Separate but Equal

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:
"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually has had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all. Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:

"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference. The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Spoils of Victory

It has been less than 48 hours since the results of the historic election on Tuesday and the Republican response has been swift. There has not been an official from the Republican party to appear on TV without mentioning that America is "a center-right" country and that Obama would be best served to govern with that in mind. The Republicans were unable to come up with a strategy for the McCain campaign, however it seems they have decided upon their post-election strategy. Their idea is to try and convince the American people that Barack Obama has to govern as a Republican would in order to be effective.

Apparently it has not occurred to them that they lost this election. They do not get to dictate the terms under which the Obama administration goes about its business. And where do they get the idea that America is a center-right country? The Right has certainly been very vocal and organized, but with the rise of the Internet, the Left has found its voice as well. We are a 45/45 country. The 10% in the middle (who are truly persuadable) decide the fate and the direction of the country in every election. In this election they have decided that we are a little more left than right. In fact in they had pretty much decided that during the '06 election, where the Democrats made dramatic gains in the House and regained control (tenuous though it may have been) of the Senate.

Barack Obama may indeed govern from the center, but it won't be because he feels that he has to follow the dictate of the Republican party. One of the main themes of his campaign was civility. While I believe that there will be times when he takes advantage of the Democratic majority in Congress, for the most part I think that he'll try to find a position that can attract the moderate Republicans, at least, to his side. The economic realities that he will face won't allow for much creative law making anyway. The economy will dominate his domestic agenda and I suspect that while he will find very vocal opposition (to whatever position he takes) from the far right, he will also find those who are willing to cross the isle and work with him.

Republicans have to come to terms with the fact that the American people have rejected the center-right or far-right policies of the Bush administration. In the end, voters do not elect a Democrat as President for his center-right policies.

Speechless

The President-elect.

One of the People

What is the future for the Republican party? Whether they win or lose on Tuesday, it seems that there are more than a few members of their party who seem to think that Sarah Palin is going to be the face of the party going forward. Many believe that a victory tomorrow means that she will become the standard bearer for the party as she serves an apprenticeship under John McCain, a loss leaves her positioned to run for the Presidency in 2012. The most often mentioned reason for her support is that she's "one of the people". There is a general consensus that she more like "Joe six-pack" than Joe Biden, and that is seen as a positive.

Sarah Palin recently complained that the press criticism of her, may in fact be infringing upon her First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects the American people from Congress enacting laws that would infringe upon their right of free speech. How does that relate to the press criticizing Sarah Palin? It doesn't, but since when do the facts have anything to do with the popularity of Governor Palin. In her world, the First Amendment would protect the government from the criticism of the press even though the document actually says the complete opposite. In her world, the Vice President is not only part of the Executive branch, but the most powerful member of the Legislative branch as well. It is that lack of basic understanding of the Constitution that makes Sarah Palin not only unqualified to lead this country but highlights one of similarities between her and the current administration.

Governor Palin has said that she never wavered when asked to be John McCain's running mate, but in hindsight, perhaps she should have. I don't believe that George W. Bush always wanted to be President. I think a group of interested parties believed that they could make him President and he went along for the ride. As with President Bush, Sarah Palin's ambition got in the way of common sense. There clearly was no vetting of her before she was picked by John McCain. From her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter, to her ethics violation investigation by the Alaska state legislature to her husband's ties to an Alaskan secessionist party, she was a ticking time bomb when she was tabbed for the VP slot by John McCain. McCain hoped that she would not only excite the base of the party, but bring in disaffected Hilliary Clinton voters as well. While she has succeeded in the former, she has not been able to bring over Hillary Clinton supporters in any great numbers. She knew what kind of baggage she would be dragging with her into the national spotlight (including exposing her children to excessive scrutiny), but that all took a backseat to the chance to advance herself.

She has shown a glaring shallowness of knowledge about national and international politics. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were disasters. She has been abandoned by some of the leading figures in the right leaning press (who are now branded as "elitist" for failing to support her) and many prominent Republican figures have thrown their support behind Barack Obama, while pointing to her selection as a major reason for their decision. None of this has seemed to matter to the base of the Republican party. Sarah Palin is one of them. All attacks against her are viewed as unwarranted and just symbolic of the bias of the "liberal media" (that of course ignores the fact that people like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan are far from being liberals). According to her supporters, she is the perfect face for the Republican Party because of her mistakes, not in spite of them. Her lack of understanding, her misstatements, her outright gaffes, all show that she is a regular person and that is what they value in a leader. Well, that and a committed opposition to abortion.

The standards for leadership in this country have fallen to the point that actual competency no longer matters. Intelligence is now viewed as a detriment. Who wants to hang out with someone who's going to make you feel stupid? We would much rather have a President who we want to have a beer with and talk about the game with than one who is going to bore us with their "elitist" rhetoric. Ronald Reagan started us off down this path, but he was playing a part. While he may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, he spent his entire political career being indoctrinated in Conservative dogma. He learned his politics from Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, so upon arriving in the White House, he was well versed in the game. He decided that folksy was the way to go and as an actor used to playing roles, he played that one to the hilt. He was Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He was the regular guy who happened to have made it to top, but never forgot where he came from. He claimed to be the champion of the little guy and a true patriot and that's the role he successfully pulled off. George Bush, who followed him into the White House, was as far from a regular guy as you could find, but even he dumbed himself down, so that people would feel more comfortable with him. Bill Clinton (who actually was a Rhodes Scholar) also played the regular guy role. He felt our pain and earned the nickname "Bubba".

This succession of leaders who felt the need to play the role of "regular guy", led to the election of someone who wasn't playing a role. George W. Bush clearly lacks the intellectual capacity of his immediate successors and has led this country to the brink of disaster. He came into office as a "compassionate conservative". His eight years in office have shown him to be neither particularly compassionate (ask the survivors of Katrina) and certainly not a Conservative (how exactly do you inherit a surplus of $200 billion and turn that into a deficit approaching $1 trillion?). He will leave his eight year term having taken almost a full year of vacation time. George W. Bush was undoubtedly "one of us" but the truth is that "one of us" is not qualified for the job.

So now we return to Governor Palin, who claims that whenever she gets a question from the media that she doesn't answer correctly that they are engaging in "gotcha" questioning. If asking a question about what newspapers you read is a "gotcha" question, then every question ever posed to a politician in the history of makind is a "gotcha" question. Sarah Palin is undoubtedly one of the people, but the question becomes, is that who we want to lead us? Do we want someone who doesn't understand the Constitution? Do we want someone who thinks that being able to see Russia from their home state gives them foreign policy credentials (I can see the moon from my backyard, but I don't think that makes me an Astronaut)? Do we want someone who can only talk about issues in soundbites? Do we want someone whose greatest ambition in life was to be an anchor on Sportscenter? Do we want someone who can't pronounce the word nuclear (oh that's right we already have that)? Do we want to settle for mediocrity? If you answered yes to those questions, then Sarah Palin is the person for you. And it seems that a lot of people in the Republican Party would agree.

A More Perfect Union

I have been and remain very skeptical of Barack Obama's prospects in next Tuesday's election. The polls, while showing McCain behind also contain enough wiggle room for an unforeseen victory. Up to 8% of voters have remained stubbornly "undecided" and I have my own thoughts about what that actually means. An Obama victory is premised on a huge turnout from the African American community and young voters. These voters are often underrepresented in polling, so Obama's lead may actually be larger than it appears, however many a candidate has been disappointed on an election night because these constituencies did not turn up as expected. I have decided to write an article about what an Obama Presidency would mean. This is not a review of policy, rather a look at the bigger picture.

Our Declaration of Independence contains these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...". America has never really lived up to those words. From slavery to the genocide of the native Americans to Jim Crow to denying women the right to vote to the internment of the Japanese during WWII to de facto segregation to trickle down economics to the continued abuse of illegal immigrants to denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, America has used and abused the least among us for the enrichment and benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful among us. We have allowed fear and ignorance of the unknown to deprive us of the thing that makes us special. The diversity of this country is what had made America great, yet we have found many ways to try and protect our perceived homogony from every "attack" from every wave of immigrants who have found their ways to these shores either willingly or unwillingly. As we enter the final days of this most important election, the Democratic candidate has been subject to every type of label to inspire fear that can be mustered. He is a Socialist, Marxist, communist, Arab, Manchurian Candidate, terrorist, friend to terrorist, enemy of Israel, Anti Christ, foreigner, baby killer, anti-American, racist. These are labels that attempt to inspire fear and hatred. They are attempts to show that Obama is not one of us, he's one of the "them". One of "them", who doesn't deserve to be treated as an equal. One of "them" who doesn't deserve our respect. And one of "them" who certainly doesn't deserve to President of the United States.

If Barack Obama were actually to become the next President of the United States would the country be transformed overnight? Of course not. We face an economic crisis of untold proportion and there is nothing that will make that go away, least of all the election of a new President. The rich will still be rich, the poor will still be poor, the homeless will still be homeless, hundreds of thousands of our troops will still be deployed in the Middle East and our economy is still going to be in very poor shape. The new President is going to be left with multiple issues to deal with from the current administration. An Obama presidency would not mean that our problems would disappear, in fact, the next President is going to face some monumental challenges that no change in policy is going to be able to overcome in a few months. The country would head in a different direction under an Obama administration, but the issues are and would continue to be very challenging for the country.

However, an Obama presidency would mean more than just a change in the policies of the country. The election of an African-American would signal something much larger than that. Our immediate domestic situation may not change greatly, but our reputation and standing around the world would be enormously affected. America has always held itself up as an example of what is possible. America was able to exert its influence around the world not only because it is a military super power, but because it was a symbol of morality. We held an image (of ourselves at least), of having some moral high ground from which to preach to the rest of the world. That image has been tainted by the current administration. From torture to warrantless wiretapping, this administration has ceded that position. Our current administration has toiled under the motto of the ends justifying the means. We are no longer an example of the best of what is possible, we have become common in our wielding of power at home and abroad.

At the end of the day, this election is not for the pleasure or amusement of the rest of the world. In my opinion, there is not a nation on this planet with a majority White population that would elect a Black person as their leader. So while I appreciate that they look at this election with great interest, their condemnation or approval of the outcome is not a primary concern. The primary concern is what would an Obama victory mean here at home. The symbolism of an African-American President is unmistakable. Our nation, (which held itself up for so long as the bastion of freedom and equality, while denying basic rights to portions of its citizens), will have proven to the world (but mainly to itself) that it can take a giant step toward living up the true meaning of our creed that all men are created equal. The division and mistrust between races will of course remain, but nothing that fundamental is ever changed overnight. For our children it will have a much greater meaning. Our children will never know a world in which someone other than a White male has never been the leader of the country. Our children, of every color, will never know a world in which they cannot dream of one day holding the highest land in the office. Our children will look at Barack Obama, not as the Black president, but as THE President.

This really shouldn't be a black or white issue. Our country has strived earnestly for the past 50 years to try and overcome some of the sins of our past. It is an ongoing battle. It is very easy for us to point to some new group of immigrants who doesn't speak our language and demonize them and without vigilance we will give in to our fears. Electing Barack Obama will not solve our problems overnight, but I honestly believe that his administration would provide us with the best chance at a workable solution for our future. I do not support him as a symbolic gesture, I support him because I believe that he is the best person for the job, regardless of race. The symbolism will remain however. It would mean that the highest position in the land is open to all and that we as a nation have taken a small step forward in our development. It would mean that we have taken a giant leap along the road toward building a more perfect union. I will end with these words from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Crystal Ball

Just a couple of quick notes for today. First of all, you will be able to tell the outcome of the election very early on the 4th. The polls in Virginia close at 7pm and quick call for Obama will prove that the polling numbers are indeed correct (if you are an Obama fan, you can open the champagne at that point). If the race is seen as too close to call and remains that way for a number of hours, then the networks and the entire country will be in for a long night. Just a side note to pat myself on the back. On August 21st I wrote this, "Like the 2000 election when it was all about Florida, Florida, Florida, the 2008 election may be all about Virginia, Virginia, Virginia." The second note is that if the Republicans lose the election, you can mark my words that their next candidate for President will have a very familiar name. John Ellis Bush, better know as Jeb, will be the next Republican candidate for President. I'm sure that Sarah Palin, with her strong support among the Evangelical base of the party will try and make some push (that is if she doesn't get impeached in Alaska first), but smarter heads will prevail in the end. Jeb is destined to have the next shot at the Presidency, either in 2012 (if Obama wins) or 2016 (if McCain wins).

What, Me Worry?

Why is this man smiling? He's smiling because he just pulled a fast one on the voters of New York City. He's smiling because he just proved that money trumps Democracy. He's smiling because no matter what the law says, he knows that his money puts him above it. He's smiling because now he can stay in elected office until 2012 so that he can make a run at the White House. He's smiling because life couldn't be easier when you've got a 30 Billion in the bank. He's smiling because his life is better than yours. He's smiling because he knows that he's going to be fine no matter what kind of financial storm the country experiences. He's smiling because at the end of the day he's not you!

Joe, We Hardly Knew Ye

General Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President today and the reaction from the far right has been swift and vicious. They have called him everything from a war criminal to disgruntled ex-employee. The most consistent attack has been that his support of Obama can be traced to the simple fact that he's black. General Powell (who I happen to believe carries a large portion of the blame for the Iraq War because of his UN speech) gave an eloquent and extensive speech on his reasons for his decision. This however did not seem to be enough for his former admirers on the far right.

Pat Buchanan asked today on Harball if Colin Powell would be endorsing Barack Obama if he were a white liberal Democrat. He also said that people are going to raise questions about Powell's motives and that the reasons are valid. So since Pat Buchanan has seen fit to impugn the motivations of General Powell, I feel it only fitting that I return the favor. Joe Lieberman is a racist. I don't mean the "I wish all black people would die" kind of racist. He is after all a member of a religious minority, but based on his actions in endorsing the White Republican candidate for President, I can only conclude that he made the decision based on race.

Here's a statement the Senator from Connecticut made back in 2006 about Barack Obama:

"He is a blessing to the US Senate, to America and to our shared hope for a better safer tomorrow for all our families. The gifts that God has given to Barack Obama are as enormous as his future is unlimited. I look forward to helping him reach to the stars and realize not just the dreams he has for himself, but the dreams we all have for him and our blessed country."

And at the Republican convention:

"I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party. I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American."

"Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times. In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party."

So how is it possible that in two years, Senator Joe Lieberman (a lifetime Democrat and one time VP nominee) went from being a strong supporter of Barack Obama to being dedicated to bringing about his defeat. There are some who have suggested that the fact that Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primary and had to run as an Independent has caused him to exhibit some bitterness toward the Democratic party. That seems to make sense, however there was one Senator who made the trip to Connecticut to back Lieberman in his senate race and that was Barack Obama. Here is what Obama said during that Senate race:

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it. I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

So while Lieberman may have reasons to be at odds with some in the Democratic party, Obama clearly should not fall into that category. He and Senator Obama do differ on the Bush administration policy in Iraq, but disagreements over policy are certainly to be expected among members of the same party and I am sure that their social policies line up much better than do Lieberman's and McCain's. McCain is dedicated to overturning Roe V. Wade, which Lieberman is absolutely in favor of. Lieberman, was at the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King, and says that it inspired him to a life of public service. John McCain voted against a national holiday for MLK every chance he got. I would bet that from a host of issues from education to Women's rights, Lieberman is much more closely aligned to the position of Obama than McCain.

Can there be any other reason, except for race, that Lieberman would endorse and actively campaign for John McCain? You could say that he thinks that McCain is the best person for the job. Or that he thinks that McCain would handle foreign policy better. Or that he thinks McCain has the right experience for the job. Or that he agrees with McCain's policy decisions. Or that he thinks McCain would be better at reaching across the isle to Democrats. Or that McCain would be better at getting things done. Or that McCain is a different kind of Republican. Or that he's just more comfortable with his long time friend in the White House. NAAAAAAAAHHH. The only reason he's supporting McCain is because he's white. There can't possibly be another reason. He's just a racist.

A House Divided

Michelle Bachmann, a spokesperson (who happens to be US Congresswoman) for the McCain campaign said today that Barack Obama should be investigated because of the ties that he has to radical (and here's the key word) anti-American people. She mentioned Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko (who I thought was just a crooked business man, but what do I know). She also said that all members of Congress should be looked at to find out whether they are "pro-America or anti-America. This kind of rhetoric is straight out of the fifties, HUAC (House un-American activities committee) and Joe McCarthy.

It is not only scary that the McCain campaign is now stooping to these levels, but it is outright dangerous. What exactly are they trying to say about Barack Obama at this point? It seems that they are sending out their subordinates to spread the word that Obama is anti-American by association. Wouldn't that mean that someone would be a patriot by making sure that he never becomes the President? One day McCain is talking down a member of crowd who claimed that Obama was an Arab and the next day his campaign is propagating the idea that Obama is basically a Communist. I have no idea where this is leading, but it certainly isn't leading anywhere good. The McCain campaign now has no problem in trying to whip up his supporters to not only disagree with the proposed policies of Barack Obama, but to question whether his motivations are "patriotic".

This country is faced with its greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, but the McCain campaign would like nothing more than to spend the last 18 days of this campaign questioning the "Americanism" of Barack Obama. Since he has been unable to rattle Obama in the debates and show that he is somehow incapable of handling the job, he now has to resort to the Obama's not "American" enough argument and he's too mysterious. I think that the McCain campaign might start holding up a piece of paper at their next rally, which they will claim has the names of known Communists that Obama has been "pallin' " around with.

This country will need to work as one in order to get through the coming economic storm. John McCain seems intent on driving a wedge right in the middle of this country. Sarah Palin actually talked about "Pro-American" areas of the country, conversely according to the would be Vice-President, there must be anti-American areas of the country. Perhaps she was speaking of the headquarters of the political party that her husband belonged to for a better part of a decade and that she recorded a welcome message for this year, that openly supports that Alaska leave the union. Or perhaps she meant my home, New York. Maybe she meant Illinois, which sent Obama to the Senate. I have no idea what she meant, but clearly this is not what the country needs at this point. What ever happened to the slogan of the McCain-Palin campaign? What exactly does "Country First" mean to them? Does it mean trying to do what's best for the country, or trying to win at all costs? Their action would lead me to believe that it's much more likely the latter.

I have no delusions that Obama is actually ahead by 6,7,8 or 9 points. I know that the undecided vote will break McCain's way. I know that their are people who will go into the voting booth with every intention of voting for Obama and come out having voted the other way. I know that the Presidential Republican victories have been based on identity politics and dividing this nation into "us" against "them". I know that this latest and most vigorous attempt to brand Obama as "different" is just part of the usual plan. There was a part of me that always knew this was coming, but I was hoping that this election might be different. I didn't expect it to be less negative, but given John McCain's pledge to run an honorable campaign, I hoped for better. Barack Obama has misstated or lied about McCain's positions and policies, but he has never reduced himself to the politics of personal attacks. He has never brought up the fact that McCain cheated on his disabled wife, he has never brought the fact that McCain got favorable treatment in the Navy, he has never brought up the fact that McCain has repeatedly gone back against his word, he has never brought up the fact that McCain picked someone who is wholly unprepared for the complexity of national office.

I can see what's coming and it's going to be ugly. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, " A house divided against itself, cannot stand". The last eight years have shown us what we get from a divided nation, however based on everything that the McCain campaign has done, that is not only their wish but their ultimate goal.

Hindsight is 20/20

Here is where we stand today:
-Obama is up by 7-9 points

-The debates are over

-The economic crisis continues to dominate the news

-Obama is making gains in traditional Republican states (North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana)

-John McCain has pulled his resources out of Michigan and the RNC is leaving even more

-No candidate has ever come back from a deficit this large at this stage of the race

So how do I feel at this point? The same as I always have. This race is John McCain's to lose. The euphoria from the Democratic side of the aisle is to be expected. The Democrats haven't won the White House in eight years and there are a lot of people voting this year who have never had the pleasure of voting for a winning presidential candidate. I would caution against too much celebrating however. After the second debate, the CNN panel was practically unanimous in their assessment that if the economic numbers held for Obama, the race was over. There was one voice who was not caught up in the numbers and that was David Gergen who reminded everyone that nothing in this race is predictable because of the simple fact that Obama is black.

Obama's race is alternately ignored and then over-analyzed. One minute the pundits act as if the issue doesn't exist and then the next moment, it is all that exists. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Race will be a factor in the election, the question remains as to how much of a factor it will be. That is the question that at this point has no answer. There is no precedent for this. The Bradley factor (named after the former mayor of Los Angeles who led by a substantial margin in the polls for Governor only to lose on election day) or the Wilder effect (named after the Governor of Virginia who went into the election with a 9 point lead and ending up winning by less than 1/2 a percent) can basically be thrown out of the window. This is not an election for the head of a town, city or state. This is an election for the biggest job in the world. No matter how far we have come in race relations in this country, race will still trump a lot of the personal interests of voters.

The unanswerable question at this point is how many of those undecided voters are truly undecided or just unwilling to state a preference because they don't want to be accused of bias. There are some who are unwilling to name Obama because they would be going against family and friends and there are some who are unwilling to name McCain because of the same reason. At this point we can assume that the majority of undecideds are White because of Obama's overwhelming support among Blacks. So how would a White woman in rural Kentucky tell her friends and family that she is bucking decades of family tradition and ideals and voting for a Barack Obama for President? I would guess very carefully. I can imagine the same being true of a closet McCain voter in a similar position. The easiest thing to be in this election is a registered Republican or Democrat, that way you can avoid being branded by simply stating that you are voting for your parties candidate. The "persuadable"/ Independent/ Undecided voter is in the toughest position because they cannot simply hide under a party banner.

The race will undoubtedly tighten before election day. Obama is counting on an unprecedented turn out from both minorities and younger voters to propel him to victory on November 4th. Previous candidates have gone down this road only to be disappointed come election day. Obama's national lead, while outside the margin of error, is still not safe from the undecideds breaking McCain's way and some of his promised support either switching sides or not showing up at all. Obama cautioned today against over confidence and complacency and he had good reason to do so. I wrote a piece back on September 29th in which I stated that the race was not over. Well, it wasn't over then and it ain't over now. There are more turns to come in this race, the least of which may just be the American people changing their minds one more time.

Class Dismissed

A question was recently asked of one of the Democratic nominees concerning whether the proposed tax increase of people making over $250K might be a signal of class warfare. I don't remember the answer that was given (I'm sure it was fairly dismissive of the notion), but I couldn't help but think about the fact that class warfare has been underway for a long time and it's not really hard to figure out who is coming out on the short end. We have transformed from a government "by the people, for the people" to a ruling class that takes action for their benefit and then tells the people that they are doing for the good of everyone. We basically no longer have a voice in the direction that we take. We have become as meek as a flock of sheep that follow the direction of the all knowing shepherd.

WE THE PEOPLE are unarmed for the combat that is being waged against us. We head into this battle armed with a water gun while we are staring down the barrel of a tank. At this point the people have very little say in what is done "in their name". The administration decides that they would like to break international law and torture prisoners so they just transform their definition of torture and come up with a palatable term like "enhanced interrogation techniques". The response from the people is negligible. Thanks to a helping hand from "24" on Fox and the methods of Jack Bauer, the American people have now been convinced that torture is not only acceptable but necessary.

The brilliant individuals on Wall St., who when left to their own devices, decided to invest heavily in a spin of a roulette table. Basically what they did was put a large portion of their money on one number and while the ball was spinning, everyone was having a good ol' time. CEO's were taking home pay packages in the tens of millions, and everyone was getting rich on a bet that had a very small chance of paying off. Of course the people making those bets weren't risking their own money; they were risking the pensions and retirement funds of the American people. The government knew this was going on, but chose to ignore it because, hey, it's only the American people who are going to get screwed if this doesn't pay off. So when it all comes crashing down, guess who gets stuck with the bill? You guessed it, the grazing sheep in the meadow. Where was the alarm when the investment banks were mortgaging the future of the financial system on a sucker bet? Where was the government when banks were giving out loans like they were free samples at the supermarket? They were being wined and dined by the very people whose greed has led to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. What about the people you ask? The people who they are supposed to serve, the people who rely on their elected officials to protect their interests? Those people get stuck with the bill.

Here in New York, our two term mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has decided that only he has a steady enough hand to lead NY through this economic crisis and therefore he will ignore the law and run for a third term. New Yorkers have voted for term limits twice and even the then sainted Rudy Guliani was not allowed to continue on as mayor in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. In fact when Rudy floated the idea of being allowed to stay on for an extra six months, Mr. Bloomberg was one of the loudest voices that rose in opposition to the idea. In fact, I think his exact words were, "everyone is replaceable". Apparently he was talking about everyone but himself. Now of course you would think that regardless of his wishes, he can't just break the law and run for Mayor, can he? You would be right, if not for the fact that he is planning on getting the City Council to approve making an exception to the law (just this one time). Of course the proposed law would also allow everyone on the City Council who is also facing term limits to stay on for an extra term as well. So in order to subvert the will of the voters of New York, he is asking the City Council to vote on whether they want to keep their own jobs. What is the response from the people? Silence. Perhaps there are voices of dissent in the press? Not quite. The New York Post and Daily News both seem to think that this is a splendid idea. We have become such meek followers that even when our wishes are blatantly ignored, we apparently no longer have the will to protest.

As we face this upcoming election, one candidate has once again shown the disdain that the ruling class has for the people. John McCain, by naming someone as woefully inadequate and intellectually mediocre as Sarah Palin, is basically thumbing his nose at the American people. Instead of picking someone who might help solve the very serious problems that face this nation, he picked someone for shock value alone. What would happen if she would have to replace him as the President? He doesn't care. He'd be dead or incapacitated anyway. What about the good of the people you ask, once again? Since when did that enter into the equation?

If you doubt what I've said here, I will leave you with this little tidbit, that our illustrious Vice President decided to share with us, from an interview earlier this year about the Iraq War:

Raddatz: "Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives."

Cheney: "So?"

All Things To All People

The debate last night was less than memorable. There were no "You're no John Kennedy" moments. It was basically what debates are these days, a reassurance to the supporters of both sides. Sarah Palin came in having passed through some very rough press coverage. Her interviews showed her to be less than knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects. There were some who questioned whether she would even show up. Well, she did show up and provided at least a measure of relief to her supporters. She didn't have any deer in the headlights moments and managed to get through the entire 90 minutes without making a major gaffe. Biden entered the debate with a clear mission to make sure he got the message out that a McCain administration would essentially be a continuation of the Bush administration. And considering he mentioned John McCain and George Bush in at least half his answers, he accomplished what he set out to do.

Sarah Palin may have impressed her core supporters, but her outright refusal to answer some of the questions should have been called out more often by Gwen Ifill. It seemed clear to me that Ms. Ifill had been shaken by the criticism of her by the McCain campaign and the right leaning press about the fact that she was writing a book that contained a chapter about Barack Obama. Instead of challenging the candidates when they refused to answer a question, she almost meekly moved on to the next topic. It was quite disappointing to see such a respected and competent journalist and interviewer cowed into a less than representative performance.

Joe Biden's performance was solid. He demonstrated the depth and breadth of his knowledge and he was on his best behavior when it came to dealing with Sarah Palin. He always referred to her as Governor and for the most part refused to engage her when she gave him on opening. He defended Barack Obama and attacked John McCain, but almost acted as if Sarah Palin was a mere stand in for John McCain. He did not attack her record, or the inconsistencies in her speeches, he attacked John McCain and tied him George Bush as often as possible. I thought his worst moment came when he said that he did not support Gay marriages. I know that both he and Barack Obama do not agree with that point, and his delivery of the line was not very convincing. It was also his most "politician-y" moment of the night. Barack Obama has promised a new kind of politics, but this was just an example of more politics as usual.

Sarah Palin regurgitated her standard talking points throughout the night. She never at any point demonstrated deep knowledge of any topic that was discussed. And her winking, giggling and at times, dismissive attitude felt very wrong for the serious situation this country now finds itself in. She almost seemed to revel in the fact that she was not going to answer the questions that were asked. If a topic came up that she was unfamiliar with, she would quickly pivot to either a story about her time as a mayor in Alaska or to energy policy. Her worst moment came when she actually talked about expanding the powers of the Vice President. I'm not sure what her point was there and it seemed to come out of left field. She probably did a lot to assuage the fears of her supporters who were afraid that the debate would be a repeat of the Couric/Gibson interviews. At no point did she freeze up, although she did utter some absolutely non-sensical sentences and phrases.

The pundits now watch the debates, less for substance, but to try and pick out what moment "connected" with the viewers. In the first McCain - Obama debate there was more talk about McCain's body language than about his actual substantive answers. We have gotten to the point where style can triumph over substance. Just another example of how George W. Bush has contributed to the glorification of mediocrity. The line that some pundits have used about Sarah Palin being "one of us" should be absolutely frightening to almost everyone. Since when did we decide that the most important job in the country should be put in the hands of the "average citizen". I wonder if most American's pick their doctors or lawyers this way. I wonder if when they ask for a referral to a specialist, they ask for the one who is the most average. I can imagine the conversation, "I need brain surgery?Could you tell if you know of any really average surgeons? I don't like those elitist, smart ones. They don't really seem to understand my problems." Or "I'm on trial for my life? Could you get me the lawyer who finished fifth from the bottom of their graduating class of 450. And no he doesn't need to know much about the law, just as long as he's someone that speaks my language and I wouldn't mind having a drink with."

The bottom line is that people watching probably got exactly what they wanted out of the debate. Leaners were probably more inclined to lean in their chosen direction and those who have already made their decisions were certainly not motivated to change their minds based on anything that was done last night. It seems clear that debates (at least as these are structured) don't offer much upside. However, each candidate must be careful to avoid the gaffe heard 'round the world. This leads to less spirited debate and more repetition of rehearsed and familiar lines and themes. They may be boring, but the candidates still have to be on their toes, lest they suffer the fate of Gerald Ford, who still to this day is best known for falling down (thanks to SNL) and for claiming, during his debate with Jimmy Carter, that there was no soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

Just a side note: Why the hell can't the Republicans find candidates who can pronounce the word nuclear. It's not cute or endearing or funny or folksy or whatever other "code" word it is that is used to describe the inability to pronounce words. Sarah Palin and George Bush are not cute toddlers with a lisp. One is, and one is vying to become the leader of this nation. It makes them both sound illiterate and stupid when they fail at the correct use of the English language. I bet even those so called "average" folks that they are supposed to appeal to can pronounce the word. What the hell is nu - cu - lar anyway?

I Am Not Amused

In anticipation of tonight's Vice Presidential debate, I just wanted to post some of Sarah Palin's greatest hits during her interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. They really speak for themselves.

Palin on:
The Supreme Court
Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Palin: "Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …"
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

On Foreign policy experience:
Palin: "And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor."
Gibson: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?"
Palin: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Couric: "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?"
Sarah Palin: "That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters."
Couric: "Mocked?"
Palin: "Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah."
Couric: "Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials."
Palin: "Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: "Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?"
Palin: "We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

On the Bailout:
Couric: "Could the $700 billion economic bailout be filtered more through middle-class American families, rather than down through Wall Street financiers".
Palin: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in ... where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

On Bush Foreign Policy:
Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

Palin: “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?”

Palin: “His world view?”
Gibson: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

Palin: “I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.”

And there you have it. The confidence inspiring comments from the person who would be Vice President of the United states. Of course there is some precedent for this. I'll leave you with this brilliant observation from the person single handedly responsible for lowering the bar for all who would follow:

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

J. Danforth Quayle

It Ain't Over...

Truman holding up the "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline is one the most famous photos of the 20th Century. In the days and weeks leading up to the election it had been assumed that Thomas Dewey of New York would succeed Truman as the President. Truman has been thrust into the role when FDR died a few months into his fourth term and the polls showed Dewey with an all but insurmountable lead. It was assumed that Truman was in his last days as President. Truman embarked on a whistle stop campaign across the country in the week leading up to the election as Dewey worked on putting his new administration together. Truman took his message to the people and they responded. His middle class values and down home wisdom trumped the seemingly elitist Northerner.

The reason I bring this up is because of the current state of the polls which show Obama with a widening lead. Based on a couple of bad weeks for McCain, the national numbers are moving Obama's way. The upcoming Vice Presidential debate maybe another major turning point of the election. It would seem that Obama's lead, given the fact that we are only 5 weeks away from election day, would point to a victory on election day. I would caution against such thinking for a couple of reasons. First, the polls have shown amazing volatility over the past 6 weeks. Obama went from a 9 point lead (in the Gallup poll) after his overseas trip, to a 6 point deficit (after the Republican convention), to currently sporting an 8 point lead. That kind of movement should not inspire confidence in Obama supporters and it should provide some comfort to the McCain camp. There is more than enough evidence to show that a game changing event can and more than likely will take place before election day. Five weeks is certainly enough time for the numbers to swing ten points in either direction.

The second reason that I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were the Obama campaign, is that the American people are still not sold on Obama's "Americaness". His every appearance on TV is another opportunity for him to provide the opening that his opponents are looking for. One slip could prove fatal to his campaign. Obama has to navigate the next two debates with the skill of a brain surgeon. Not only does he have to show a grasp of the issues but to quote Eugene Williams of the Washington Post, he has to come across as the "least aggrieved black man in America". He has managed to walk that tightrope so far (with only the occasional bobble, e.g. the bitter comment), but he is far from the safety of the other side of the wire.

The McCain campaign surely has some more tricks up their sleeves. The problem that they face now is that the economic crisis has taken away their ability to drive the press coverage of the candidates. The press' focus is elsewhere, so any attack launched against Obama is simply not going to get the coverage that it would have if the candidates had the playing field to themselves. There is no one who is more hopeful that Congress will reach an agreement soon than John McCain. As he showed last week, his ability to affect the outcome of the debate on this topic is limited, so he has to hope for a quick resolution and a return to the days when the Presidential campaign was the lead story for the night.

I can't look into my crystal ball and predict the future, but I can certainly imagine John McCain's final appeal to the people will be based not on facts and figures but on emotion. I can imagine Senator McCain talking about his service to his country, his time as a POW, his fight to help the little guy against the greed and corruption in Washington and on Wall St. I can imagine him saying that this election is about who you feel more comfortable with in the White House. And I can imagine 50.1% of the people deciding that electing John McCain just makes them sleep better at night. Chaos doesn't always lead people to seek out something different, sometimes all they are looking for is something familiar and that is what John McCain offers. So when you look at the lead that Obama is currently enjoying, try and remember the election of '48 and try and imagine the look on Dewey's face when he woke up on that Wednesday morning and tried to understand what happened to the election that he supposedly couldn't lose.

Grand Old Grandstanding

John McCain flew in to Washington yesterday (on his flying white horse) to save the day. Unfortunately for him, by the time he got to Capitol Hill, there was a tentative deal in place on the bailout. The dog and pony show at the White House included a bipartisan panel that basically discussed the deal and it became clear that House Republicans were not on board. Barack Obama did his best to try and form a consensus while John (Dirty Harry) McCain sat silently by. I find this kind of puzzling for two reasons. First of all, John McCain was the one who called the President and asked him to hold this meeting. And secondly, his entire reason for "suspending" his campaign was so that he could work on this problem.

I think it is clear that the House Republicans and John McCain are now playing politics. House Republicans have refused to even attend some of the meetings that were planned last night to try and work out an agreement. While John McCain refuses to articulate an opinion on either the original proposal or the compromise proposal. This is a tactic to try and prove his "maverick" status. He can say that he didn't just rubber stamp the proposal from the Bush administration and instead worked with Republicans to come with an alternative that was more beneficial to "main street" America. House Republicans can run against the Bush proposal to show their distance from the unpopular President.

I think that it's perfectly fine for Congress to take a good hard look at what is being proposed and what it means to the public, but while it may not take $700 billion to fix the problem, it is going to take genuine agreement on the Hill to come up with a solution. Stalling, refusing to attend or storming out of meetings is not helping us come up with a solution. That is just grandstanding (just like John McCain "suspending" his campaign as he continued to make speeches, run ads, kept all of his field offices open and his surrogates blanketing the news networks). I want the best deal possible for the American people, but what I don't want is for this to turn into a game of chicken with the economic future of the world at stake. The House Republicans, emboldened by the return of John McCain (who hasn't cast a vote in the Senate since April), have decided that they are going to hold these talks hostage until they get what they want.

I personally think that the Democratic leadership has been too quick to capitulate to the demands of this administration on far too many occasions. I think that any negotiations should include a serious consideration of the Republican alternative (which basically wants to set up a governmental "insurance" policy that could be partially funded by private investors). The Democrats in Congress have not shown the backbone to stand up for the citizens of this country. The Republican option may not be workable (and I really have no idea if it is or not), but it might contain some elements which can be included in the final Bill. The Democrats in their rush to meet the administrations Monday line in the sand, may have overlooked some alternatives which would make for a better piece of legislation. They themselves are now involved in some political grandstanding. Instead of recognizing an alternative proposal, they are basically pouting over the fact that some Republicans don't want to play ball.

This is an extremely serious situation (yesterday saw the largest bank failure in history) and must be dealt with quickly. However both sides have now hardened their positions and are holding the economic future of the world hostage to their egos. I'm not sure how this gets resolved, but I'm hoping that cooler heads will prevail. I look forward to the debate tonight and to listening to the solutions, to end this deadlock, that each of the candidates will put forward. Both Obama and McCain can come out of this crisis with an improved image in the eyes of the public, but it is going to take a show if real leadership and real sense that they are putting the country ahead of their individual goals. Grandstanding can get you headlines, but a display of leadership might just get you to the White House.

You say Tomato

John McCain called off Friday's debate by saying that he didn't want to participate in partisan politics until this crisis had been addressed. He then said that he was suspending his campaign and flying back to Washington to help in the negotiations. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this almost laughable. John McCain is going to try and get into the middle of negotiations about a topic which he has stated, more than once, is not his strong suit. This is the same John McCain who hasn't made it to a vote in the Senate since April. This is the same John McCain who lobbied against the new G.I. Bill, then didn't bother to show to vote for it and then received credit for it's passage by George Bush. This is the same John McCain who didn't show up to vote on the new energy bill or the Medicaid bill. This is the same John McCain who just last week said that the "fundamentals of the economy" were strong. This is the same John McCain who was disciplined by the Congress for his role in the S&L disaster. This is the John McCain who now wants us to believe that his leadership is absolutely required to help out on a deal that according to those closest to the negotiations is practically done.

A spokesman for the McCain campaign said that perhaps the debate could be delayed until next week. Of course next week is the Vice Presidential debate, which the same spokesman said might also be "delayed" until the crisis was over. Now why on earth would they need to delay the VP debate? Could it be that Sarah Palin has to rush to Washington to help out in the negotiations as well? Oh, that's right, she's not a Senator. But apparently she would be so "involved" that the debate would be out of the question. It couldn't have anything to do with her invoking the prospect of a "Great Depression" in her interview with Katie Couric, could it? There's nothing American public appreciates more from it's leaders than for them to fill us with confidence by saying that we might be on the verge of the worst economic collapse that the country has seen in almost a century. Great work Sarah. The McCain campaign can't get you away from a microphone fast enough.

This gambit by McCain has been roundly criticized in the press as a "political ploy". I think that McCain was unprepared to talk about the economy on Friday night. The debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy, but with the current situation, it is clear that at least some of the time would be spent addressing the proposed bailout and the effect that it would have on the world economy. I would ask Senator McCain if FDR called for a timeout when Pearl Harbor was attacked, or did Churchill call for a timeout when London was bombed night after night? Did Kennedy ask for a timeout during the Cuban Missile Crisis? The answer, just in case Senator McCain is a little fuzzy on his history, is NO. To try and make the claim that taking two hours on Friday to debate with Barack Obama is going to somehow make or break and agreement on this financial bailout plan is absolutely ridiculous.

The McCain camp seems to be grasping at straws these days. McCain seems to change his strategy every day. One day he's against bailing out AIG, the next day he's for it. One day he wants to fire the head of the SEC and the next day he's saying what a decent man he is. One day he's all for deregulation and the next day he's calling for greater government oversight of financial markets. One day the financial crisis is a time for bipartisan efforts to deal with the problem and the next day it's all Barack Obama's fault. I'm not sure what's going on over at McCain headquarters but they could certainly use a timeout. Unfortunately, this is not a football game. The action cannot be stopped just because one party thinks that he needs some time off. Unfortunately for John McCain, we can't just call the whole thing off.

Poll Tax

This morning the pundits are once again falling all over themselves about a new set of poll numbers that show Obama leading or tied in Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. The bombastic Joe Scarborough declared that the race is over if Obama were to win those states (really? what a shock, Joe). These are the same pundits who just two weeks ago proclaimed that Obama was in serious trouble and that McCain seemed the likely winner. There are now so many polls that you can literally come up with any outcome that you would like. There are a number of sites that track the Electoral votes based on the polls and you while this week they have swung back in Obama's favor, you can certainly find sites that are projecting a McCain win based on the polls.

There are a number of factors that make polling an unreliable predictor of what will happen, but the most glaring of these is the fact that the election is still a month and a half away. I understand that the talking heads on TV have to have something to talk about every day and the seemingly endless polling gives them a topic to fixate on. The truth of the matter is that the polls pretty much show the race at exactly the same point as it was before the conventions. During that three week stretch, the polls bounced wildly between Obama and McCain. At one point Obama was up by as much as 8 points and then a week and a half later was behind by 10 points (according to Gallup). Now Obama appears to have a national lead of somewhere between one and three points. According to the pollsters, 20% of Americans have changed their decision on who they would vote for three times in the past month. I simply don't believe that there is that kind of volatility in the American electorate. In fact, I've never met anyone who is so malleable that they would change their vote as often as they change the toilet paper in the bathroom.

It is the mythical "undecided" voter who is supposedly responsible for the massive swings in the poll numbers. What I would like a poll to show me is exactly who this undecided voter is and what exactly it is they are undecided about. That would actually provide me with some useful information. In my opinion, constant polling (by every organization who has the money to commission one) feeds into the narrative of a volatile electorate. The news shows tell us every night just how changeable the situation is and they point to the polls to back up that story. It really is like one feeds the other. The news shows can always find a poll to back up their story. They cross reference different polls to illustrate whatever point it is they are trying to make. According to a Lifetime Network poll (Lifetime is doing polls now. What's next, the Food Network?), 42% of Hillary Clinton voters are not supporting Barack Obama. According to the Pew Institute that number is actually 22%, according to ABC 28%. This morning, Hillary Clinton was asked about the fact that four out of ten of her supporters are not voting for Barack Obama. A clear example of cherry picking a poll (and without a doubt the least reliable of the bunch) to back up a narrative.

I once said that momentum was the ultimate lie in politics, but I'm beginning to think that polls may now hold the top spot. I have never met an undecided voter. I have met people who didn't want to tell me who they were voting for because they didn't want me to form an opinion based on the answer, but I have never met an honest to goodness undecided voter. The fact that the undecideds/swing voter/independent voter has been getting so much attention this year is influencing more to claim that status. I myself am a registered Independent, but I am not a undecided voter. To me, the candidates positions on the issues are very clear and I can't imagine anyone actually who has actually paid attention for more than a minute is unaware of those positions. The decision should be fairly easy unless there are other factors that are influencing a voter that have nothing to do with the issues. Given McCain's age and Obama's race, we clearly have a unique situation, but I still don't think that would lead to such massive swings in the poll numbers. Obama has been black since the beginning of the campaign and McCain has been old since, well, he's just old.

The most recent polls say that this in once again Obama's election to lose. Of course, If you combine all the negative numbers that have come out on Obama (42% of Hillary voters won't vote for him, 30% of voters won't vote for him because of racial bias, 60% think he's less qualified for the job than McCain, 25% think his wife is un-American) then he really shouldn't have a chance to compete with McCain come November. However, if you give me enough time, I can come up with a poll that says the exact opposite.

Country First

In today's edition of the Omaha World Journal Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska had this to say about Sarah Palin,

"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."

"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia. That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."

"But I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world. I think that's just a requirement."

"I think it's a stretch to, in any way, to say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States."

I appreciate the fact that there is at least one Republican member of Congress who is willing to put his country ahead of party politics. I know that there are more members of the Republican party leadership who must feel grave doubts about Sarah Palin. They have to speak up. This is no longer about partisanship. This is about the future of the country. This is about (to coin a McCain campaign slogan) putting "Country first".

There are multiple crises that the next President is going to have to deal with, from the meltdown on Wall St. to a foreign policy minefield. I cannot believe that there is one Republican member of Congress who can honestly say that they would be comfortable with Sarah Palin leading our country during these dangerous times. Obviously it is John McCain at the top of the ticket, but his choice of a running mate illustrates a serious lack of judgment. It shows that he is willing to put himself first ahead of his country. For someone so quick to wrap himself in the flag, it showed exactly where his loyalties lie.

The only question I have is, where are the rest of the principled Republicans? Anyone, anyone?

Morning in America

This weekend I found out that one of my best friends is going to be sent to Iraq. He is as a 42 year old, father of four and apparently our war effort just can't get along without him. The conversations I've had this weekend have been illuminating to say the least. I find that people who were optimistic that Obama would win or that Americans would be able to see past the color of a candidates skin are now only hopeful (and there is a difference) that will be the case. We have reached a point in this campaign where we are no longer able to look through rose colored glasses. This is as real as it gets. Our futures and the future of the world will be decided in the next 50 days. The American people need to wake up and realize what is at stake.

This is not a game. This is not a movie. This is not "Working Girl" where the plucky secretary is secretly the smartest person in the office or "Wall Street" where the evil, money hungry investor gets his in the end. This is real life people. Sarah Palin, who thinks that foreign policy experience is gained by her proximity to the remotest part of Russia, is actually in line to be Vice President! How can that not scare the shit out of everyone? How can the judgment of John McCain be trusted when his biggest decision to date was made not in the best interest of the country, but to serve his own ambition? Does this fill anyone with confidence? Does this make anyone sleep better at night? When someone who graduated from Columbia University and then went on to be President of the Harvard Law Review is deemed "elitist" and therefore unfit for the Presidency, yet a Journalism major from the University of Idaho and someone who finished 5th from the bottom of their graduating class are held up as epitomizing American values, then this country has clearly lost its way. There was a time when America valued the "best and the brightest".

There was a time when going to good schools and doing well at them was valued. Now the standard for leadership seems to be whether the person is someone you would like to have a beer with. When did America become the champion of such mediocrity? When did we replace competence with conviction. When did being thoughtful and right become the red headed stepchild to being confident and wrong? This country has just been through eight years of "leadership" which has led to America being involved in two wars (one of which was clearly a mistake), record home foreclosures, chaos in our financial institutions, less money for the middle class, high unemployment, record deficits, a widening trade imbalance, the national shame that was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a loss of respect among the international community, sky rocketing fuel costs, and on and on. This is the record the Republican administration has built and yet somehow the current Republican candidate is running on a theme of bringing change to Washington. Who exactly is he referring to when he speaks about change? Is he talking about his own party which has been in control of the White House for the past 7-1/2 years? Is he talking about the Republicans who have been in control of the Congress for 12 of the past 14 years? Who is he talking about? Does anyone else find this absolutely ridiculous?

The press has to do its job! There are not two sides to the truth. It is not up to the American people to decide the "truth". The press has to arm the American people with the facts and flat out state when someone is lying to them. That is their job. Their job is not be impartial with regards to the political parties, their job is to be impartial with regards to the truth. If the press gives equal weight to a lie, then they are essentially doing the job of a propagandist. They are perpetuating a lie to the benefit of an individual or group. The press should call each of the parties on their lies. That is being impartial. That is serving the American people. And that is not what they are currently engaged in.

I can only ask that the American people take a long hard look at the road ahead and think about who would is best prepared to lead us down that road. We face challenges that are going to require a lot of thought and debate. We are going to need a leader that not only understands those challenges, but has the strength to admit mistakes and change course when needed. The challenges ahead will require more than a Bulldog mentality (look at where that has gotten us), they will require intelligence and a nuanced approach in order to make America the place that the world looks to for moral guidance once again. We have been knocked off our stride by an approach that favored dogma over reality. The world is not black and white and you cannot govern as if it is without facing dire consequences. For the last eight years we have seen what that looks like and the question for America is do you want more of the same?

Bare Knuckle Fight

The campaign for President, which had already turned away from policy arguments, has now reached a new low. of The McCain campaign has now moved from ridiculous innuendo (Obama is too famous to be President), to straight out lies. In response to an a comment that Obama made about John McCain claiming to represent change ("...you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."), the McCain camp has put out an ad that claims that Obama made the comment about Sarah Palin. They also issued an angry press release demanding that Obama apologize for making a disparaging remark about the Republican VP candidate. The McCain camp also put out an ad claiming that Obama wants to teach sex education to kindergartners. This is also a gross distortion of the truth. The purpose of the bill that Obama sponsored in the Illinois legislature was designed to educate children about pedophilia so that they would be better protected against it.

The McCain camp is willing to go to any lengths in order to win this election. The response from the Obama campaign has been to try to combat the lies with the truth. However, they should know by now that once a claim has been made (true or not), a percentage of the public will believe it. They should know this because of what was done to John Kerry. Kerry responded to the swift boat nonsense by saying that the American people knew better than that. He was incredulous that he, as a decorated Vietnam war vet, should have to defend his record against a draft dodger who only faced shots from a tequila bottle during the Vietnam war. The public bought it though and the public is probably going to buy whatever lies the McCain camp can come up with between now and election day.

The Obama campaign is continuing to take the high road. They respond to every attack as quickly as possible with a press release, but they are clearly constantly playing defense. Obama's "rapid response team" is his attempt to try and avoid the fate that Kerry suffered. They do respond to every charge of the McCain team, but it is clearly not as effective a tactic as being on offense. Obama's responses to the attacks have been fairly tepid. When asked if Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President, he has deflected the question. He also refused to say that the Republicans are lying about him and his record. He has been, in my opinion, too reserved in his response. When you are being slapped repeatedly, the response should not be to politely ask the person to stop doing that.

This latest round of attacks make it clear that it's time for a change. It's time for Obama and Biden to stop complementing John McCain. McCain has certainly never returned the favor. The Democrats should stop prefacing their criticism of John McCain with "...we honor his service to our country", or "...John McCain is a freind of mine", or "John McCain cares about his country". Until now, the Democrats have brought a knife to a gun fight. It's time they even up the score. I am not advocating for the Obama camp to start lying about the Republicans, but it is time for them to stop pussyfooting around the truth. Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be President. I know she's running for Vice President, but she is only a "heart beat away" from the top job. Sarah Palin was for the "bridge to nowhere", she hired a lobbyist to help secure federal earmarks for ther small town in Alaska. These facts are not in dispute. The Obama campaign should call their remarks what they are, lies. They are simply lies. Obama's tax plan will not raise taxes on the majority of Americans, but McCain keeps on repeating that he will and polls show that a majority of the public believe it. It is a lie. It's time to call it what it is.

Barack Obama may not be able to win the election, but at least he can expose the Republican ticket for what it is. He has to call them out, in no uncertain terms, and make sure that the American people know what kind of people they are voting into office. He doesn't have to pull a Network moment (I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore), but he does have to show a little more spirit in defending himself. John McCain promised that he would run an above board campaign and he hasn't come close to living up to that promise. The actions of the McCain camp should release Obama to show a little more fight. It's time to take off the gloves. It's time to get serious. It's time to take the fight to them. And in the words of Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables", never stop fighting until the fight is done.