrown his weight behind the Democratic nominee. What more do you need to know?

Re: What a joke

Even those at Fox News know McCain's speech was lame. Check out this great video Josh Marshall put together:

If nothing else, they're cool

What a joke

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the meaning of last night. It is complicated because of its meaning for the country, for politics, for the Democratic Party. While I attempt to put something together, I wanted to draw attention to McCain's laughably delivered speech last night. It was on before the Clinton and Obama speeches and it was a clear example of why this will be an uphill climb for the Republicans in the fall.

The speech is shown below in full. As you watch, put aside all the questions about the internal disputes in the Democratic Party. Forget for a moment that Obama has a "problem" with white voters. Just watch the person he is running against and I think it will be clear that Obama is the favorite to beat anyone who gives a speech as bad as this.

Hair Gel is back

This post earlier claimed that Romney won last night's Montana primary. In fact, he won February's caucus. So that's why no one is talking about it. My bad.

It takes a crane

The media is hyperventilating over Obama's new "pastor problem." The story about Michael Pfleger led the news on MSNBC this morning. The network showed the clip of a Catholic priest (therefore, not a member of Obama's church) speaking at Trinity United and mocking Clinton for feeling like she was entitled.

Let's begin with the the clear differences between Pfleger's comments and Rev. Wright's -- Obama's first "pastor problem." First, Pfleger is white. Second, he was not talking about America getting its comeuppance on 9-11. Third, he was not the religious figure who turned around Obama's life, presided over his marriage, baptized his children. Fourth, he sounded more like a comedian than a preacher.

Below is the clip. Imagine, as you watch it, has a comedian who endorsed Obama, said the same thing and see if you think it would still be newsworthy.



The folks on Morning Joe were aghast. How is Obama going to explain this to the voters in Pennsylvania, the hosts asked. Fortunately, Chris Matthews of all people, was there to set them straight. He explained that this is a non-issue and that the news of the day is still the fallout from the McClellan book.

I couldn't take it any more, so I switched the channel. I turned back at 7:45 to see if they were still talking about it. They weren't but my guess is that if a crane hadn't fallen in New York, they would have been.

Straws

Hillary Clinton may be losing more than the Democratic primary. At an event in Montana last night, the New York Senator said, "You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall."

Of course, the premise of the comment is correct -- we should ask who is the stronger candidate -- the problem is that her answer is not based on fact. There are plenty of analyses, bits of research, polls and states "that a Democrat has to win" that show Obama is the better candidate.

Her thinking, besides being delusional, perfectly explains this campaign. She is looking at an old map. She -- and the media in their conversations about the challenges that lie ahead for Obama -- is relying on the way the country was in 2000. She is thinking that the race will be decided by Ohio or Florida because the coasts will go to the Democrat and the middle will go to the Republican.

But this isn't 2000, and the candidate isn't Al Gore or John Kerry or, despite her predictions, Hillary Clinton. One statistical analysis, for instance, predicted "that Clinton would win four states against McCain that Obama is favored to lose (FL, AR, WV, OH). Meanwhile, Obama wins eight states where Clinton would likely fail (MI, WI, IA, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR)."

Even more to the point, though, Clinton is grasping at straws. Her claim is worse than an exaggeration or an overstatement, it is a lie.

At the lake

Coalescing

The latest Gallup tracking poll shows Obama starting to woo some of Clinton's key demographics to his camp. The newest polling shows that Obama leads or ties Clinton among women, Easterners, whites, adults with no college education and Hispanics. Get used to these kinds of results. As I've argued before this idea that Obama won't be able to pull in the key Clinton support groups is ludicrous.

What the media fails to understand is that this country is still pissed at Bush and the Republicans. Sure, McCain may seem like a nicer version, but when it comes down to a choice between Obama and McCain, the Clinton supporters aren't going to sit around and say, "I don't like what Obama said about Hillary in the primary." No, they are going to realize that McCain is wrong on virtually every important issue and they will forget the primary and coalesce around Obama.

This is why the loss in West Virginia by 40 points is not a sign of what ails the Obama campaign. And it's why a 20-point loss in Kentucky tonight won't mean that either. The media is looking for chinks in the armor, but they miss the central point that the vast majority of this country believes we are on the wrong track and have been for a while. A vote for McCain won't change that. A vote for Obama will.

Clinton channels Rove

The Clinton campaign is turning to Karl Rove to make its case. Jake Tapper reported that Rove has done the math and Clinton is the stronger candidate. Turd blossom thinks Clinton would be more competitive in states, like Missouri and New Hampshire, that Obama would lose. Normally I wouldn't spend two seconds thinking about what Rove -- the genius who predicted that "the math" showed that Republicans would hold onto control of Congress after the 06 elections -- thinks about "the math" of the 08 election. Normally I would complain that anyone listens to him anymore.

But it's not just anyone now. It's the Clinton campaign. Seriously. Hillary and Bill are using Rove's "math" as evidence that she should stay in the race. Here is what Hillary Clinton said yesterday in Kentucky:

“Just today I found some curious support for that position when one of the TV networks released an analysis done by - of all people - Karl Rove, saying that I was the stronger candidate.”

Bill Clinton made the same argument this weekend. And this morning, on "Morning Joe," Terry McAuliffe cited Rove. Fortunately in that case Harold Ford said McAuliffe can use any map he wants, but he shouldn't rest on the name Karl Rove.

The reliance on Rove is astounding to me. Why do the Clintons feel this is an argument that will resonate? If you ask me, Rove's defense of Clinton is a reason not to support her. I think Ford's response this morning was precisely the reaction the Clintons will get as they make this case around the country.

Imagine the response from superdelegates when Clinton calls and say, "We can win; Rove says so."