WHAT'S UP

The key words on tabloid TV - including Oprah - are WOMAN, SELF-IMPROVEMENT and MOTHER. Sarah Palin's already all over tabloid TV.

THE STRONGEST POINT ...

Democrats can make - so far - about Sarah Palin is that McCain did not choose the person he felt most competent to be president if something happens to him; he chose the person he felt most likely to help him win the election. Not that that's unusual. But Obama's choice is clearly competent to hold the presidency - and Republican overfocus on electioneering over governing is in part responsible for the Bush calamity.

GAMECHANGER

Assuming Sara Palin is McCain's VP, he's made a brilliant choice - and not just for the obvious reason.

According to Wikipedia, "Palin was the point guard and captain for the Wasilla High School Warriors, in Wasilla, Alaska, when they won the Alaska small-school basketball championship in 1982; she earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" because of her intense play.[4] She played the championship game despite a stress fracture in her ankle, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds.[4] Palin, who was also the head of the school Fellowship of Christian Athletes, would lead the team in prayer before games.[4]

"In 1984, Palin was second-place in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant after winning the Miss Wasilla contest earlier that year, winning a scholarship to help pay her way through college.[4] In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality. Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics. Her husband, Todd, is a Native Yup'ik Eskimo.[4] Outside the fishing season, Todd works for BP at an oil field on the North Slope[5] and is a champion snowmobiler, winning the 2000-mile "Iron Dog" race four times.[4] The two eloped shortly after Palin graduated college; when they learned they needed witnesses for the civil ceremony, they recruited two residents from the old-age home down the street. She briefly worked as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations while also working as a commercial fisherman with her husband, Todd, her high school sweetheart.

"On September 11, 2007, the Palins' son Track joined the Army. Eighteen years old at the time, he is the eldest of Palin's five children.[6] Track now serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September. On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome.[8] She returned to the office three days after giving birth.[9] Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin said. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"[9] She hunts, eats moose hamburger, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane.[10][11] Palin holds a lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association. She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.[12]

"Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996. In 1996, she challenged the incumbent mayor, criticizing wasteful spending and high taxes. Palin kept her campaign promises, reducing her own salary, as well as reducing property taxes 60%. Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,[14] where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest.[4] After she resigned, she exposed the state Republican party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her fellow Oil & Gas commissioners, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time, and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.[15] Palin filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned; Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine.[4]

"In 2006, Palin, running on a clean-government campaign, executed an upset victory over then-Gov. Murkowski in the Republican gubernatorial primary.[4] Despite the lack of support from party leaders and being outspent by her Democratic opponent, she went on to win the general election in November 2006, defeating former Governor Tony Knowles.[4] Palin said in 2006 that education, public safety, and transportation would be three cornerstones of her administration.[12] Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending.[9][16] "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."[10] She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young[17] and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.[9] Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard praised Palin as a "politician of eye-popping integrity" and referred to her rise as "a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle—especially to transparency and accountability in government—can produce political success."[10] In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[10] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.[18]

"Palin's tenure is noted for her independence from big oil companies, while still promoting resource development.[10][9] Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisors, to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska.[19] Shortly after taking office, Palin rescinded an appointment by Murkowski of his former chief of staff Jim Clark to the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, one of thirty-five appointments made by Murkowski in the last hour of his administration that she reversed.[20][21] Clark later pled guilty to conspiring with a defunct oil-field-services company to channel money into Frank Murkowski's re-election campaign.[22] In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[23] Only one legislator, Representative Ralph Samuels, voted against the measure,[24] and in June Palin signed it into law.[25][26] On January 5, 2008, Palin announced that a Canadian company, Transcanada, was the sole AGIA-compliant applicant.[27][28] In response to high oil and gas prices, and in response to the resulting state government budget surplus, Palin proposed giving Alaskans $100-a-month energy debit cards. She also proposed providing grants to electrical utilities so that they would reduce customers' rates.[29] She subsequently dropped the debit card proposal, and in its place she proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly and eliminate the gas tax.[30

"Palin is strongly pro-life and belongs to Feminists for Life.[12] She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[12] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[32] She supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[33] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[34] Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[35]

"In the first days of her administration, Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account) by the Murkowski administration. The state placed the jet for sale on eBay three times. In August 2007, the jet was sold for $2.7 million.[40] Shortly after becoming governor, Palin canceled an 11-mile (18-kilometer) gravel road outside of Juneau to a mine. This reversed a decision made in the closing days or hours of the Murkowski Administration.[41] In June 2007, Palin signed into law the largest operating budget in Alaska's history ($6.6 billion).[42] At the same time, she used her veto power to make the second-largest cuts of the construction budget in state history. The US$237 million in cuts represented over 300 local projects, and reduced the construction budget to nearly US$1.6 billion.[43]"

Not only is her story extraordinarily compelling, but she is the perfect idealized Republican - and suggests that McCain does not intend to follow Bush with more Bush. This is a maverick choice, and man, does it take the play away from Obama. This is a gamechanger. To what extent, we'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Van Jones on the Huffington Post has this to say:

None of my pro-Hillary female friends are falling for this obvious GOP pander. To the contrary, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP is drawing hoots of derision.

Once they learn that Sarah Palin opposes rape and incest exceptions for women seeking abortion, they completely write her off.

One female friend said: "Sarah Palin is to the movement for women's equality what Clarence Thomas is to civil rights. She's an extremist and an enemy to the cause that has been fought on her behalf.... Someone should stand up and say: 'I know Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton is a friend of mine. And Sarah Palin is no Hillary Rodham Clinton.'"

One female friend did some quick internet research and said, "Sarah Palin has a great deal of surface appeal, at first. But once America's women look behind that cheerleader smile and see at her extreme social agenda, they will run the other direction."

Another said, "McCain picked a fan, not an equal partner. She has no international experience. She was just fawning all over him. No independence. Given McCain's temper, Sarah Palin probably won't challenge John McCain on any substantive issues."

Then she added, with a laugh, "The only thing he is going to let her do in the White House is teach him how to use the internet."

Another said, "It just seems desperate and calculated."

She added, "Palin makes McCain look ancient, out-of-touch and totally yesterday. McCain makes her look like a perky kid. Each one dramatically and perfectly underscores the other's weakness. At least, nobody can criticize Obama's alleged youth and inexperience now. But this is not the best team America could produce, by any stretch."

John McCain has gone from maverick to "me too" -- trying to out-Democrat the Democrats and pick up some Hillary voters.

But it ain't working.

Like I said, we'll see.

A THOUGHT

Perhaps the US has reaped an entirely unintentional benefit from the attack on Iraq.

The Iran-Iraq war of the 80's was presented in the US as an Iranian attempt to spread its revolution and gather up territory. It was, in other words, presented in Cold War terms, just as Communism had always been presented.

There was some truth in that presentation, but not much. Fundamentally, what had happened was that the age-old Sunni-Shi'ite conflict had reignited. The US supported Saddam Hussein. Presented perceptions were that we were avenging the American hostages of just a few years before. Truth is we were defending Sunni Saudi Arabia.

It's ironic that by attacking Iraq we have turned a Sunni nation into a Shi'ite state. I'm quite sure that was not what our brilliant planners had in mind. But here's another item they didn't have in mind:

Islamic fundamentalism has been rising in both the Sunni and Shi'a communities. U.S. perceptions were that they were the same - but they are clearly not. What the Iraq war did - again by accident - was to divert the two rising fundamentalisms into fighting against each other, resuming the struggle of the old Iran-Iraq war, but this time moving Iraq to the Iranian side. The Saudis are now the Sunni front. And as long as the two strains of Islam fight each other, they have less energy and less inclination to fund or conduct attacks against the West.

Bin Laden obviously hoped to unite both strains under a new caliphate. It would appear their differences are not yet resolvable, so that is not going to happen any time soon. We can expect it to be more difficult, then, for terrorists of either stripe to come against the U.S.

Israel is the worm in this apple, though. That is the one fight Sunni and Shi'a can, if not unite, at least cooperate in. That's another reason why resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian mess has immediate benefits for the entire West. With no reason to cooperate, Islam can return to internecine warfare and leave the rest of us alone. By the time they've tired of doing that, the cycle which included Islamic terrorism may have turned away from it.

Just a thought.

NOW I CAN GET BACK TO MY USUAL CYNICAL SELF

Susie Tompkins Buell, self-described as "the poster-child, in the press, for the so-called Hillary holdouts; Hillary Clinton supporters who were angry and frustrated with the way she was treated in the primary and post-primary and weren't ready for unity," now explains that "Hillary has led me to understand that Senator McCain supports little of what I champion."

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

As she describes herself on the Huffington Post, Susie Tompkins Buell is the co-founder of ESPRIT. This business success in itself does not imply that her brains go beyond marketing. Since selling her business in 1996, she goes on, she has been heavily involved in political activities. Her main focus is to support and encourage women to enter the political arena as she believes the imbalance of men and women in government is the cause of many of our problems. I would like to hear her explain - if she can - what she means by that last.

So here we have a relatively sophisticated, successful woman who is heavily involved in politics - and Hillary has to explain to her why voting for McCain would be bad?

She needs to take a break from politics until she learns how to think.

SHORT AND SWEET

What Obama did tonight was to reintroduce the concept of commonality into the American civic arena. If he wins, it may go forward. If he loses, at least it's been said.

And who would have believed that in 2008 - the era of "cool" on TV and the dominance of pictures over words - we would have heard great oratory again? No one came close to Obama - he clearly has a poet's soul - but Michele, Hillary, Bill, Biden, Kerry, Gore all reached their own particular heights. You will not hear anything of this quality at the Republican convention - but then the Republican convention isn't meant for people who want moral inspiration and respect talent and truth. I won't be able to watch it. You can't watch The View after having watched Paddy Chayefsky.

TROLLS

I love McCain's argument that Obama shouldn't be president because he's a celebrity. Of course, it's running for the presidency that made Obama a celebrity. McCain's been a celebrity since he got back from Vietnam - maybe longer.

It isn't really Obama McCain is criticizing. It's Obama's fans. McCain depicts them as a cult - and some of them are cultish, as many Americans are. It's their "uncritical" adoration McCain deplores (officially. I think in fact he's jealous. So am I.) Sort of like Hillary fans. But McCain doesn't have those fans.

I can understand Republican outrage with Obama. Here's George Bush with a 19% approval rating, and he's going ahead and destroying the government just like he planned. Bush proves you don't need fans to accomplish what you want to as president. Once you get into the office, you just ignore what the people want. I think that's the Republican conception of the presidency - it's sheer power manipulation. You don't represent anyone but your immediate circle. It embarrasses them to have people who actually like them. I suspect in their subconsciouses they can't understand, anymore than I can, how anyone can like them after what they've done. Fortunately, they don't have that problem, much.

The idea of leading by inspiring is no longer Republican because the trolls own the party and they work on the "dark side", as Cheney put it. The spotlight is not kind to them. They have perceptibly ugly souls. Unlike Kissinger, who was a troll celebrity, they don't take joy in the limelight. They like perpetual night.

Didn't used to be that way. Who was the ultimate celebrity president? Ronald Reagan, of course, who was a celebrity (although not much of one, sort of a hasbeen, actually) long before he ran for president. What launched Reagan's ultimate candidacy was the speech he gave at the '64 Republican convention. At the time Reagan gave that speech he held no office. When he first ran for the presidency in 1968, he had been governor of California for one year. He had precisely zero foreign policy exposure. The parallels to Obama's rise are extraordinary. It just took Reagan longer to get there.

Maybe these trolls are genuinely afraid of what a popular leader could do to them. They certainly hated Clinton, who was very popular. They were ambivalent on Romney, who was a celebrity (true, he would have been an awful candidate.) McCain has the appearance of a troll, in a sort of way, although he has an atypical pleasant personality. But McCain hasn't worked the dark side. So they have doubts about him.

So far, though, they're ok with that. They're in their wormholes, running McCain's campaign in the same old trollish way, while McCain stands up in the light as best he can. You can't run a presidential campaign without someone for people to like. That's why they ran Bush in 2000, while the Cheney troll ran the government. Trolls ran Reagan's government, too, in the same way, while Reagan stood up in the light, which he adored. The question is, once McCain's elected, will he run the government, or will the trolls beat him into submission? Or will he willingly hand his power to the trolls?

CLASS ISSUE?

The Huffington Post reports that some of the most high-profile Hillary die-hards at this late date are pretty wealthy by any standard. And despite the tiny degree of actual policy dispute between Clinton and Obama during the primaries, some of these well-off dissidents are flirting with the idea of helping out John McCain in the general election.

Consider whether there is a class issue here. Of the three candidates, one is not particularly wealthy. Guess who.

Of course, the Obamas wannabe in the Clinton class, and no doubt will be as a result of this campaign - if they lose, immediately, and if they win, in a few years. Obama policies are no more anti-wealth than Clinton's - maybe less so - and in both cases you have to wonder how they really feel about the middle class which they have been busily escaping from.

So is race a factor, too, God forbid? Or are Clinton's wealthy donors really concerned that Obama is weak on national security?

MORE COMMENTS

Lousy speakers - Nancy Pelosi, Pennsylvania Senator Casey - have not learned that repeating a catchphrase doesn't help when you haven't delivered one stirring word. Democrats haven't learned that in prime time you must put on only riveting speakers. Otherwise, it's not a show, the media cut away and you get all kinds of conversation you can't control. The most wonderful thing I can think of in politics would be the notable who says: "Thanks, but I don't want to speak. I'll just bore the nation to death."

Mark Warner delivered an OK speech - touched on a lot of issues. But, as MSNBC's panel said, stirred no one. They said, and they're right, his primary focus was on saying what he needed to to get elected in Virginia.

Drew Westin must be spinning in his condo. Or wherever he lives.

But - if you want to see it done right, catch Dennis Kucinich here.

The Hillary video was a complete absurdity - a rank ego gratification - in the absence of a floor fight. It was All About Eve, the aging diva undercut by the understudy. It was pathetic that it was necessary.

That being said - Hillary nailed it. Her speech was magnificent, and her presentation was glorious. If she had presented herself like that in the campaign, she'd be the nominee. How sad that she didn't. What she accomplished for herself tonight was to keep herself alive as a candidate in 2012 if Obama loses. And maybe put an end to all the "divided party" nonsense.

In the meantime, my suggestion: put her in Harry Reid's spot. Let her run the Senate. It will be good for her, and if she continues to be the person I saw tonight, very good for the rest of us.

Drew Westin can relax a little.

IRONIC

I said some months ago that there was enough video out there on John McCain to hang him a hundred times over. It's ironic that it's the Republicans - using footage of Biden and Clinton - who had the balls to use the attack.

ONE OF THEM

There has historically been a contingent of the Democratic party which could not see beyond its own issues to the larger risk. Now it's Hillary delegates - spoiled brats who cannot accept that Hillary lost because she ran a lousy campaign.

But I understand them - because I was one of them.

Back in '68, McCarthy supporters actually believed America was with them, despite all the evidence. We would not accept Humphrey's defeat of McGovern and unite behind him against the common enemy. We would not even concede that Humphrey - one of the century's pre-eminent liberals - was an honorable guy. Of course, I voted for Humphrey, but by then the damage had been done. The Democrats were tainted by the '68 convention. The consequence was forty years of conservative rule - so far.

There's a good chance we're going to do it again. What destroyed us in '68 was the war and the "youth revolution." What will destroy us in '08 is ... what, exactly?

Hillary has done the honorable thing since she lost. But to tell you the truth, I blame her for this. She never made any real effort to keep her maniacs - and she had to have known they were at least slightly offkey - focused on the main point. For that matter, neither did Obama - but she was considerably worse, always playing cute with ploys to finesse a victory. If Obama runs a good campaign and loses, I will look to two reasons: his race, and Hillary.

Not the least of the consequences of this lunacy is that on the media - at least on MSNBC, which can be considered pro-Democrat - the entire coverage is devoted to Hillary's Kool-Aid kids. There won't be much of a message coming out of this convention except that the Democrats are still fucked up. McCain gets a skate. Obama won't when they cover the Republicans.

They said Obama had a cult following. They were looking at the wrong campaign. They're conspiracy theorists - little different from those who believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center, and acting on even less evidence. If this nonsense doesn't stop, it will be because Hillary encouraged it to the last minute of her campaign. And when McCain names replacements for Kennedy and Ginsburg, that's how history will remember it.

WHAT SHE SHOULD SAY

Before it happens, I want to comment on what Hillary should say to her supporters tonight:

How can you call yourselves Democrats and lay out on this election, or vote for McCain? Do you think you are somehow honoring me by doing that? It horrifies me that people who supported me on the issues could decide that the issues mean nothing if I'm not the candidate. Do you think what you're doing honors me? It embarrasses me! It makes me look like the leader of a cult. If you can do what you threaten to do, then you have had no idea who I am, and I have no idea who you are.

In an interview, Lisa Caputo said Hillary was going to talk on the economy. She needs to talk on women's issues - whatever they are. She needs to make it clear that there is only one choice on the issues.

I have, by the way, come up with another reason why the PUMAs won't vote for Obama. Bill Clinton sold - and they bought - the idea that Obama can't win. Nobody wants to think that they've gotten it wrong, and it will be easy to have gotten it right by not voting for Obama. You can pat yourself on the back for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bill Clinton might have been right, but that's not the issue.

TWO QUICK POINTS

1) Nancy Pelosi is a terrible public speaker.

2) If you don't find the Republicans' current praise for Hillary Clinton hysterically funny and transparently cynical, you have no sense of humor.

WE'LL SEE

Obama is testing whether it is possible to run an intelligent, pragmatic campaign to elect a very intelligent, pragmatic president. I don't impugn McCain's intelligence, but if there is any intelligence to his campaign, it is in their conclusions that America does not want such a president and that therefore they must campaign on the level of a third-grade schoolyard fight.

We'll see.

OKAY, I'M BEGINNING TO HAVE FAITH

AND ...

To understand the absolutely moronic level of the Republican campaign, go here. Now, we know McCain is going to get the moron vote. Who's going to join with the morons is the ultimate question. I know there are many principled, bright people who agree with McCain, or with Republicans as a whole. But they couldn't possibly fall for crap like this. So who is it aimed at? I hope they're not my neighbors.

A JOY

Well - she was brilliant. It was the best speech I have ever seen a woman make - and far better than most men. None of the tics women fall into when they're not sure they're respected. It was the kind of speech that made Ronald Reagan president. As an orator, she reached a level of sincerity that Hillary has never approached. I can't imagine anyone doing it better. Whether it works or not, it was a joy to watch.

BAD IDEA

So Michele Obama is going to speak tonight. I wouldn't recommend it, for a number of reasons.

I imagine the reasons she's speaking are these:

1) They want to show America she's not the kind of black person who's at the takeout window at Mickey D's

2) They want to assure Hillary's people that Barack cares about women's issues

I sure can't think of any other reason.

Here's why it's a bad idea:

1) People think she's uppity. Threatening. I bet after this speech they'll think so more.

2) Hillary's recalcitrant people don't really care about women's issues. Or they wouldn't be threatening to vote for McCain. They care about Hillary. This will probably make matters worse.

3) By letting her speak, the Democrats present her as a co-president, essentially what Bill and Hillary were perceived to be. (Which caused all sorts of problems for Bill. And they didn't make a point of it before the election.) People don't like co-presidencies, particularly when they didn't get to vote for the wife. In this case, though, since she's speaking, they will get to vote for the co-president. If they don't like either Barack or Michele, they won't vote the Democratic ticket. Why give people more reasons to stay home or vote Republican?

Like I said, bad idea.

FOOLISHNESS

Per the New York Times, "the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq is driving out many leaders of Sunni citizen patrols, the groups of former insurgents who joined the American payroll and have been a major pillar in the decline in violence around the nation. In restive Diyala Province, United States and Iraqi military officials say there were orders to arrest hundreds of members of what is known as the Awakening movement as part of large security operations by the Iraqi military. At least five senior members have been arrested there in recent weeks, leaders of the groups say."

What this proves is this: the proposition that the "surge" produced American victory in Iraq is bullshit.

The introduction of more troops did, apparently, convince Iraqis that there was little to be gained by continuing to fight Americans. They assume Americans will leave Iraq sooner or later (if they don't, there will be hell to pay.) They are using this hiatus to set the preconditions for the power grabs that will follow the American exit. Or, in Maliki's case, using the Americans as cover for current power grabs.

There is no way to predict what Iraq will ultimately look like. Will we be better off, or worse, when it's done? Until we know, it is foolishness to claim victory in Iraq. And here's the ultimate irony: conservatives claim that by giving up in Vietnam we allowed the country to fall to Communists. What if, having followed the conservative prescription of not giving up, Iraq falls to the Iranians?

I suspect the truth is that in neither case did America have any real control over the outcome. And also that, in neither case, will the outcome (probably negative) be anywhere near as awful as those who pushed for the fight believed. We're living quite well with a Communist Vietnam, thank you. We will probably live just as well with whatever Iraq becomes.

MORE ON HOUSES

The Democrats' attack on McCain's houses essentially ignites the class war - something I've been praying for. But they're using the wrong ammunition.

As I said, Americans like the rich. They want to - some expect to - be rich. If you're rich and your diet is hot dogs and beer, you represent their own hopes because - they believe - you are just like them.

The class war must be fought not over who McCain is, but what he intends to do to the non-rich. Dems have been dipping their toes into that sea. I hope they go at it more seriously.

WHO?

According to current polling, 21% of Clinton supporters are backing McCain and 27% are undecided. Which, at this late stage, raises the question: exactly who are Hillary's supporters?

Women? And they're willing out of pique to let McCain trash Roe v. Wade?

Liberals? Please. No real liberal is that dumb.

If logic applies, there are five possibilities: conservative Democratic men who either don't know McCain or don't see Republicans as the enemy and are not even slightly ideological; "national security" voters, like the terror moms; Republicans who went for her because of her stand on the economy; racists of both genders, and complete idiots.

Hillary's support was 48% idiotic? Maybe she should have been the candidate.

DROP IT

Now that the Democrats have had fun with McCain's houses, they'd better get off it before he turns it back on them.

1) I'm quite sure that a lot of these houses are investment properties. Cindy has the money, and I assume those investments are handled by someone who works for her, leaving McCain free to work at being a senator. This is an unfair attack, and McCain can say so.

2) Americans like rich people. It's effete people they don't like. John McCain is not effete.

Dems, you scored the points. Now drop the issue.

WHAT?

A new Pew study claims to have found that 33% of Fox News viewers are Democrats.

What in God's name does this mean?

THE LOGIC OF DEPRIVATION

So the right is all outraged about what Russia is doing in Georgia - which is probably an attempt at regime change in a neighboring, less than friendly state.

Anybody remember Grenada? And what about Iraq?

It is legitimate to disapprove of what could be considered an invasion of a pro-western state which happens to have a lot of oil and a lot of oil pipelines. But outrage? That's propaganda.

Republicans would like nothing better than the return of the Cold War, which was the base of their appeal to voters for decades. Maybe they have some concern over the long-term benefit of a war on "terror." Maybe they think two enemy others are better than one. The Republican's problem is that Communism is gone. So they can't make it an ideological fight. They can claim that Russia is launching an imperialist quest to get back the empire it lost in the late '80s. And they could be right about that. But it's the pot calling the kettle black, and the only bad thing they can say about it is that it's not our empire that's advancing.

This is likely to develop into an oil war - hot or cold - over the longish term. What will be interesting is if they can engage Americans in an acknowledged war for oil. These days, I think they possibly could - if gas had been four bucks a gallon in 2003, they wouldn't have needed to come up with all those excuses to invade Iraq. Or anywhere else with oil. We're like children - we lash out when we're deprived, and we'll do anything in our physical power not to be. The logic of the deprivation - or our irrelevance to the situation which causes the deprivation - will not be understood in America. Which makes McCain the next president, because that's him.

What will be more interesting is if we start seeing stories painting Putin as wanting to re-establish Russian Communism. Then we'll know we're on the way to being taken for another ride.

TRAILER PARK PAST

Why am I watching the Olympics? I don't care about the sports they show me. The ones I do care about are shown at 5 am, and I don't care that much. Truth is, the only games I care about are the ones I'm playing in. I don't care about the insipidly inspiring stories of these athletes, the Oprahizing of the games. As far as I can see, the only thing I get to watch is the creation of new multimillionaires who will cash in on their success by endorsing this and that which the American consumer will lust after. Don't forget, as they say, consumers drive the economy. An absurd proposition, actually.

But there is one thing that interests me, and that is the staggering number of world records broken during this Olympics. If this were baseball, we'd be looking for steroids. Assuming there are no performance enhancing drugs in this Olympics, we are either seeing the results of greatly improved training methods - which cost a fortune and therefore exist only to produce those endorsements - or physical man has somehow taken a great leap forward overnight.

So instead of telling us about someone's trailer park past, could somebody please explain to me why this is happening?

EMPATHY

Rumor has it that, having gotten excellent publicity for bailing out Ed McMahon, Donald Trump is lining up a series of pointless celebrities to rescue. I hear the Cowsills are next in line. The ultimate aim is a new TV series, like Deserving Design, focusing on empathy - not for deserving people, though, but for people whose names are dimly remembered by a national coalition of senior citizens.

WHAT IF?

I've been thinking about what might happen if, as Republicans profess to (but don't actually) want, American government completely disappeared.

How would corporations do if they couldn't use Federal taxation to redistribute wealth to them, and didn't have government bailouts available? It seems to me there are two possibilities: they'd become dependent on their consumers, and therefore on the quality of what they sold; or they'd get together with other corporations in a self-protective organization which would bail out those corporations with the right connections. I guess that's how it works now, anyway: not all corporations benefit from privatization of tax collections, just those with the right connections. But would the right connections be the same? One thing you can assume is that there would be infighting as bloody as that between Sunni and Shia - and maybe with more than one faction, maybe more like warlords in Afghanistan.

What will the defense contractors do with no public money to steal? There's an answer to that, coming up shortly?

With no government to lean on, it's possible that on some issues the public will rise up physically - having no other option - issues like starving to death. Corporations will have to raise their own militias - so they will be the buyers of defense equipment. I'm imagining the Microsoft army defending its campus.

I guess what it comes down to is this: with no mediating force and no accepted regulation, it comes down to dog eat dog. The world will be a very dangerous place.

I don't begrudge the wealthy the money they earn by inventing something that everyone wants, or even manipulating money creatively. But when they make their money from something nobody wants, or increase their wealth, by manipulating friends in the government, they're no different than the Mafia. Their skill is a skill which does no one any good but themselves. It doesn't deserve rewarding. Maybe it wouldn't be if we did away with Washington entirely.

ELITIST

In his book "One Market Under God," Tom Frank points out that by 1990 the word "elitism" had replaced "racism" as the worst American pejorative - but it had been completely drained of meaning. Elitism meant behaving in a way which had become a parody - you know, lattes, Volvos, all that stuff. He points out that both Clinton and Bush - both corporatists par excellence - were careful to present themselves as NASCAR-type guys.

He also points out that about that time countercultural images were being used by the new elites, the internet boys, day traders etc. Jeans to work, informality, independence from heirarchies. This was a seductive ethos on the northern coasts - but elsewhere it only translated to hi-tech entrepreneurs. The old elitist stereotypes still stick in the south and midwest, and in plenty of other places too.

So it's to be expected that McCain calls Obama elitist - because Obama fits the stereotype. Never mind that financially McCain is in the elite - the elite has nothing to do with actual wealth these days. It's an attitude people don't like. And Obama will suffer for it.

McCain's celebrity attack, though, puzzles me. I'm not aware that America is no longer infatuated with empty-headed party girls and movie stars. I don't see how this campaign can work. But we'll see.

BIZARRE

Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that:"in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."

Republicans simply do not get it.

HOW?

How does a guy whose primary mission is to advance Israel's interests accuse someone else of not putting America first?

MAXIMUM AGGRESSION

Let's face it - McCain can't be McCain, and Obama can't be Obama, if either expects to win this race.

We've learned from sports and reality TV that maximum aggression is needed for victory. The pumped fists, the end zone dances - they don't just celebrate good moves, they celebrate the advancement of the plan to destroy the other. Which includes doing anything within the rules to win. And, if you can be subtle about it, outside the rules.

America says it doesn't like negative campaigns? What, they don't like negative football? Actually, all of it - the election included - is the triumph of professional wrestling. Maximum attitude coupled with some degree of skill. (I'm reminded of the current commercial for beef hot links which has suburban charbroiling males bellowing like bulls in a sad parody of the way in which the military stirs up its own blood.) Everybody loves it. So don't bash McCain for doing what we want him to. And pray that Obama gets the message, too.

HUH?

Good point by Robert Borosage: why is McCain insisting on cutting corporate taxes when most corporations don't pay any now?

Borosage says:

It's hard not to wonder about the pure, contrary, inanity of the current conservative position. Our military is by far the strongest in the world, while our trains are among the slowest and our sewers are collapsing. So they propose raising spending the military and cutting domestic investment. We suffer gilded age inequality, with the wealthiest 15,000 families -- one-one hundredth of one percent of the population -- capturing fully one-fourth of the entire income growth from 2000 to 2006. Their average income rose from $15.2 million per year to $29.7 million per year. Meanwhile, the rest of us -- 133 million households that make up 90% of the country -- divided up 4% of the nation's income, adding about $305 to our average $30,354 income. So conservatives push for more tax cuts for the wealthy, while proposing to tax employer based health benefits. Corporate profits (prior to the recession) have catapulted to what is by far the highest percentage of national income in the past half century. So they want to cut corporate taxes, inevitably increasing the burden on labor. The economic future looks dim because consumers, drowning in debt, are cutting back. So they suggest cutting taxes on corporate investments will generate new investments and growth -- as if companies don't need someone to buy the products they make.

Borosage forgets the corporations have China and India to buy their products - until those countries make their own and freeze US corporations out. (As a matter of fact, in the short term, this solves the problem of the dents in globalization caused by higher transportation costs. You make the goods in China and you sell them there. Makes eminent business sense.) So what McCain is proposing is: American citizens have a choice. They can either subsidize corporations with the money they would otherwise be spending on the goods those companies make, or they can buy those goods and give up all government services (except the military, of course - guaranteeing, under McCain, a course of future wars.)

Lovely.

IS THERE?

Explaining why the Juatice Department is not prosecuting Monica Goodling, Michael Mukasey said: "Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

Well, that's certainly true. If the violation is not of a criminal law (that is, a law which includes a fine or jail for violating it), then it isn't a crime. But ...

I don't know the civil service law. Maybe someone can straighten me out. Is there no penalty in the law for violating it? Put more simply, if someone can be prosecuted for breaking the law, than breaking the law is a crime. So - is there?

REPRESSED ENOUGH

AT&T has run two odd commercials on the Olympic coverage - both involving nudity.

In the first, a car full of family runs into a downed hot air balloon on a road. The basket is full of male nudists. The car backs up and away. In the second, the family winds up on a nude European beach. Both times the problem was due to failure to get warning calls.

Is this the anti-Janet Jackson campaign? Why this message?

It reinforces the concept that even non-prurient nudity is corrupting of children. There is nothing sexy in these ads, not even the suggestion that either situation is sexy. (Actually, Jackson's event was devoid of sexiness, too.)

I don't think I realized how far back into its repressed past America is stepping until I saw these commercials. If these commercial are to be considered harbingers, we seem to be returning to the time when sex was performed in the dark and limited to the little it took to procreate.

America is repressed enough as it is. We've marginalized drugs, reduced rock music to pap, and now we're getting rid of sex. We're about due for an Amish president. While I fondly remember the joy of Brigitte Bardot.

LIE DOWN WITH LIARS

When W went to Georgia, he said this to an ecstatic crowd:

The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone. Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand with you.... [T]he sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia must be respected -- the territorial [sic] and sovereignty of Georgia must be respected by all nations.

It isn't just his big stupid mouth. George W. Bush has become so used to making promises he never intended to keep that he's allowed the tactic to spill into the international arena. His Dad - remember "Read my lips"? - did the same thing to the Kurds.

Well, Georgians and Kurds - when you lie down with liars, you're likely to find they've hightailed while you were asleep - and didn't even leave a couple of bucks on the nightstand.

SMART

Senator Barack Obama will start looking the other way when it comes to the role 527s and other independent groups play in the election, a source close to his campaign told the Huffington Post.

I am just so fucking smart.

What disturbs me is that the Obama campaign actually thought it could take the high road while cutting off attack surrogates at the knees. This, I'm afraid, is the kind of naivete you don't want to see in a president.

PAULSON

Tom Brokaw's questioning of Hank Paulson on Meet the Press yesterday was commendably tough - phenominally tough by today's media standards - although Brokaw hinted at, but did not make, the obvious point that Paulson bears responsibility for the current mess. Paulson is now talking about the need for regulation of Wall Street across the board. It just blows me away that a guy who participated in the dismantling of regulation is going to be allowed to keep his job. John Edwards is ruined by an affair, and lying about it. Paulson, who has lied consistently about economic threats? Oh, he's a good guy, he just made a mistake.

After Brokaw quoted a Bush official who said the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems were "forecastable," Paulson said, in essence, hindsight is 20/20. That's true, hindsight is 20/20 - but so is foresight when it's engaged in by someone whose interest is the public good.

How do we put ourselves out of his misery?

NO COMMENT

Absolutely fascinating.

I have heard George Bush say three things while he's at the Olympics:

1) He said America has no economic problems.

2) He advocated the spread of religion in China

3) Condemning the Russians, he said Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.

I just can't comment on all of this.

ECONOMICS

It cost me $150 for dinner at a fancy restaurant - one hour's worth of pleasure received. It cost me $200 to go to the theater - two hours of pleasure there. It costs $195 to buy an iPhone, from which I would get years of pleasure, until it broke. I can buy a beautiful Chinese artifact for $99 on eBay, from which I would get pleasure for the rest of my life.

I don't understand economics.

MYSTERIOUS WAYS

Why do people attribute their successes to God?

Because it's really good for the ego to believe that someone as important as God loves you so much that He took time out of His busy day to make sure you succeeded. Or that it's important to God, and therefore the overall scheme of the universe, that you win that football game. And it's important that you acknowledge His help, or He might not help you next time. God is just like everyone else - he likes it when you say thanks.

People do not similarly attribute their failures to God, because it is not good for the ego to believe that someone as important as God doesn't even like you. On the other hand, if you need to continue to believe that God loves you, you will say that you lost because God, who loves you, wanted you to learn an important lesson. Or that God does love you, it's just that what you were asking for didn't fit into His current plan. In other words, your failure serves a greater purpose. In fact, your failure might be so important to God that He would have to acknowledge how significant you are.

How do you survive in the real world thinking like that? God works in mysterious ways.

Why did Reagan and Bush II run up such huge deficits? The answer is so simple you have to wonder why you've never heard it before.

Tax cuts eliminate the need for wealth and corporations to contribute to the costs of government. But the government must keep raising money to pay off the Republican clientele to whom its services have been privatized, and also to do those things the clientele need government to do - like wars. (That I believe will end within the next two decades, when the wealthy will pay private firms to fight their wars, turning America into a warlord state and eliminating the primary purpose of government.)

First, you pay them with taxes raised on the middle class. This is the quintessential redistribution of wealth. When that's not enough (and it will never be, because the idea is to keep as much money as possible going to your friends for services performed for the benefit of those friends - the ultimate business model) you sell bonds to pay for them. Here's another windfall for the wealthy - in the interest paid - and it's probable you sucker in others to buy these bonds on the principle that they are good investments. When the bonds come due, they are paid off out of taxes on the middle class, again redistributing the wealth - and, since that again won't be enough, by selling more bonds, perpetuating a massive Ponzi scheme.

What if it turns out the middle class has no money and therefore there are no taxes paid? You can sell more bonds if you can find anyone stupid enough to buy them. If not, you sell off the government's assets to bondholders and you shut down the government. What if the assets don't cover all the bonds? Well - too bad for the suckers (like the ones who got caught holding real estate bought at the top of the Market); it's dog eat dog out there in the free market.

Now government does nothing and the wealthy own everything. Perfect.

Tom Frank, in "The Wrecking Crew," points out that deficits defund the left - because when the attempt is made to pay them down, it's not by cutting off services to the wealthy, but to the rest of us. That's what Bill Clinton did. Frank says Bush ran the deficits back up to continue this process.

THE RULE

What disturbs me about reactions I've heard to my book The Tenth Cow is that no one seems to have gotten its central message - the most important reason I wrote the book.

I have been arguing for some time now that the one essential moral principle is the Golden Rule - which is being ignored across the board these days. I pretty much laid out this argument in the book. Not one person has mentioned it.

Now, in looking at the various ways in which the Rule is set out in various religions, I find some interesting differences.

Matthew 7:12 puts the rule this way: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. It is a fairly pure statement of the rule, except that it's subtle: you have to impute the negative obligation of not doing harm. Subtle is not the religious right's strong suit. Not that they pay attention to any part of the rule.

Rabbi Hillel flipped the concept: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. So, according to Hillel, you don't have an obligation to do positive things for others, your obligation is not to hurt them. Similarly, Muhammad said: Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. And Confucius said: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. We can call this the moderate Republican position.

T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien said: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. The Bahai formulation is: And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself. The problem with this formulation is the use of the word "neighbor." You can define who your neighbor is - in fact, you can pick your neighbors. You can choose whom you treat fairly. We can call this the Karl Rove, or gated community, position.

God said, in Leviticus 19:18: Love your fellow as yourself. Problem: if you don't love yourself, or don't know how to love yourself, this formulation doesn't do much for the other guy.

Here's how the Dalai Lama put it: If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. But nothing requires you to want others - or yourself - to be happy. This is not a moral imperative. This is a lifestyle choice.

And the rule for cynics was stated by George Bernard Shaw: Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.

And you thought this stuff was simple, huh?

Well, it is.

The correct way to state the rule is: Treat others as you would wish to be treated. Simple. Unconditional. The rule, stated that way, defines the social contract and is the essence of civilized humanity. Maybe we ought to try it some time.

MACAO?

Russia has attacked Georgia. Everyone agrees this cannot stand. Oh, yeah? So what are you gonna do about it?

Year ago, Bush looked into Pootie Poot's eyes and saw - I forget what, but it wasn't the invader of Georgia. We could try another look in the eyes - but that didn't work.

Bush's second option - regime change. And that puts things in a new perspective. Now we realize that the Iraq war was Bush's Grenada. Both cowboys - Bush and Reagan - made their butch bones invading micropowers. The limits of this simple-minded policy become clear. We certainly can't attack Russia. We couldn't attack North Korea because they have the bomb. What are the limits as to whom we can attack? Apparently Iran - because they don't have the bomb yet. Republican aggression is all show and no substance.

Bush's third option - sanctions. Well, let's see. The oil president has attacked Iraq, threatens to attack Iran (and has imposed sanctions). And now we're going to sanction Russia? Venezuela won't talk to us. So we could get all our oil from Uzbekistan - or we can continue to depend on Middle East oil.

There is only one option, and it's not a good one - collaborative international pressure. The pundits are saying this is the first test of the candidates' foreign policy. Seems to me McCain has nothing to offer here, whereas Obama's route - international cooperation - is weak but the best we can do. So it will be interesting how the press finds a way to spin this to McCain's benefit - i.e., we need a tough guy to deal with Russia. Maybe McCain could prove it by attacking .... Macao?

SAME OR DIFFERENT?

It fascinates me that the media is so down on China for political repression and human rights violations. Yet I have seen none of them compare the situation in China to the situation here.

China is repressive of certain political expression. I don't believe, however, that they are any longer involved in propagation of a system of lies to their people. Of course, they don't have to - the government can do whatever it wants openly, whereas here the government has to do what it wants in secret or concoct a false explanation to gain public support.

I'm not going to argue about which is better. As far as I'm concerned, they are pretty much the same in that they are both oligarchical capitalist systems which ram through what's needed for the wealthy - Communist or otherwise. There is no universal health coverage in China or here. Of course, China at least has an excuse - it would be pretty tough to insure 1.3 billion people.

But here's the difference - China uses government to make things happen which in some sense benefit the Chinese people. If they want a highway, it gets built. The Bush Administration builds nothing. It takes government apart. Government does nothing for the people. People here don't care. In China they certainly do care about what the government does or doesn't do.

The easiest way to understand that these governments are after the same goal - capitalist expansion - but accomplishing it in entirely different ways is to compare the Chinese reaction to their earthquake and the American reaction to Katrina. China has put a huge effort into helping the earthquake victims, and has lionized the many people who came to their aid. The US did nothing for Katrina victims. It's a safe bet that the affected areas in China will be rebuilt. New Orleans has not been rebuilt and never will be. Because in China when the government turns toward free market capitalism, it doesn't forget to be kind to the masses. In the US, the masses are ignored, or held in contempt.

So which system would you rather live under?

WAS NOW LIKE THEN?

There seems to be no public interest in the revelation in Ron Suskind's book that Bush was told by the head of Iraqi intelligence that there were no WMD, and that the CIA was asked to forge a letter from that head stating that Mohammed Atta had been trained in Iraq.

I'm thinking back to 1973 and trying to remember if there was public interest in the Watergate allegations before Sam Ervin got hold of them. In other words, have Americans now become so immunized from outrage that they do not care about impeachable offenses, or was that true in 1973 too? I can't remember.

I haven't read Suskind's book, but if he names sources, Congress needs to hold hearings on this - and not in some backwater subcommittee, but on the main floor. Granted no impeachment will follow, but with the hype for war with Iran still building, it might serve as a reality check - and grounds to stay away from McCain.

SNOWBALL

Progressives keep saying America is a country ruled by law. What are they talking about?

When the US Supreme Court makes 5-4 decisions in case after case, there is no consensus on the lsw, and therefore there is no law. We are ruled by politics and ideology.

The most important thing we can do to "restore" the rule of law is to get judges onto the court who don't follow a party or ideological line - on either side - but look at basic principles and a sense of fairness in coming up with their decisions. Such judges still exist on the lower benches, but there are less and less of them and the chance of their elevation is a snowball's chance in hell.

AN AD

"This man seeks the highest elective office in the world not primarily as a politician, but as a celebrity. He's the only politician a woman would read about while sitting" in a beauty salon.

The latest silly attack ad from John McCain on Barack Obama as the Paris Hilton of politics? No, it's actually a journalist's comment on John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In 1960, JFK was compared with Elvis. Along his motorcade routes, Kennedy had "jumpers" -- young women who leaped in the air as his car passed. A few weeks before the election, Kennedy received what journalist Theodore White described as an "orgiastic welcome" from an estimated 1,250,000 people in New York City.

But, of course, McCain and Republicans in general would dispute the ranking of FDR and JFK as the greatest presidents of the twentieth century. No one could have called their "greatest president" an empty-headed celebrity who just gave good speeches and came across well on TV, now could they?

And what about Schwarzenegger?

THE ONLY ANSWER

Enough about ads. You get the point. Or maybe you don't.

The ammunition I cited comes from just 3 days of Huffington Post coverage. There are years of this stuff out there. Obama knows it, and he's using it - but mostly in speeches. Nobody reads newspapers. TV doesn't play the tape. It does no good to sing these things to the choir.

Obama needs to attack until McCain stops attacking. And probably beyond that. McCain now has plenty of money and is using it effectively. Cable news covers McCain's attacks because they're sexy. If they cover Obama attacks it will only be to attack them.

The only answer is negative ads. Lots of them, all the time.

And when McCain attacks Obama for going negative, Obama can say McCain started it, and prove it with tape. And then say the following: I didn't want this campaign to go low road, but I will not stand for my character being falsely attacked or for lies about what I will or won't do as President.

That's what a leader does.

And thank you, Drew Westin.

Video killed Goldwater,Dukakis and Kerry (with big help from the candidates themselves.) And one of the present candidates is going to die by video.

MORE ADS

got back to San Francisco Friday night ,and Saturday morning's Chronicle Business section had a paired set of headlines that summed everything up neatly: "$6 Billion Profit at Chevron" next to "Jobless Rate Hits a 4 Year High.

In spite of a huge crisis facing low-income families this winter from the soaring price of heating oil, the Republican Senate leadership even held up approval of financial assistance for these folks. Because they had not been able to vote on drilling first, they filibustered a bill they claimed to support. McCain, once again, was AWOL.

When ten senators of both parties came up with a typical, wimpy Washington faux compromise -- allow drilling off the East and Gulf coasts, but make the oil industry return to the Treasury some of its ill-gotten subsidies, and invest more in renewables -- McCain came out against the proposal as unacceptable because it would reduce oil-industry subsidies.

Use this tape!

Run this ad everywhere.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser said, "I used to say that Barack Obama raises taxes and John McCain cuts them, and I was convinced," he told me in a phone interview this week. "I stand corrected about Obama's plans."

AD!

Speaking to a crowd in Berea, Ohio, Obama went off on a riff, laughing at Republicans who are isolating his call for tire inflation as the linchpin of his energy plan. After noting that his energy policy has a lot more to it, Obama circled back to wonder why Republicans were choosing to mock an idea, small though it was, that could actually help matters.

"Now two points," Obama told the crowd. "One, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by three to four percent. It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

WHERE'S THE AD?

This recently posted video of John McCain on the Letterman Show 18 October 2001, roughly a month after 9/11, suggests McCain knew about the Bush plan to take on Iraq. In addition to his cracks about killing Bin Laden by Halloween and intimidating "these people into going back to selling camels," he also floats the line that the anthrax used in the U.S. mail attacks "may have come from Iraq" and says the Bush administration was determined to hold the countries from which the terrorists came responsible.

AD! AD! AD!

"When John McCain gets up there and says I'd rather win an election than win a war. When he says I didn't visit the troops when I was overseas, even though every media outlet says that's just not true... [It suggests] you are not trying to solve problems. All you are trying to do is divide people so you can win an election. That is nothing to be proud of. Let's have a real honest debate about policies that are going to make a difference in people's lives."

The harsh rebuke of the McCain campaign's tone and tenor comes amidst growing calls for the presumptive Democratic nominee to lash back. And it is a traditional Obama counterpunch: positioning himself above the fray while painting his opponent as trivial.

Indeed, earlier in the speech Obama offered a riff about the now-infamous Britney Spears/Paris Hilton attack ad -- a line he has used before.

"That's his idea of a really relevant campaign," said the Illinois Democrat. "But I don't have time to deal with that mess because America is facing some serious problems, some serious challenges."

THAT'S DOING IT! MORE MORE MORE!

WHY IS THIS AD BEING RUN IN "A FEW SELECT STATES"?

OBAMA AD #14

Yesterday Barack Obama was in Detroit to talk about plug-in hybrids and a new energy future. Today John McCain is showing up on another leg of his "Greatest Energy Misses" campaign tour. The tour began on June 17, in Houston, near the site of the huge Bay of Campeche oil spill, where McCain announced his flip-flop on offshore drilling.

He then meandered to Santa Barbara, site of the famous 1969 oil spill, which he used as a venue to dismiss the concerns of the residents of Nevada about the legendarily unsafe Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site, saying "it's a NIBMY problem. It's a NIMBY problem. We've gotta have the guts and the courage to go ahead and do what other countries are doing ..."

He next showed up in Las Vegas, where he didn't mention Yucca, but did talk about how important it was to drill for oil off Santa Barbara. He planned to fly to Louisiana on July 25, to talk about how safe the oil industry has become in recent years, but canceled his trip after a huge oil spill shut down 25 miles of the Mississippi River. Instead he doglegged over to Ohio, where he never mentioned his opposition to ethanol, but instead talked about how great agriculture was.

Now he's arrived in Detroit, where he lost the primary to Mitt Romney by telling Michigan voters that lost auto jobs simply weren't coming back -- ever. But he's not appearing at an auto plant. Instead, he's going to the infamous Fermi 1 Reactor, whose near meltdown in 1966 led to the coinage of the term "the China syndrome," and was analyzed in the book We Almost Lost Detroit. Fermi's never been turned into a safe nuke. After years were spent cleaning up the 1966 meltdown, the reactor suffered a "sodium explosion," and startup was delayed again. Finally the NRC denied the license renewal, and they had to shut it down in 1972. Fermi is now being decommissioned, but it's still a hazard. On May 22 of this year, another sodium fire broke out inside the reactor, and the decommissioning process had to be suspended.

Where are the ads?

OBAMA AD #13

A quick update on the still unreported saga of Silver State Bancorp, the failing bank where John McCain's (R) son Andrew served as a director and member of the bank's Audit Committee. (See here, here and here for refreshers.)

It's been 10 days since McCain suddenly resigned from the bank, citing "personal reasons" and neither McCain nor the bank has returned phone calls to local media. The national media still isn't paying attention to this serious story.

Despite a 331-point gain in the stock market yesterday -- and a serious rally among banking stocks -- Silver State's stock (SSBX) continues its pummeling. Yesterday alone, the stock dropped another 7 percent. It was the fifth straight day of huge declines:

Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #12

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.


Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

This is the Obama ad:

"John McCain. He's been in Washington for 26 years. And as gas prices soared and dependence on oil exploded, McCain was voting against alternative energy, against higher mileage standards. Barack Obama. He'll make energy independence an urgent national priority, raise mileage standards, fast-track technology for alternative fuels. A thousand dollar tax cut to help families as we break the grip of foreign oil. A real plan, and new energy.")

Where are the mistakes? You don't spend half of an attack ad talking positively "in contrast." You attack. You don't say things, you show them - with McCain's own words. You don't pull punches. You get specific.

This is the Obama press release:

"So to sum up, under Senator McCain's plan, the oil companies get billions more, we don't pay any less at the pump, and we stay in the same cycle of dependence on oil that got us into this crisis," read prepared remarks released by the Obama campaign. "The oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain, and if he wins, they will continue to cash in while our families and our economy suffer and our future is put in jeopardy.

"That's the choice we face in this election. We can choose four years more of the same failed policies that have gotten us where we are. Four years more of oil companies calling the shots while hard working families are struggling. That's what Senator McCain is offering."

Too complicated. Too many arguments being made in one shot. No newspaper will give this stuff any visibility. PUT IT ON TV, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

OBAMA AD #11

I don't know about you -- but I found this McCain campaign ad "The One" to be one of the most offensive ads we have seen in American politics to date.

At best, this ad implies that those who plan to support Senator Obama are looking for a new savior or a replacement Messiah. But many are reading it even more darkly as an attempt to portray Obama as an anti-Christ figure.

No - they're just looking for someone who won't be another (photo of George Bush)

Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #10

Yesterday evening John McCain took part in the Sturgis Rally 2008 at Buffalo Chip in South Dakota, an annual tribute to veterans. The candidate was so enthused, he told attendees, that he encouraged his wife to participate in the festivities: "I told her with a little luck, she could be the only woman ever to serve as both the first lady and Miss Buffalo Chip."

As the Huffington Post reported on Sunday, the Miss Buffalo Chip contest is more than a little risque -- not to mention bedeviled by violence:

ESPN's Jim Caple described the as "essentially a topless beauty pageant. And occasionally bottomless, too."


"During a drenching rain Wednesday night, the contest broke up into smaller groups and one woman wound up dancing naked on a bar top. Her boyfriend/husband saw her and angrily dragged her away as she struggled to put her pants back on and muttered something about how, "It's only this one week a year."

How sweet. Sadly, the pageant also sees its share of domestic abuse, which even the event's organizers admit to Caple is a major problem.

Here are some videos from last year's contest (warning: probably NSFW or young readers).

Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #9

"Is the biggest proponent of George Bush's tired, failed policies ready to bring about change? Another day brings another dishonest attack from John McCain. While Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama has proposed cutting taxes for 95% of American families, what he's not telling us is that he wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies, continue giving tax breaks to corporations that ship our job overseas, and provide no direct tax relief for more than 100 million middle-class families. It's time to retire these old policies and bring new energy to America," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #8

On Friday, a group of ten Senators, hoping to break a stalemate on the nation's energy debate, unveiled compromise legislation to open new areas in the Gulf of Mexico to drilling (in addition to allowing exploration as close to 50 miles off of Florida's Gulf coast) while also raising taxes on major oil companies.

The five Democrats and five Republicans behind the effort were quickly joined by Obama, who objects to drilling but called the compromise "a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning." For this he was labeled a flip-flopper by Republican critics and given a slap on the wrist by some environmental advocates.

The short-term backlash may pale in comparison to the potholes that confront McCain. The Arizona Republican's campaign has been opaque in its response to the Gang of Ten. An anonymous aide to the Senator was quoted in the Wall Street Journal applauding the efforts, but said his boss wouldn't support the proposal because "he cannot and will not support legislation that raises taxes."

Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #7

This week, Senator John McCain made clear that you shouldn't try to combat the rising cost of gas by checking your car's tire pressure, so your car gets more per gallon (something everyone from Al Gore to President Bush, from Joe Lieberman to Barack Obama, from NASCAR to environmental groups say you should do). He's even mocking the idea by handing out "joke" tire pressure gauges, and has a new childish web video out making a joke out of it.

Counter it with quotes from the above and others. According to TIME magazine, John McCain's sole idea to "drill here and drill now" won't produce oil until the year 2030, and then it will only be 200,000 barrels per day. In comparison, the government estimates that if everyone made sure their car tires were fully inflated, we could start to reduce our oil consumption by 800,000 barrels per day, right now. Even NASCAR agrees that the right tire pressure is one of the most important elements to fuel efficiency. (There's the perfect Obama ad visual.) While Joe Lieberman may be a recent convert (along with McCain) to the necessity of offshore drilling, the independent senator has long advocated a smarter approach to the nation's tire fleet. Lieberman's own website still features several press releases that treat tire efficiency as a smart idea -- even a critical national security issue.

Nestled within the "Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005," which Lieberman introduced in the Senate, section 201 requires the creation of a "national tire fuel efficiency program for tires designed for the use on passenger cars and light trucks."

It doesn't stop there, either. Lieberman is on record going as far back as 2001 touting the significant role tire efficiency can play in any plan to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil. In a 2001 press release arguing against exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Senator said: "Increasing the fuel efficiency of replacement tires for our cars to the same level as those sold on new automobiles will save drivers $90 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the tires and will save the U.S. more than 70 times the amount of oil we might find in the Refuge."

In 2005, another press release referenced the benefits of creating "a tire efficiency program for tires used on light duty vehicles."

Lieberman is not the only McCain supporter who feels that tires are a useful point of leverage in the battle for energy security. As the LA Times reported in June, both California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Governor Charlie Crist have encouraged drivers to keep tires inflated -- even as they disagreed about the value of offshore drilling. Indeed, tire maintenance would appear to be the one energy cause that almost everyone can get behind -- save for McCain's campaign.

Here's something else that is no joke. Senator McCain has gotten $2 million from big oil, and in return, he's blocking investment into alternative energy, like wind and solar power. Here's just a sliver of what hasn't seen the light of day because Senator No has blocked it: a Renewable Energy Tax Credit Extension Worth 116,000 Jobs Per Year, Billions in Tax Credits For Renewable Energy Production, $290 Million For R&D On Renewable Energy, Including Wind Power. And, Senator McCain cast the deciding vote to cut funding for the Rural Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program from $23 Million To $3 Million. All of these things would have led to us needing to purchase billions of fewer barrels of oil from the Middle East.

McCain statement: "Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it," McCain said.

Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #6

He's the original maverick.

One is ready to lead -- McCain.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

###

UPDATE: The Obama camp responds with a statement and a clip from a GOP debate in which McCain said the country was "better off" than it was "eight years ago" -- admittedly a different time frame than that in McCain's latest ad, but interesting nonetheless.

"Senator McCain wants Americans to forget that during the Republican primary, he said that Americans were better off than we were eight years ago, and that he thinks we've made 'great progress economically.' He wants us to forget that he's fully embraced the Bush policies he once opposed, and bragged about supporting those policies 'more than 90 percent of time.' The truth is, being a maverick isn't practicing the same kind of politics we have seen from Washington for decades, it isn't having a campaign run by Washington lobbyists, and it's certainly not promoting the same policies that have led America down the wrong path these past eight years," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Fine. He responded. Who knows it? Where's the ad?

OBAMA AD #5

Thus this MCain ad, "Broken," which opens with the line: "Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago." It's notable for a word that doesn't appear anywhere: Obama.

Show how McCain contributed to it.

OBAMA AD #4

Cover this:

To turn Barack Obama's youth and vibrancy into a negative -- as opposed to the 72-year-old John McCain being the oldest nominee ever for president -- the McCain campaign blasts him making a remarkable basketball shot, rather than visiting troops. (Never mind that he made the basketball shot with the troops).

OBAMA AD #3

Cover this:

Once McCain was a lonely voice in the conservative movement pushing real action on global warming and opposing phony solutions like offshore drilling. True, like most conservatives he opposed and still opposes incentives and standards for renewables as well as levels of vehicle fuel economy needed to actually move us toward energy independence. And yes, McCain has walked away from serious climate policy in recent months.

We need to off-shore drill for oil and natural gas," McCain said, "And anybody who says we can achieve energy independence without using and increasing these existing energy resources either doesn't have the experience to understand the challenge we face or isn't giving the American people some straight talk.

The amount of offshore oil currently unavailable for drilling is negligible and even Bush's own energy analysts admit that.

The media refuses to police the most absurd of McCain's energy lies, such as his claim of oil producers "within a matter of months [of ending the federal moratorium on coastal drilling], they could be getting additional oil

"If [conservatives] do, in fact, distribute tire gauges it will one of the most beneficial things they've done for the general populous in at least the last 28 years."

OBAMA AD #2

Obama - show him traveling abroad, shaking hands with dignitaries. Quote dignitaries. Quote foreign poll results. Quote Obama on what he would do.

McCain - show his mispeaks on foreign policy, policy positions on foreign policy, votes in Congress.

Tag: Who has the better foreign policy?

OBAMA AD #1

Obama - discuss his poor upbringing, abandoned by father, etc. Worked as community organizer. Positions to help the middle class.

McCain - show his houses, his wife's money, her comment about traveling Arizona in a private plane. His positions in favor of big money. John McCain has $100 million in assets and six houses.

Tag: Who's the elitist?

THEY GET SMARTER EVERY DAY

When I come up with an idea which I think needs to be considered beyond the minimal audience of this blog, and which I have not seen extensively put about, I sometimes put it up on Daily Kos. I'm usually very sorry when I do. This is my latest Kos posting, with comments attached. I'm glad that Obama has strong moron support - at least he has a chance with the huge idiot vote. But it depresses me that they support the same guy I do - and that I live in a country where the below comments pass for political thought. (The last guy's comment redeems them somewhat.)

It seems the word "speculation" is not comprehended.

________


Who's running Obama campaign these days? Hotlist
by aschefrin [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]
Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM PDT

After watching Obama's brilliant primary performance, you have to wonder what has happened since Obama became presumptive nominee, and why his campaign looks so weak now. My personal speculation is that Obama has chosen to - or has had to - take into his campaign operators from all the other campaigns, including Hillary's, and is now listening - or being forced to listen - to their advice. What I hope Obama remembers one of these days is that all these people lost.

Comments:

Weak? the only weak about Obama and the Dems is taking time to read weak diaries like this! Brwha!!! McCain: Without Issues, Without Vision, Without Integrity. --- or Obama: With Truth, With Kindness, With Endurance.


o
typical pollyanna (0+ / 0-)
+
typical irrational and insane person. nt (0+ / 0-)

*
Wow! What great commentary, based on absolutely nothing! I'm sure Obama would immediately fire his primary advisers to hire Hilary's. I mean, it just makes so much sense!

o
makes a lot of sense. unless u want 3rd term for bush
ask kerry and gore if they don't look back and wish they had done them same
nothing wrong with changing horses
all these guys and girls are paid mercenaries
anyhow so we might as well get some new blood

*
Troll Alert!!!!!

Ya think? Nah.......... n/t (1+ / 0-)


There once was a man named mccain, who had the whole white house to gain, but he was quite a hobbyist of boning his lobbyist, so much for his 08 campaign. SC

Qwerty...

After watching Obama's brilliant primary performance, you have to wonder what has happened since Obama became presumptive nominee, and why his campaign looks so weak now.

I heard the same complaints/worries throughout the primary about Obama, from not only the MSM bobble heads, but also from nervous supporters on Daily Kos. Yet he went on to win against tough opposition. His campaign team aint perfect, but it is pretty damn good. They're already addressing things from last week in a smart way, as they have before.

I always felt this was going to be close.

yes looking at the world thru rose colored (0+ / 0-)

glasses
running against the most pathetic has been in history (mcSame) and still in a horse race
if we lose this one there is no tomorrow
we have great candidate great issues and we cannot break through.
country wants a change but he or she must be white caucasion anglo saxon protestant WASP
*
Proof?

Can you site an example that Axelrod and Plouffe are not still in command and that the people brought on from other campaigns aren't just taking orders.

In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

Wish I could. It's just my fear ... (0+ / 0-)

by aschefrin on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:27:24 AM PDT

o
you totally miss the point (0+ / 0-)

the problem is that they ARE STILL IN COMMAND
axelrod must go

[ +
Why? We're WINNING. (0+ / 0-)

Oh, you're the 'tard who thinks they should put Samantha Powers in charge. Weird.


*


*
huh?

Please give me some examples.

*
trolls


Go paddle a canoe into a perfect storm. (2+ / 0-)


o
Ooh, I know how that movie ends.... (2+ / 0-)


I guess you were cryogentically frozen for the last week or so

*
Where's your donut jar, aschefrin? (1+ / 0-)

'Fraid to put one up?

Cuz I got one big fat donut waiting for you if you do.

Bet I could even count on a few others bringing donuts.

*
Why do you make me post this? WHY?


Cuz aschfrin don't know how to look it up on the toobz. Just like (s)he doesn't know how to write a diary containing more than an inflammatory introduction with no further substance, let alone any link/references to back this junk up with.

It's a good thing I've already gone through the recc'd diaries today, and many of the other very good ones. Otherwise I would not be wasting any of my time typing here.

*
If it lives under a bridge (1+ / 0-)


or in a cave, appears to have just learnt how to use the tubes, and makes pronouncements that make Jack Handley's Deep Thoughts look like poblano's regression analysis, then I think you are in the presence of a troll!




*
Have been saying exactly this for months (0+ / 0-)

the staff is inundated with clintonites
hillary in 2012 has to be in the back of their minds
axelrod must go now
samantha power must be hired now


My mother was the type who found everyone fascinating. When I asked her how she did that, she said everyone has something of value in them. I don't dispute that, but you only live one life, and this is the last minute I'll spend with people of the above caliber.