SEATTLEFORBARACKOBAMA

Obama #44

2008-11-07T09:54:00.000-08:00

NOTE TO READERS:

FROM NOW ON, ALL POSTS WILL BE @ HOWIEINSEATTLE.COM---PLEASE VISIT US THERE. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT.

HOWIE MARTIN

Notice to Readers

2008-10-17T22:42:00.000-07:00

For some reason, things I have posted here are not publishing. Go to howieinseattle.com for current articles.

Obama: "18 days away from change" (video)

2008-10-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

"Obama Roasts McCain at Al Smith Dinner" (video)

2008-10-17T15:39:00.000-07:00

NC Dem, video (10:27):

Barack Obama speaks at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.

Barack Obama

"Voter-Fraud Fraud"

2008-10-16T17:35:00.000-07:00

Hendrik Hertzberg:

The idea that Democrats try to win elections by arranging for hordes of nonexistent people with improbable names to vote for them has long been a favorite theme of Rove-era Republicans. Now it’s become a desperate obsession.
Consider today’s fund-raising e-mail from Robert M. (Mike) Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Some snippets:

Every election, it’s the same old song and dance from the Democrats and their liberal allies when it comes to donor and vote fraud.
They will soon be trying to pad their totals at ballot boxes across the country with votes from voters that do not exist. From Ohio and Florida to Wisconsin and Nevada, there are reports of fraudulent voter registration forms being submitted by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a liberal group that is dedicating its resources to electing the Obama-Biden Democrats.

The e-mail climaxes with this pledge, which one hopes is delivered with a Sarah Palin wink: “We will not stand for the stealing of the election—the tainting of our democracy—by those who wish to subvert the rule of law.”

ACORN has become the 24/7 story on Fox News, too, on account of reports that it has submitted several thousand phony registration forms to local boards of elections. These reports appear to be true. Nevertheless, the “scandal,” as Fox calls it, is itself on its face as phony as Mickey Mouse’s social security number.

During this election cycle, the Times reported today, ACORN has deployed thirteen thousand mostly paid workers, who have registered 1.3 million new voters. One or two per cent of these workers turned in sheaves of forms that they filled out themselves with fake names and bogus addresses, and, even though at least a hundred of these workers have already been fired, the forged forms have been submitted to election boards.

Sounds suspicious—unless you know that groups like ACORN are required by law to submit them, even if they’re obvious fakes. This is to prevent funny business, such as trashing forms that look like they might be Republican (or Democratic, as the case may be).

Sounds suspicious—unless you know that ACORN normally sorts through forms, flags those that look fishy, and submits the fishy ones in a separate pile for the convenience of election officials.

Sounds suspicious—until you reflect that the motivation of the misbehaving registration workers is almost always to look like they’ve been doing more work than they really have, and that the victim of the “fraud” is actually the organization they’re working for.

Sounds suspicious—unless you know that even if one of these fake forms results in a nonexistent person actually being registered, now under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, “any voter who has not previously voted in a federal election” must provide identification in order to actually cast a ballot. This will make it tough for Mickey Mouse, even if registered, to vote, no matter how big, round, or black his ears. Likewise, members of the Duck family (Donald, Daisy, Huey, Dewey, and Louie) who turn up at the polling place will have a hard time getting into the voting booth. (Uncle Scrooge might be able to bribe his way in, but he’s voting Republican anyway.)

Sounds suspicious—unless you know that despite all the hysteria, from 2002 to 2005, only twenty people in the entire United States of America were found guilty of voting while ineligible and only five of voting more than once. By contrast, consider the lede on this story, published a week ago today:

Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
And take it from Sarah Palin: the Times is “hardly ever wrong.”

Howie P.S.: I'm already sick and tired of pushing back against the lies of the opposition, but feel it is my obligation to do so.

Barack Obama

Joe doesn't like the progressive income tax, either (video)

2008-10-16T13:06:00.000-07:00

directlifeprotection, video (04:16):

Joe the Plumber goes up against Diane Sawyer and calls her (Obama's) tax proposal SOCIALISM.

Joe's not into paying taxes or licensing requirements, as well

2008-10-16T10:20:00.000-07:00

"Joe the Plumber: No new taxes -- and no old ones, either"--Jonathan Martin.

"'Joe the plumber' isn’t licensed"--Toledo Blade.

H/t to Ben Smith.

Joe doesn't like Social Security, either (video)

2008-10-16T09:54:00.000-07:00

tpmtv, video from MSNBC(00:37):

Oct. 16, 2008

"The Community Organizing Renaissance"

2008-10-16T08:31:00.000-07:00

Al Giordano, with video (01;03) from TechPresident:

With the passing of the final debate (one which only confirmed the trajectory - toward Obama - of the past month) now in the past, it remains to be seen whether the commercial news media will discover the real story of the 2008 campaign: the ground game.
While the commercial media obsesses over an alleged Ohio plumber (who apparently might neither be registered to vote nor licensed to practice that trade) the real everyman and everywoman - the ones that don't generally make more than a quarter-million dollars a year - can be found in the real towns and cities of America, on the front lines of the community organizing renaissance.
On Monday, Micah Sifry of TechPresident did some counting by hand:

-# of upcoming McCain events happening within a 25 mile radius of Orlando, Florida: 8 

-# of upcoming Obama events happening within a 25-mile radius of Orlando: 84 

-# of upcoming McCain events within a 25-mile radius of Dayton, Ohio: 8 

-# of upcoming Obama events within a 25-mile radius of Dayton: 57

By Wednesday, he was able to quantify the ground game nationwide using Internet technology, which led to that video above, and this observation:

...while playing around with both sites' tools, I discovered that Obama's campaign will also allow you to export the resulting list as a structured data file, which for the geeks in the audience is like manna from heaven. In particular, you can get a KML file, which is short for "Keyhole Markup Language"--which means you can easily put Obama's events on Google Earth.

From that realization, it wasn't far to this: a visualization of all of Obama's upcoming events (there are more than 10,000 I think) between now and Election Day.

There are ten thousand potential newspaper, TV and radio news stories in those numbers, and at least as many "reporters" in need of a good report, but as during the primaries, the commercial media are leaving the real story of the 2008 United States presidential election to a few intrepid online journalists and bloggers. When on Election Night they will raise their eyebrows and go, wow, just wow, how the hell did that happen?, it will be the Field Hands here, and a very few folks like Sifrey, like Sean Quinn at 538 and Zack Exley at The Huffington Post who will have documented the answer: It was the organizing, stupid!

Quinn, in particular, has been doing yeoman's work. Weeks back, he started in Nevada and began the long drive across the fruited plain, posting pretty much daily from the road in the battleground states. There, he's found real people making real news, folks like Debrah Harleston in Northwest Ohio:

Most of her life spent as a Republican, Debrah Harleston volunteered heavily for George Bush in 2004. As she threw herself into helping Barack Obama in Toledo, one of her first questions to her organizer was, "why are we canvassing so soon?"

Debrah's story is uniquely her own, but also very much like the story of tens of thousands of everyday people that took history into their own hands this year:

Now that Debrah has settled into her role as one of Obama's Toledo Community Directors, she's amazed at the sophistication of the Obama structure. As a Community Director, she oversees three Neighborhood Team Leaders, volunteers who comprise the heart of Obama's volunteering infrastructure. Each neighborhood team, in turn, has up to five different coordinators: (1) the canvass coordinator; (2) the phonebank coordinator; (3) the volunteer coordinator; (4) the data coordinator; and (5) where applicable, the faith coordinator.

In Ohio, Campaign for Change State Director Jeremy Bird told us, there are 1,231 defined neighborhoods, as of August 25 there were about 800 in place, and as of Saturday approximately 1,100 NTLs had been tested and were up in operation. By "tested," Bird said, each NTL had undergone and met a series of specific challenges the field organizers had presented.

First, can the potential NTL organize a group of people? Whether by hosting a house party, a faith forum with a church group, or some other type of organizational meeting, the potential NTL needs to show they can lead the organization of their neighbors.

Second, can the potential NTL pass the voter contact test? Can he or she lead a canvass, can he or she build a group phonebanking night? It's a leadership test, built around voter contact.

Third, are they willing to make the final commitment by attending specific training for their role? Debrah Harleston smiled as she told us about the imminent blooming of satellite offices throughout the Toledo area so that neighborhood teams can begin running right in the neighborhoods autonomously.

Zack Exley, in another Ohio region, found another such unsung heroine, Glenna Fisher:

In her job at a Middletown, Ohio, steel factory, Glenna Fisher managed the preparation and shipping of millions of pounds of steel per year until her retirement six years ago. But when she has volunteered for democratic campaigns in the past, no one ever asked her to do anything more complicated than calling voters with a script.

This year, the field organizer (FO) assigned to her town, Ryan Clay, had much bigger plans for her.

"He'd gotten my name from info I'd entered on the Obama website listing ways in which I'd be willing to volunteer," Glenna explained in the Hamilton office before a regular report-in with Ryan. "He called and we set up a time to meet at a local coffee shop."

One of the ways Ryan asked Glenna to help was recruiting other volunteers.

"And that Sunday, my church had a joint service with our sister church, a local African-American congregation. There I talked with a friend who gave me several names of people who also might be interested in volunteering with the campaign. I called Ryan and passed on those names and phone numbers," Glenna said.

Ryan was impressed, and continued to ask Glenna to try increasingly difficult tasks. She didn't know it, but she was being "tested" to see if she had what it took to be a neighborhood team leader (NTL).

See, the story of the 2008 campaign is not some media creation and caricature like "Joe the Plumber," but those Americans that have done more than "win" the media lottery by having a chance encounter with a presidential candidate. (I put "win" in quotation marks because I have the feeling this isn't going to end well for that Joe, as media scrutiny can be a knife with two edges.) No, the story of 2008 is authentically about "Debrah the Neighborhood Team Leader" and "Glenna the Neighborhood Team Leader," and "Joe the Organizer," and "Jane the Change Crew Chief," and "Jose the Phone Banker" and "Jasmine the Canvasser." The story is that of so many Americans that didn't wait for the media to show up at their doorsteps but stepped out onto the battlefield and did the heavy lifting.

And there's a very special group among them: the more than 10,000 people - most, but not all, of them young - who right now aren't reading blogs or watching cable news because they're too busy organizing all those Debrahs and Glennas: the field organizers and deputies that were trained at Camp Obama and Fellows sessions, who have recruited those Neighborhood Team Leaders and others to carry out the action plan. They're engaged in hand-to-hand combat of sorts to identify or persuade every last vote and turn them out to the polls. Today, those of them that are in North Carolina are putting those votes on the scoreboards as the state's early voting began this morning and continues through November 1. Their counterparts in Georgia, Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio have been doing this for days now. The results are on the board already.

What will become of these organizers after Election Day? Having been in their shoes, I'm guessing that few of them have given it much thought. When you immerse yourself in immediate history, the "self," in traditional terms, ceases to exist, or is at least put on pause for a spell. It's the Cambellian hero's journey, and the luckiest of humans get to live it and then spend the rest of their lives contemplating what happened to change them so profoundly.

But their stories and memories and knowledge of how the job was done - not to mention the power of their skills, if they continue to harness them, in the future - hold the keys to understanding what is about to happen in America.

And so, Field Hands, I have an assignment for you in each of your local areas: You may already know some of these good people. They've probably organized you (or tried to). You certainly know where to find them. We don't yet know if their official campaign emails will still exist after November 4. But after the election we're going to need to be able to locate them and listen to their stories in order to properly document this historic moment. Your task: to assemble, for your area, their names, their permanent personal email addresses and their cell phone numbers, so that we can find them after the great leap forward and make sure their stories - a collective story - are told.

In most cases that means marching down to their offices, writing down the names of each person there with the title of "organizer" or "deputy" (usually their names are right on the wall in the office lobby, next to an envelope serving as a mail box), seeking them out, shaking their hands, thanking them for the work they're doing (you'll feel real good doing that), and asking how to find them after the election is over, as many of them are not from the areas where they're hard at work today. If they want to know why (a reasonable question), tell them about The Field, the Field Hands, and that your friend, the author (if they request it, give them my email and write down the URL for The Field for them), wants to interview them for a possible book about what they accomplished after the election is over and after the office they're working out of no longer exists. Respect their privacy. Don't post their personal info here or anywhere online. Send it privately to me at narconews@gmail.com: name, email and cell phone number. Remember that these folks are very, very busy right now. Assure them that we promise not to bug them before Election Day, but very much want to be able to find them and listen to their stories from the front lines when all is said and done.
The top story of 2008 doesn't end on November 4. It is - it must be - that this was the year that the Community Organizing Renaissance began.

We're going to move heaven and earth to make sure that it continues. Stay tuned for some important announcements about how, together, we're going to take up that challenge.

Howie P.S.: Great post, great video but I could do without the majestic soundtrack music on the video.

Barack Obama

Jed reports on That Plumber Guy from his new home on the front page of Kos (with video) (UPDATED)

2008-10-16T07:27:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: It just so happens that Joe is a registered Republican. This information courtesy of Ben Smith. I wish there was a stock market where you could bet on the proposition that Joe is a plant.

Jed L with video (00:57):

We don't know much about Joe The Plumber, but we do know this: he made up his mind who he was voting for before last night's debate.
Speaking with Katie Couric, "Joe" said that he "wasn't swayed" by the debate last night, yet pretty much knew who he was going to vote for. So if (a) he wasn't swayed by the debate and (b) knows who he is going to vote for, then (c) he had already made up his mind before the debate.Here's video.
Unfortunately, the national media has had a field day with Joe, almost universally reporting that he is an uncommitted voter, even though he doesn't make the same claim. He certainly is a nice little story for them, but it's a story they might want to ask some questions about, especially now that they've invited a relative unknown to appear on the morning shows.

For starters, according to Ben Smith, he's not registered to vote. It's hard to believe that this could be the case; it seems likely that there is some sort of clerical error. For example, his name could be mispelled as Worzelbacher instead of Wurzelbacher in the Lucas County file.

It also seems odd that he just happens to be buying a business that would earn exactly the amount of money that would qualify it to be a McCain campaign talking point -- $250,000. Even more intriguing, McCain-land said they had never spoken with Joe before, but also made the following statement to Ben Smith:

McCain aides say there was no heads-up for Joe the Plumber, who's headed out to the morning shows tomorrow.

"Joe didn't know" that he'd be at the center of the debate," said Matt McDonald.

"We tried to call him during the debate, but his phone was busy," he said. "We're not going to put him through media training."

So the McCain campaign says they never contacted Joe the Plumber...but they also had his phone number. Now it's very possible someone in the media gave them his phone number, but if you can find any listing for Joe Wurzelbacher in Holland, Ohio, you're more industrious than I am.

The last thing that struck me as odd was that when talking with Katie Couric, Joe was totally on message for McCain (except the part where he said that he had already made up his mind on who he was voting for).
Bottom-line: it's not entirely clear what the real story of Joe The Plumber is. But it is entirely clear that he's not just some undecided voter. He supports McCain, and the McCain campaign sure seems to support him.

This wouldn't be a story worth mentioning if the media wasn't so excited to put him on all the morning shows, but since they are, they have a responsibility to get the story right. So far, there's little indication that they will.

The Final Debate-Roundup

2008-10-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

"McCain, Obama get tough, personal in final debate"--AP.

"Is It Over? Debate Reveals That Dynamic Of Race Is Fixed In Obama's Favor"--Greg Sargent.

"Obama Hits McCain, Palin For Ugly Tone At Rallies"--Greg Sargent.

"Gergen: McCain's Performance "An Exercise In Anger Management" (VIDEO)"--Huffington Post.

"Obama T.K.O.s McCain in Last Debate"--Ari Melber.

"Obama Campaign Escalates Fox Attack at Debate"--Ari Melber

"Bloggers Weigh In"--Huffington Post

"Instant Debate Reaction"--Political Wire:

The instant polls conducted just after the final presidential debate found Sen. Barack Obama the clear winner.

CNN poll of debate viewers: Obama 58%, McCain 31%

CBS poll of uncommitted voters: Obama 53%, McCain 22%

In addition, both focus groups of uncommitted voters on CNN and Fox News found Obama the winner.

Barack Obama

"Barack Obama: Who is this guy? (Trailer)" (video)

2008-10-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

VeridicusFilms, video (01:20):

"There is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic Convention.

Veridicus Films is excited to announce that our new documentary, Barack Obama: Who Is This Guy? is now available exclusively at Blockbuster Video to purchase, rent or download via blockbuster.com.

A truly compelling American story of promise and change, narrated by the acclaimed actor, Blair Underwood, and featuring exclusive interviews with some of our most prominent and recognizable personalities in Politics, Academics, Entertainment, Religion and Business.

Blockbuster is the leading movie rental retailer in the United States, with literally millions of movie fans walking through their doors through Election Day.
We are asking for your support in building excitement for the film, and encouraging everyone you know to purchase or rent this movie and share this powerful message.

DVD cover for messaging & for what you'll see at Blockbuster:

Thank you for your support and for helping to spread the word about this incredible film!

Thomas Howard, COO/EP: tehoward23@aol.com
Maria Arita-Howard, Creator/EP: aritatv@aol.com
Media Inquiries: Angela Blair, angela@angelablair.com, 214.208.6761
Veridicus Films, LLC: www.veridicusfilms.com

Howie P.S.: The soundtrack music at the end comes from Seattle's Bergevin brothers.

Barack Obama

"...the hoity-toity moral-equivalentism of certain Respected Pundits"

2008-10-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

Hendrik Hertzberg:

At CJR, Todd Gitlin limns the hoity-toity moral-equivalentism of certain Respected Pundits. These R.P.s have three basic ways of being annoying.

First, they pretend that that the depraved tone of the Republican campaign and the moderately critical tone of the Democratic campaign are on the same moral plane. Thus, Dan Balz tells George Stephanopoulos that “there is a huge double standard going on, that Senator Obama can get away with attacking in the most negative and often personal ways and gets at most a slap on the wrist.” To believe this, you have to believe that it’s just as bad for an Obama ad to accuse McCain of being erratic as for a McCain ad to accuse Obama of consorting with terrorists.

Second, if a fact doesn’t fit the “both sides are equally at fault” tenet of the Church of Centrism, that fact is elided or simply not noticed. Gitlin quotes Tom Brokaw (in his role as host of “Meet the Press”) as approvingly quoting David Broder, from the October 8th Washington Post:

John McCain and Barack Obama have been asked twice—once in the Mississippi debate and again on Tuesday night—what their priorities would be. McCain flat-out refused to choose, arguing that the United States can do it all. Obama mentioned energy, health care and education but did not acknowledge that he might have to choose among them.…It was a stunning rejection of reality.

Actually, McCain accepted Brokaw’s priority list—health care, energy, and entitlement reform—and then said, “I think you can work on all three at once, Tom.” Obama named his own three priorities—energy, health care, and education—and ranked them in that order.

Third, the R.P.s, by spreading their disdain equally, imply that they, the R.P.s, are looking down from such an Olympian height that the lowly candidates are little dots so far, far below as to be indistinguishable.

Barack Obama

"Volunteer Energy and Political Tipping Points -- What We Can Do"

2008-10-15T08:56:00.000-07:00

Paul Loeb:

On election day four years ago, I was canvassing in my home state of Washington, alternately knocking on doors for gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire and breaking to call Ohio and Florida. After three recounts, Gregoire won by 129 votes. I had no idea my state election was so close, but I did get three people who wouldn't have otherwise voted--one forgot it was election day, one needed a ride to the polls, and a third didn't know how to turn in her absentee ballot. If you multiply my efforts by those of thousands of other volunteers, we clearly helped make the difference.
The same happened in 2006. During the election's final weeks, I spent about 30 hours calling through MoveOn's Call for Change program, contacting voters in Virginia, Missouri, Montana, and other states with key Senate and Congressional races. Grabbing spare moments where I could, I dialed my way across the country, convincing maybe 20 people who wouldn't have otherwise to back the Democratic challengers. Some initially resisted saying, "They're all the same. They're all corrupt." Or "My vote won't matter so why bother." But I convinced them to vote, and added a few with election-day reminders. Later I read that MoveOn had 120,000 volunteers. If each had half the impact of my efforts, that meant over a million votes, in a season when US Senate seats swung on margins as close as Montana's 3,500 votes, Virginia's 9,000, Rhode Island's 29,000, or Missouri's 48,000. Our common efforts again tipped the balance.

It's easy to think of our individual election volunteering as insignificant. But when enough of us act even in small ways, we can have a powerful impact. Studies have found that if you talk to a dozen people by going door-to-door, you'll likely add at least one new voter for your candidate, a ratio that tends to hold true from local to federal elections, so long as you're working in reasonably receptive neighborhoods. Phone outreach can have a similar impact, though you need to talk with more people for a comparable result. Imagine what a few hundred more volunteers could have done to shift Florida's 537-vote official margin in 2,000, even with all the Republican machinations.

Individual actions can be multiplied on both sides. In 2004 a friend was overseeing a cluster of Florida precincts for John Kerry. He'd exceeded his target for turnout, and was feeling guardedly hopeful. Then a couple hundred people showed up en masse, many holding Bibles. They'd been mobilized by Los Angeles and Omaha phone banks, calling fundamentalist congregations. Those who called had every right to do so, and their efforts, alas, helped reelect George Bush.

So why don't more of us participate, or participate more? Between now and the election, far too many of us will spend plenty of time reading political articles, blogs and polls, obsessing on the latest twists and turns in the headlines, and rooting for our candidate as if for a favorite sports team--while doing relatively little to change the outcome. We can do more than be passive spectators.

Many of us live in states where the presidential race is largely settled, although the popular vote mandate will matter in terms of political leverage, there are numerous close Senate, Congress and governor's races, not to mention important state ballot initiatives. Even if you don't live in Virginia or Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina or Pennsylvania, you can go to the campaign websites and find lists of people to call in key swing states, scripts through which to call them, and step-by-step explanations to walk you through the process. You really can do it from the comfort of your home or apartment--or as part of a group phone bank, if the support makes it easier. Getting involved is more challenging in some states than others, but still an opportunity to affect the long arc of history at a potential key turning point.

Even in the ground-zero battlegrounds, I've met people who passionately follow the contest, yet hold back from actively participating. When I was in Cleveland last week, a woman raised her hand and said "I've been walking neighborhoods for Obama, but my friends don't want to join me, even though they care just as much about the election. They say they don't like rejection."

I asked if anyone in the audience enjoyed rejection. Surprisingly, no one did. But the woman who had canvassed said the time she spent was actually pretty decent. She got some butterflies at first--it's always hard approaching strangers. But once she got into the swing, she enjoyed it. She even had some thoughtful conversations, once she left the necessary training wheels of the script.

Many of us also hesitate due to a perfect standard where we feel we need to be totally eloquent or our efforts will be worthless. My retired neighbor considered calling for Obama, then worried that he wasn't as articulate and persuasive as he used to be, so decided not to. But our efforts don't have to be perfect, they just have to be heartfelt, and we have to keep at them.

With Obama opening up a steadily increasing lead, it's easy for those of us to support him to get complacent. But this is a volatile electorate--a little over a month ago, McCain led with his Sarah Palin bounce. So while the polls are encouraging, given economic meltdown, attack ads, racial issues, and potential voter intimidation and suppression, we'd be wise to view this as an election where our actions really could determine the outcome.

Most of us reading this essay will vote. And maybe most of our friends will as well. But in a politically divided nation, victory may well go to the side that turns out the greatest numbers of more marginal supporters, including those who are newly registered and uncertain about the process, or who doubt their vote will matter. Particularly when reaching out to those who haven't traditionally voted, getting people to the polls isn't something that can be done by just running more ads. We have to make the phone calls, knock on the doors, and remind people as many times as necessary of the differences between the candidates and the impact they could make with their vote.
This election may well be won with presence and persistence. It might just be in our hands.

"Obama Memo on Tonight's Debate"

2008-10-15T08:25:00.000-07:00

Political Insider:

TO: Interested Parties
FR: Bill Burton, Obama-Biden Campaign National Press Secretary
RE: John McCain's plan to "whip" "That One's" "you-know-what"
DA: October 15, 2008

In tonight's debate, Chuck Todd of NBC News says, McCain needs to "figure out how to disqualify Barack Obama." Time Magazine's Mark Halperin writes, "McCain will have to produce a major memorable moment." The NY Daily News says the debate is "do-or-die for McCain's campaign." However they put it, people agree, John McCain needs a game-changer.
On the big issues, this debate is one last chance for John McCain to do what he has failed to do throughout this entire campaign: explain to the American people how his economic policies would be any different at all than the failed Bush agenda he has supported every step of the way. It's his last chance to somehow convince the American people that his erratic response to this economic crisis doesn't disqualify him from being President.

Just this weekend, John McCain vowed to "whip Obama's you-know-what" at the debate, and he's indicated that he'll use Bill Ayers to attack Barack Obama. Even though Senator McCain has said he doesn't "give a damn" about Bill Ayers, his campaign has admitted that if he talks about the economy, he'll lose.

But perhaps the NY Times explained the peril of McCain's negative strategy best this morning when they wrote: After several weeks in which the McCain campaign unleashed a series of strong political attacks on Mr. Obama, trying to tie him to a former 1960s radical, among other things, the poll found that more voters see Mr. McCain as waging a negative campaign than Mr. Obama. Six in 10 voters surveyed said that Mr. McCain had spent more time attacking Mr. Obama than explaining what he would do as president; by about the same number, voters said Mr. Obama was spending more of his time explaining than attacking. [NYT/CBS Poll, NY Times 10/15/08]

Senator Obama is going to use the debate to discuss his plan for the economy. That's what he's been doing this entire campaign. And on Monday, he built on his proposals in a new Rescue Plan for the Middle Class. That's the kind of steady leadership and real change Americans are looking for - not John McCain's erratic handling of the crisis, his constant character attacks, and the same Bush policies that have failed us for eight years.

But after two debates in which John McCain didn't mention the middle class once - and after his campaign declared openly that they want to turn the page on talking about the economy - the real question is not how many attacks McCain can land in the debate, but whether he can finally communicate a vision to turn this economy around.

And while McCain has promised to attack Obama in the debate, every minute that he ignores the economy and the middle class is not just a minute wasted but time spent on attacks that even some of those closest to him have said don't work.

Barack Obama

"Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans To Plumbing Business Owner' (video)

2008-10-14T22:41:00.000-07:00

jed report, video (05:47):

From ABC.

Barack Obama

Rachel Maddow challenges David Frum on "false equivalencies" (video)

2008-10-14T21:41:00.000-07:00

MSNBC, video (10:54):

Some GOP leaders and conservative columnists are expressing frustration with John McCain’s campaign. Is there chaos within the Republican Party? Rachel Maddow is joined by former Bush speechwriter and author of “An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror,” David Frum.

"GOP Strategist: McCain Put Country at Risk With Palin"

2008-10-14T10:44:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

Add Matthew Dowd to the growing list of senior Republican advisers rebuking Sen. John McCain.

Dowd, chief strategist for President George W. Bush’s reelection, fingered Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination as a turning point in McCain’s slide.

“They didn’t allow John McCain to pick the person he wanted for Vice President,” Dowd said, referring to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which undercut his experience argument and tethered McCain to the GOP base.

“He knows in his gut he put somebody unqualified on the ballot,” Dowd stressed, “and put the country at risk.”

Dowd also said the Palin pick, in contrast to Sen. Barack Obama’s choice of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate, showed voters which candidate was “serious” about governing.

The sharp assessment was issued at a Tuesday panel at the TimeWarner summit, a two-day gathering of politicos and reporters in Manhattan. (I also spoke at the conference.)

Dowd was rebutted by Mark McKinnon, a former strategist for Bush and McCain, who said no one knows what is in McCain’s head regarding his V.P. pick.

Dowd also knocked McCain’s strategic acumen, arguing that the campaign is “very tactical and not strategic,” flatly saying, “I don’t get the narrative.”

Since his time campaigning for Bush, Dowd went public with his opposition to the Bush administration’s record and the Iraq war.

"David Plouffe's Strategy Update: October 14, 2008" (video)

2008-10-14T08:26:00.000-07:00

BarackObamadotcom, video (03:06):

Campaign Manager David Plouffe gives a strategy update from Ohio and talks about the McCain campaign's false, negative attack ads. Make a donation to help fight back at https://donate.barackobama.com/takeas...

Howie P.S.: Aden Nak puts it a little more bluntly: "The Stench of Panic."

Barack Obama

"Obama Details Economic Plan" (with video from CNN)

2008-10-13T21:54:00.000-07:00

truthout.org with video (10:41):

Senator Barack Obama unveiled a plan to rescue the middle class today in Toledo, Ohio. Obama called for the plans to be enacted now - three weeks before the election - saying the nation has already lost three-quarters of a million jobs this year and unemployment is on the rise.

"Today I'm proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners," said Obama, who is preparing for Wednesday night's debate with Republican nominee John McCain near Toledo. "It's a plan that begins with one word that's on everyone's mind, and it's spelled J-O-B-S."

Barack Obama

"The facts about ACORN"

2008-10-13T08:35:00.000-07:00

Tom Matzzie (excerpted from the Huffington Post story "How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama (Sort Of))":

The facts about ACORN are worth getting out.
ACORN is an organization that, among other things, registers low-income people to vote. One of the ways they do this is to hire door-to-door canvassers from the neighborhoods they are working in. This sort of work is tightly regulated. So, when one of the thousands of people they give jobs to doesn't do their work right and brings back bogus or phony voter registration cards, the law REQUIRES that ACORN turn the forms in to the voter registration office. The law, rightly, doesn't want anybody throwing out voter registration forms for any reason.

But ACORN goes a step farther. They have people assigned to do quality control on all the cards--calling people on the forms after they fill them out. When they find bad information on the cards they attach a cover sheet to the card but, as mentioned above, they turn in the cards as required by law. The effect is that a few bad canvassers or a poorly run office will mean that bad cards are submitted as part of the normal process. But ACORN has done everything possible to make sure voting officials know to check the forms.

The sad fact is that in at least one state--Nevada--the voting officials disregarded ACORN's cover sheets flagging the voter registration forms. That should have never happened. The resulting blowup was a scandal in search of a scandal.

Howie P.S.: In other campaign news: "Obama Camp Relying Heavily on Ground Effort" (WaPo), "In Friendly Region, Biden Cites McCain as Erratic" (NY Times), and "Children for Obama (Green Lake, Seattle)" from Silenced Majority Portal with video (01:31).

If you have/know school age children, you know how well they connect with Obama.
Barack Obama

"The facts about ACORN"

2008-10-13T07:26:00.000-07:00

Tom Matzzie (excerpted from the Huffington Post story "How McCain Will Steal the Election from Obama (Sort Of))":

The facts about ACORN are worth getting out.
ACORN is an organization that, among other things, registers low-income people to vote. One of the ways they do this is to hire door-to-door canvassers from the neighborhoods they are working in. This sort of work is tightly regulated. So, when one of the thousands of people they give jobs to doesn't do their work right and brings back bogus or phony voter registration cards, the law REQUIRES that ACORN turn the forms in to the voter registration office. The law, rightly, doesn't want anybody throwing out voter registration forms for any reason.

But ACORN goes a step farther. They have people assigned to do quality control on all the cards--calling people on the forms after they fill them out. When they find bad information on the cards they attach a cover sheet to the card but, as mentioned above, they turn in the cards as required by law. The effect is that a few bad canvassers or a poorly run office will mean that bad cards are submitted as part of the normal process. But ACORN has done everything possible to make sure voting officials know to check the forms.

The sad fact is that in at least one state--Nevada--the voting officials disregarded ACORN's cover sheets flagging the voter registration forms. That should have never happened. The resulting blowup was a scandal in search of a scandal.

R U wonderin' how FAUX is handling this weeks' news? (video)

2008-10-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show, video (01:50):

The economy is the big story everywhere. Well, almost everywhere. With the economic downturn corresponding with Barack Obama's surge in the polls, Fox News wants to distract its viewers. How well are they doing?

Barack Obama

"Ari Melber On 'The Hate Talk Express'" (video)

2008-10-11T20:40:00.000-07:00

Jed Report, with video (05:58):

Ari turns in another strong performance on MSNBC. Basically, these days he's mowing down whatever GOP hack they happen to put in front of him.

Barack Obama

"Obama Thanks McCain for Admonishing Supporters"

2008-10-11T09:50:00.000-07:00

At a campaign event in Philadelphia, Senator Barack Obama acknowledged Senator John McCain’s effort to “tone down the rhetoric” during one of his own rallies on Friday. (Photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)
NY Times:

PHILADELPHIA – The morning after Senator John McCain tried to tamp down heated comments from his supporters at a town-hall-style meeting in Minnesota, Senator Barack Obama offered him a quick nod of thanks.
“I want to acknowledge that Senator McCain tried to tone down the rhetoric in his town hall meeting yesterday,” Mr. Obama said, speaking at an early-morning rally in North Philadelphia. “I appreciated his reminder that we can disagree while still being respectful of each other. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – Senator McCain has served this country with honor, and he deserves our thanks for that.”

But in the next breath, Mr. Obama criticized Mr. McCain and Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, for his comment on Friday that the campaign is “not a CNBC news show on the stock market.”

“When it comes to the economy, and what families here in Pennsylvania are going through, Senator McCain still doesn’t get it,” Mr. Obama said. “Yesterday, Senator McCain’s campaign manager said that Senator McCain wasn’t talking about the market because there’s not much a candidate for president can say –they aren’t sure what he’d say each day even if he did talk about it.”

His remarks kicked off what promised to be a busy morning of campaigning designed to boost voter turnout in Philadelphia, with four rallies in quick succession throughout the city. Mr. Obama began with a rally before a mostly African-American audience at Progress Plaza in North Philadelphia.

He spent Friday evening appearing at his two biggest fund-raisers in the city since June, taking in more than $5 million.

Barack Obama

"Obama Accuses McCain of Trying to Stoke Anger" (video)

2008-10-10T21:20:00.000-07:00

truthout.org, video (04:55):

Senator Barack Obama addresses the crisis in the American economy and warns against the McCain campaign's efforts to stoke anger among their supporters.

Howie P.S.: These remarks came at campaign stop in Chillicothe, OH. Seattle attorney Karen Russell, whose father (Bill Russell) was a legendary "first" himself, has posted "McCain: Stop The "Hate Talk Express." Mr. Russell was the first African-American NBA coach.

Barack Obama

"Top GOP Strategist: It's Over, Obama Will Win In Landslide" (video)

2008-10-10T08:39:00.000-07:00

Jed Report, video (01:41):

Ed Rollins ran Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign in 1984.

Howie P.S.: Instant analysis here from Ari Melber.

Barack Obama

"Obama Attacks McCain’s Mortgage Plan"

2008-10-10T06:52:00.000-07:00

NY Times:

This 30-second advertisement for Senator Barack Obama will be shown across the nation on national cable television, according to the campaign. It is titled “Tested.”

PRODUCER Obama campaign media team

THE SCRIPT A narrator says: “In a time of crisis, our leaders’ judgment is tested. On Tuesday, an announcement.” Senator John McCain: “I would order the secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America.” The narrator: “On Wednesday, the details. McCain would shift the burden from lenders to taxpayers guaranteeing a loss of taxpayer money. Who wins? The same lenders that caused the crisis in the first place. Putting bad actors ahead of taxpayers? We can’t afford more of the same.”
ON THE SCREEN The advertisement opens with still images: a foreclosed home with a “For Sale” sign, a worried stock trader, the Capitol. Then a clip of Mr. McCain’s announcing of his home mortgage plan at the debate Tuesday. The narrator says the plan would “shift the burden from lenders to taxpayers” as a graphic of a CNN Money.com article that reaches a similar conclusion appears on the screen. The advertisement ends with images of a street sign on Wall Street, followed by a photograph of Mr. McCain with President Bush.

ACCURACY Even Mr. McCain’s economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, conceded that the plan would place a burden on taxpayers. Under the proposal, the government could buy the home loans of Americans who are at risk of defaulting (or are already delinquent) and allow them to obtain new mortgages at more favorable rates. Taxpayers would be responsible for the difference in value between the old and new mortgages. It is very likely the McCain plan would result in “a loss of taxpayer money,” as the message says.

While the advertisement portrays lenders as the winners in this arrangement, it fails to acknowledge the potential benefits to homeowners, namely more affordable mortgages. Mr. Holtz-Eakin has also noted that stabilizing home values would speed economic recovery. The commercial does not mention the fact that legislation, including the $700 billion bailout bill that Congress and the president approved last week, paved the way for the plan that Mr. McCain proposed. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama supported the bill.

SCORECARD With millions of Americans at risk of foreclosure, Mr. Obama has seized on Mr. McCain’s mortgage proposal as a way to question his judgment on economic issues. While the advertisement glosses over the critical point of the McCain plan — that it is meant to be a lifeline for homeowners before they slide into foreclosure — it makes some valid points about the new liabilities taxpayers would face.

Barack Obama

"Obama's Web-Savvy Voter Plan"

2008-10-10T06:12:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

Before Barack Obama spoke to a September rally at the University of Nevada, 21-year-old Carmen Gilbert took the stage to address her classmates, who spilled across the quad in a capacity crowd of 12,000 people. She was all business. "Take out your cellphones," said Gilbert, as she ordered the throng of rookie voters to text Obama's headquarters on the spot. With the punch of two buttons--a message reading NV--vital organizing intelligence poured into the campaign.
Obama's aides treasure data and contact information for voters in swing states, and text messages provide both. First, the campaign learns when and where a person joined up. So a student with a New York cellphone, who would otherwise be relegated to fundraising appeals, is reclassified for Nevada mobilization. Then, organizers directly reach them with text messages and calls. The campaign also asks supporters to forward text messages and grow the network.

"Every night there's a data sync on who is new and who is a longtime MyBO [Obama social network] user who started making calls," says Joe Rospars, Obama's new-media director, explaining how the campaign integrates virtual actions with organizing on the ground. A swing-state supporter who signs up online will swiftly receive calls from local staff and targeted e-mails. "Fifty percent of our e-mail is on state-specific items, like volunteer recruitment," Rospars told me one Sunday night in September, at a Chicago bar a few blocks from Obama headquarters. Each time a supporter interacts with the campaign, Rospars says, data specialists "create new layers" for targeting that person by region, engagement and volunteer preferences.

Campaign messages range from reminders about watching presidential debates to registration deadlines. The communication, however, is not confined to top-down missives from Chicago. On September 28 the campaign launched a turnout application on the popular iPhone. In a break with typical voter contact models, it empowers users to call their personalized list of voters. It sorts friends' phone numbers by "key battleground states" to focus on the people with potentially decisive votes.

Tapping personal networks can also unearth people who are not on the grid for conventional outreach. Scott Goodstein, the guru behind ObamaMobile, the campaign's cell outreach, anticipates the program "will generate thousands of additional personal contacts." Within a week of its launch, the tool broke into the Top Ten free downloads on iTunes. It bested iGolf, another new release, but is still trailing Lightsaber Unleashed as we go to press.

Reaching new people is futile, of course, if they aren't registered to vote. The Obama campaign has united web and field recruitment to wage one of the largest voter registration drives of a modern campaign. It's the first time since Jesse Jackson's 1980s bids that a candidate has staked success on mobilizing new voters. Obama's October schedule is studded with evidence of this audacious strategy; he's spending precious time in recently bright-red states like North Carolina, where he spoke to a 28,000-person rally on October 5. But he can't win the state within its 2004 universe of registered voters: they re-elected Bush by a whopping 12.5-point margin, about 436,000 votes. Obama needs new registrants just to narrow that gap--and he must still win back conservative swing voters.

Step one is working. Democratic registration has spiked by seven points in North Carolina since March--the GOP's is up only a point--and the Obama campaign says it has registered 160,000 new voters. It has forty-five field offices sending volunteers to find new voters; a parallel hunt continues online.

Obama's Internet success is well known, of course, since he has bested his rivals in both parties on everything from political traffic to YouTube views to MySpace friends. The campaign's use of the web for recruiting new voters, however, is largely below the radar. That's fine with Obama's aides, who think the quiet, steady growth of the list of new registrants will catch some Republicans off guard. One example is McCain's abrupt choice to cede Michigan, which he announced on the very day that new voters packed an 18,000-person Obama rally at Michigan State. Obama's press shop has done very little to promote its signature registration effort online--the innovative portal VoteForChange. (The campaign required my interviews with its Internet staff to be mostly on background.) VoteForChange has received scant print coverage, but it's a viral hit. Although the site is an Obama operation, it decouples registration from the Hopemonger. The spare bilingual homepage looks more like a search engine, soliciting information and helping visitors register, request absentee ballots or find polling locations.

The campaign can keep the effort discreet because it has a network to route around the press. Organizers spread the word using supporter e-mails, targeted Facebook ads--and an irreverent spoof video. The edgy clip spliced footage of Tom Brokaw imagining a McCain victory and directed terrified viewers to VoteForChange. It was an instant sensation, rocketing past celebrities as the most viewed item on YouTube. Within days NBC filed a copyright claim and the clip was pulled, but the new site had already bested the average traffic for Senate.gov. Meanwhile, in some states spikes in registration reveal a civic excitement broader than any single campaign can create. In Ohio a record-breaking 94 percent of eligible citizens have now registered.

It's easy to forget, but during the primary season Obama trailed in most polls before the Iowa caucuses. Credit the man for using personal appeal and the politics of hope to stay afloat, but credit his campaign's sophisticated Internet program for making even that possible. Without the web, they wouldn't have had the money to compete or the network to organize support beyond the party apparatus. Those feats, however, have blue borders. Obama has only altered Democratic politics so far.

If his strategy succeeds, all presidential politics could change. First-time voters--both this generation of the young, black or marginalized as well as future rookie cohorts--might become a constituency that candidates pursue. The long shot, if Obama wins big, is a larger electoral universe that forces Republicans to play catch-up. The party that spent decades stifling voter turnout, from illegal suppression to court-sanctioned ploys like ID requirements, could find electoral salvation depends on the ability to register its own new voters. Couple that grassroots pressure with an economic crisis stoking intense bipartisan populism, and a "new politics" might really be on the horizon.

Barack Obama

Joe Biden:" You can't call yourself maverick when all you've been is a sidekick" (video)

2008-10-09T20:08:00.000-07:00

BarackObamadotcom, video (15:11):

Joe Biden talks about what he does in his neighborhood, to a crowd of over 1100 folks at William Jewell College Liberty, MO on October 9th, 2008.

Barack Obama

Burner-Reichert City Club Debate (video)

2008-10-09T10:19:00.000-07:00

TVW, video, (01:18:50):

The Seattle CityClub and The Seattle Times host a debate with 8th Congressional District candidates Dave Reichert (Prefers Republican Party) and Darcy Burner (Prefers Democratic Party) at the Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue.

"Barack Obama's Known Associate" (video)

2008-10-09T06:14:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show, video. John mocks McCain and then welcomes Michelle Obama to the show.

Barack Obama

Spotted at First & Pike: Seattle Bassets for Obama

2008-10-08T22:46:00.000-07:00

First posted here on Seattlest, and then picked up by Andrew Sullivan. This is my dog park buddy Stevo who told me earlier today when we were there with our canines that he was going to head downtown for some Obama "visibility." He got it, big time!
Barack Obama

Michelle Obama on Larry King (video)

2008-10-08T22:24:00.000-07:00

CNN, video (01:48). Howie P.S.: There are several more clips from the show there, as well.

Barack Obama

"Barack Obama: Indianapolis, Indiana" (video)

2008-10-08T20:44:00.000-07:00

BarackObamadotcom, video (03:24):

Barack Obama spoke to the audience at a rally in Indianapolis (October 8, 2008) about the fact that our economic struggles are serious but our best days are still ahead of us.

Howie P.S.: Ari Melber has posted Obama: Better Off Than You Were 4 Weeks Ago?"" about this speech. And later today, Ari posted "Backstage Footage Surfaces from Dem Convention" with video (14:45). "PRODUCTION NOTES: This is a backstage pass for the converted — a fun but shmaltzy sequence of moments for viewers who can’t get enough of the convention, or the Obama-Biden ticket." There is a short blooper at the end.

Barack Obama

"8 Foo Fighters Songs McCain Should Use Instead of 'My Hero'" (with video)

2008-10-08T19:47:00.000-07:00

Chris Kornelis (Seattle Weekly) with video (04:34):

Foo Fighters joined the ranks of Ann & Nancy Wilson of Heart this morning by not-so-discreetly asking Sen. John McCain to stop using their music to rally his troops. The Vietnam Veteran's anthem of choice, it turns out, has been "My Hero."
"The saddest thing about this is that 'My Hero' was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential," Foo Fighters said in a press release. "To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song. We hope that the McCain campaign will do the right thing and stop using our song—and start asking artists' permission in general!"

Today, we'd like to call on the McCain camp to do the right thing as well, and pick a more appropriate Foo Fighters tune on the stump. Here are a few recommendations.
8. “Hey, Johnny Park”

See, they already wrote a song for you.

Everything fades in time, it's true.

7. “Wind Up”

Sen. Temper, if you ever had a theme song, this is it.

Maybe I'll fall behind, but I don't mind because I'll catch up ... Spare me your questions because you know me so well/Someday you'll realize I get shy and choke up.

6. “The Pretender”

Maverick? Please. Straight Talk Express? COME ON!

In time, or so I'm told/I'm just another soul for sale.
5. “Oh, George”

Kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it?

4. “My Poor Brain'

You're right, probably better suited for Gov. Palin.

3. “Exhausted”

Of course you are. YOU'RE OLD!

2. “Alone + Easy Target”

So many members of the liberal media with so much to say. Must be tough. Plus, YOU'RE OLD!

1. “I'll Stick Around”

Gotta hand it to ya, fella, your campaign was left for dead, you championed an extremely unpopular military maneuver in Iraq that's often called “The. Surge.” and now you're one heartbeat away from making Sarah Palin the President of the United States of America.
I've taken all and I've endured/One day it all will fade, I'm sure.

H/t to Chris Kornelis.

Lemons into Lemonade: "That One" 08

2008-10-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

It didn't take long. Now there is a logo and a website. You can get a t-shirt (example, below) there, too.
Barack Obama

"Seattle P-I Editorial Board"--WA 8 (video)

2008-10-08T08:41:00.000-07:00

tvw.org, video (01:11:58):

Candidate interviews -- 8th Congressional District -- incumbent Dave Reichert (Prefers Republican Party) and challenger Darcy Burner (Prefers Democratic Party).

Howie P.S.: Even if you have the time, this is for geeks and political junkies only (like me).

Joel Connelly: Like "That One" I palled around with Ayers

2008-10-08T07:51:00.000-07:00

Joel Connelly (Seattle P-I):

AFTER HEARING THE unleashed Sarah Palin accuse Sen. Barack Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists" -- and Sen. John McCain's brother call northern Virginia "communist country" -- this scribe is moved to a confession.
One-time Weathermen leader William Ayers, the target in Palin's day of rage, was once a guest in my kitchen. Not only that, but I brewed him a pot of tea and heated up a bagel.

Ayers consorted with our family's standard poodle, S'Murphy Brown, after she extended a paw to the top of his knee.

Circumstances don't matter in wing nuts' land of guilt-by-association, but I had no choice.

The Hi Spot Cafe, notorious liberal hangout in Madrona -- Seattle's equivalent to Chicago's Hyde Park -- had just closed. We needed to do an interview about Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days," a timely topic, since the terrorist atrocity of 9/11 had taken place just 16 days earlier.

The 2008 presidential campaign has taken an ugly turn. In tones reminiscent of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, McCain's campaign seeks to tie Obama to Ayers. (The two men are Hyde Park neighbors.) Media have been targeted: An African-American journalist at a Palin rally was reportedly told by someone in the crowd, "Sit down, boy."

It represents an incredible turnaround for a candidate who denounced guilt-by-association just last March.

Asked about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, McCain said: "I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything they say. I know that, for example, I've had endorsements of some people that I didn't share their views, but they endorsed mine. And so I think we've got to be very careful about that."

McCain has since put his soul in blind trust.

Breathlessly, Tuesday, the McCain-Palin campaign put out a "damning" release confirming that Obama "continued to serve on a charitable board" with Ayers even while knowing he participated in such Vietnam-era actions as the "Days of Rage."

What they were doing was deciding how to spend an educational grant from Walter Annenberg, a Republican and Richard Nixon intimate who served as ambassador to Great Britain.

Of Ayers, I am reminded of an old quip by the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, longtime University of Notre Dame president. He reversed the adage about giving people enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

"If you give student dissenters enough time, they'll redeem themselves," Hesburgh said.

America is a forgiving place. It allows people to redeem, remake and repackage themselves.

A remaking example comes to mind, William F. Buckley's National Review, the magazine that revived conservatism in the 1960s. Its masthead was loaded with right-thinking folk who were Communist Party members in their youth.

David Horowitz, once editor of the radical magazine Ramparts, has been reborn as a conservative polemicist who campaigns against political correctness and compiles enemies' lists of liberal professors.

Ayers' father was president of Commonwealth Edison, Chicago's big electrical utility. When a federal appeals court threw out federal charges against the Weathermen, William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, ended 10 years of life on the lam and made productive lives in the Windy City.

Ayers is distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Dohrn is a Chicago lawyer and director of Northwestern University's Children and Family Justice Center.

The couple's work has won the praise of Mayor Richard Daley, whose father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, sent police after window-smashing Weathermen.

The stuff being hurled at Obama isn't new. Far-right Web sites, and Fox News, have spent months on the smear beat.

Again, in March, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declared, "Throughout his life, John McCain has held himself to the highest standards, and

he will continue to run a respectful campaign based on the issues."

What do such folk as ex-Gov. Dan Evans and ex-Secretary of State Ralph Munro -- who signed up with McCain of 2000 -- think of today's character assassin?

Is Evans going to break out his hip boots, used in a 1988 TV spot to damn dirty Democrats, so as to wade through the dirt of McCain 2008?

Of course, those who throw mud often have clay feet.

McCain once "attended meetings" at which (later-imprisoned) savings-and-loan mogul Charles Keating asked senators to pressure federal regulators to lay off.

Palin has been associated with -- as recently as a February speech to its state convention -- the Alaska Independence Party. The party advocates that the 49th state become a commonwealth or independent state.

The AIP's founder, Joe Vogler, famously declared: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America and her damned institutions."

In our long-ago conversation, Ayers acknowledged the Weathermen's "stupidity" and "wrongness." "We were not terrorists," he argued. "We flirted with it. We toyed with it. We killed ourselves."

Is that so different from Palin toying with the AIP, or McCain flirting with a crook who cost the taxpayers billions?

Still, my life is stained by that pot of tea. S'Murphy Brown is no longer with us, but I half-expect to hear some mouth on Fox News describe her as a "notorious terrorist bitch."

Barack Obama

MSNBC Pundit Merry-go-round

2008-10-07T22:22:00.000-07:00

MSNBC, video.

Keep watching/listening as the segments keep coming, one after another. Keith Olbermann moderates.

Barack Obama

"McCain's Failed Debate Offensive" (with video)

2008-10-07T20:50:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber, with video(02:27:

John McCain did not have the debate he needed on Tuesday night.
McCain's style was aggressive, disciplined and occasionally punchy. He heaped criticism on Barack Obama, blasting his record on taxes, health care and earmarks, and at one point derisively called the Democratic nominee "That One." McCain made over 14 references to the candidates' "records," pleading with voters to put aside Obama's words and inspect his history.

McCain's policy rhetoric was populist, reformist and sometimes contrarian. He floated the name of Obama backer Warren Buffet as a potential Treasury Secretary, and pledged that his administration would swiftly "buy up" all "the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes." (Obama's rapid response team immediately noted that the bailout bill already includes "authority" for the Treasury to buy residential and commercial mortgages.) After all the audience questions and Brokaw quips piled up, however, McCain still failed to upend the narrative. It's a major setback in a race that is trending towards Obama and running out of time.

While McCain attacked most of the night -- in spite of the intimate, town hall setting -- Obama stuck to a crisper, measured tone. He still returned fire when necessary, counter-punching a financial attack by noting that "McCain's campaign chairman's firm was a lobbyist on behalf of Fannie Mae." Obama swiftly pivoted, however, to addressing the economy from a regular voter's perspective. "But, look, you're not interested in hearing politicians pointing fingers. What you're interested in is trying to figure out, how is this going to impact you?" Then he touted his plans to "strengthen" home buyers and advance regulation instead of the free market fundamentalism that ruled over the past "eight years."

I think Obama's best moment came when he reprised McCain's attack from the last debate. "Sen. McCain, in the last debate and today, again, suggested that I don't understand. It's true. There are some things I don't understand," he said firmly. "I don't understand how we ended up invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are setting up base camps and safe havens to train terrorists to attack us. That was Sen. McCain's judgment and it was the wrong judgment. When Sen. McCain was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators," he explained, concluding, "That was the wrong judgment, and it's been costly to us."
Before the debate had even ended, the Republican National Committee was already spinning a disappointing night for McCain. In the 10pm hour, an RNC spokesperson sent reporters a post by Politico's Ben Smith, "Not really a town hall," complaining about the format.

Howie P.S.: I was at work, so thanks to SusanG who linked to Ari's piece in her post on the front page of Kos tonight,"Reaction begins." I guess this means my pal Ari is now a major pundit. He wrote this, I believe, before the first post debate polling had come out and as you have seen (or will see) CNN and CBS are both pointing to an Obama win.

Barack Obama

"BREAKING: Landslide Obama Victory"

2008-10-07T09:31:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

New narrative alert: Sen. Barack Obama will win this election — in a landslide.

But wait, weren’t all the experts and pundits worrying about Obama’s demise just one month ago? Well times change.
Markets fall. Running mates get exposed as embarassingly unqualified. So now this week’s conventional wisdom — first teed up on the front page of the Sunday New York Times and now spreading across the chattering class — is that Obama will not only win, but win big.

The Times analysis focused on the economy, reporting that pocketbook issues were powering Obama “in at least nine states that voted for President Bush in 2004, including some that neither side thought would be on the table this close to Election Day.

The piece included caveats, but flip to the back of the paper and you’ll find bolder predictions. On Monday, conservative columnist David Brooks flatly “called the election for Obama.” (He was speaking at the American Magazine Conference, as Advertising Age reported.) Even Clintonites are getting in on the act.

“It’s over,” says Howard Wolfson, the Clinton press strategist turned Fox News commentator (and sometime blogger). “If the election were tomorrow, Obama would win all of the states John Kerry carried and add Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio and Florida,” he blogged this week. “This dynamic is very unlikely to change. John McCain’s goal in the first debate was to discredit Sen. Obama as a credible commander in chief… He didn’t come close. Absent a domestic terror attack the economy will remain the No. 1 issue in the race, and there is little Sen. McCain can do to make up [the] gap.”

I found the August hand-wringing about Obama’s problems overblown. While these have obviously been two great weeks for the Democratic nominee, this new narrative is also over the top.

Perceptions change quickly in politics. A “terror attack” is not the only event that could upend this race. Let’s dial it down — how about a gaffe in the remaining debates? Or new revelations about any of the candidates?

In this volatile market, you’d think people would be more careful about hedging their bets.

Barack Obama

"Obama offers best way out of economic disarray"

2008-10-07T07:53:00.000-07:00

Charlotte Observer(NC)--From Hugh McColl Jr., former chairman and CEO of Bank of America:

In 49 years of living in Charlotte, I've seldom offered my opinion in writing and never submitted a piece such as this. The condition of our country compels me.

The economic disarray threatening our community and nation poses critical challenges but also presents opportunity. We can observe the presidential candidates in the crucible of crisis.
Only one of them demonstrates the needed intellect, fortitude and temperament. That is why I have decided to publicly support Barack Obama.

What is needed in Washington is sound judgment and exceptional leadership. Through the years that I've been a businessman and before that an officer in the Marine Corps, I saw what qualities make effective leaders. I see them in Obama: a sharp intellect, stiff spine and steady hand.

Obama's economic plans will restore market confidence and provide a blueprint for a better future. His pragmatic, intelligent economic plan will stop our financial slide and restore the expansion and confidence we knew in the 1990s. Obama's tax relief plans for small businesses and the middle class should provide much-needed economic stimulus.

Obama also has an energy plan that makes sense. He will shift energy use from foreign oil toward alternative, domestic sources. This will create millions of “green collar” jobs and enable us to capitalize on alternative energy. These cleaner energy solutions will protect the planet for our children and grandchildren and free us from depending on hostile nations.

We could not have built Bank of America into the leader it has become without a highly educated workforce. Obama proposes to invest in education to ensure we remain the most productive and efficient in the world. We must take these steps to stay globally competitive.
I greatly respect all that John McCain has done for our nation. But it is Barack Obama whom we need now.

Barack Obama

"Barack Obama: Press Avail in Asheville, North Carolina" (video)

2008-10-06T21:18:00.000-07:00

BarackObama.com, video
(03:11):

Barack Obama gives a press avail on the economy in Asheville, North Carolina on October 6, 2008.

Barack Obama

"Keating Economics: John McCain & The Making of a Financial Crisis" (video)

2008-10-06T20:54:00.000-07:00

BarackObama.com, video (13:26):

Learn more at http://www.keatingeconomics...

Barack's Decision: How Do I Deal with a Pitbull?

2008-10-06T10:02:00.000-07:00

Palin, in her campaign debut, introduced herself as a "pitbull with lipstick." So my question is, how does the Obama campaign plan to respond, now that she has shown us that she wasn't just being clever or entertaining. At the dog park I go to, when a dog gets vicious, you go to the owner. In this case, that would be McCain. So will Obama, as Ed Schultz suggests, challenge him on this during Tuesday's debate?

"Hollywood goes political as election nears"

2008-10-06T08:31:00.000-07:00

Reuters:

Hollywood is coming out this fall with a slew of political movies that hit all the hot-button topics as the tight U.S. presidential campaign nears its climax.
From religion to patriotism, gay rights and the presidency of George W. Bush, directors are wearing their political colors on their sleeves, using comedy, true stories and fantasy to send not-so-subtle messages to Americans preparing to choose between Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain on November 4.

"There is a sense now that these political films can really be successful, and they're a genre aimed at one side of the political spectrum or the other," said Robert Thompson, professor of media and popular culture at Syracuse University.

Next week, controversial director Oliver Stone lands his satirical biopic "W." that attempts to deconstruct Bush's faith and marriage and the days leading up to the 2003 Iraq invasion.

Tom Ortenberg, executive producer of "W.", said filmmakers were mirroring society, even if the release date of the Stone movie could be seen as politically charged.

"We don't attempt to shape society, but we do reflect it," Ortenberg said. "The movie is an examination of how a man like George W. Bush became president, and frankly how anyone can become president."

Director David Zucker's farce "An American Carol" and talk show host Bill Maher's documentary that mocks faith "Religulous" opened on the same day in movie theaters last week.

Zucker, who made hit comedy movies "Airplane!" and the "Naked Gun" series, is a liberal-turned-conservative.

"An American Carol" is a fictional version of left-wing populist Michael Moore who in the movie comes around to loving America just like Scrooge learns to love Christmas.

"I don't think (Moore) does hate America," Zucker said. "I think we're taking dramatic license."

Moore himself released his latest documentary "Slacker Uprising" on the Internet for free last month. It was seen by 2 million viewers in the first three days.

Although the movie chronicles Moore's speaking tours of college campuses during the 2004 election, its Internet release came with a plea to young people to vote and "save this country from four more years of Republican rule."

With the debate over gay marriage heating up in California, trailers are running for the movie biopic "Milk." Sean Penn plays California's first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated in 1978 when the gay rights movement was in its infancy.

After last year's disappointing box office for a string of Iraq war themes movies, including "Rendition" and "In the Valley of Elah," it remains to be seen whether Americans will lap up the political fare with the same enthusiasm they are showing for the tight 2008 race to the White House.

But Thompson said it was encouraging nevertheless to see so many political movies hitting the screens.

"It's nice to know that you can go to your mall in your small city and see something other than helicopters blowing up and comic book people, or Julia Roberts falling in love.

"The fact that we're making good, viable films about our civic experience I think is a good thing," Thompson said.

Buried in the Blog: "Big Bucks Vs. Burner"

2008-10-06T08:14:00.000-07:00

Joel Connelly (Strange Bedfellows-Seattle P-I political blog):

The nation's biggest business lobbies are putting big bucks into a TV campaign to re-elect GOP Rep. Dave Reichert and fend off his formidable Democratic challenger, former Microsoft manager Darcy Burner.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce goes up Monday with a $156,000 TV buy -- anticipate ads that will smear Burner as a tax raiser -- on top of a previous $40,000 radio campaign against the Democratic challenger.

Next week, the National Federation of Independent Business begins a $219,000 television buy to boost Reichert.

Despite its august status, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has earned a sleazy, secretive and ham-handed reputation for its recent political interventions in the Evergreen State.

It used a front group -- the "Voter Education Project" -- to air $1.5 million worth of TV spots denouncing Deborah Senn when the ex-insurance commissioner ran for state attorney general in 2004. The Chamber has refused to say who contributed the money for the anti-Senn campaign.

In 2004, Westcoast Hotels CEO Don Barbieri was about to begin a term as president of the Greater Spokane Chamber of Commerce. Barbieri bowed out, choosing to run (unsuccessfully) as a Democrat for a vacant seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Chamber launched an anti-Barbieri campaign on Spokane television, without first bothering to consult with anybody from the Spokane Chamber. It depicted Barbieri, a longtime Inland Empire business leader, as a dangerous liberal who did not share local values.

The chamber's $40,000 radio buy was used to argue, falsely, that Burner would raise taxes on families with children.

A more basic question can be asked: After the Wall Street meltdown -- caused by deregulation measures that it supported -- what business does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have telling us how to vote?

The U.S. Chamber has been given millions to fight against transparency, accountability and oversight of America's largest financial firms according to a report yesterday by the American Association for Accountability, a trial lawyers group.

In its brief, the association reports that the insurance giant American International Group (AIG) paid $23 million to the U.S. Chamber between 2001 and 2005. As it was going under last month, AIG was balied out by the Treasury Department -- e.g. the country's taxpayers.

The U.S. Chamber is not the biggest business spender in a Washington congressional race.

A secretive group called Americans for Job Security -- with roots in the insurance industry -- spent more than $750,000 in the 2000 Slade Gorton-Maria Cantwell U.S. Senate race.

It boosted Gorton with Eastern Washington TV spots early in the campaign, but launched a $600,000 anti-Cantwell campaign on the day after the primary.

7-11: Great Results Bad Java

2008-10-06T08:02:00.000-07:00

CampaignFreak.com:

FiveThirtyEight.com, the polling site, is currently predicting a 51.2% to 47.2% popular-vote victory for Barack Obama over John McCain. Well, let me tell you something: FiveThirtyEight.com, with all its fancy charts and so-called methodology, has only been around since March. 7-Eleven has been around since 1927. And it has accurately predicted the outcome of the last two elections on its 7-Election.com site. What are their current numbers? Obama 57%, McCain 43%. How it works is simple, and believe me, you don't need a Ph.D. in math to understand it (unlike some other sites I know). You buy a cup of coffee at 7-Eleven and choose whether you want it in a McCain cup or an Obama cup. Simple. American. Vote with joe (though not necessarily for Joe). It appears on a big map. That's politics I can understand.

Barack Obama

H/t to Cheryl Kopec.

"Politico: Obama to hit McCain on Keating Five" (with video)

2008-10-05T22:55:00.000-07:00

Jed Report, with video (01:14):

Politico's Mike Allen reports that Barack Obama will unveil a 13 minute documentary tomorrow at noon eastern time on John McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal. The video will be hosted at keatingeconomics.com.

In the meantime, here's a 97-second summary of the issue I put together for HuffPost:

"Barack Obama on John McCain "Turning the Page" on the Economy" (video)

2008-10-05T22:37:00.000-07:00

BarackObamadotcom, video (04:02):

Barack Obama speaks about John McCain trying to distract voters from important issues like the economy with smears and negative campaigning in Asheville, NC.

Howie P.S: Al Giordano gives us the "Anatomy of a Mass Rally in the Hills of Western North Carolina," the place where this speech was delivered today.

Barack Obama

Daily Kos--Obama Ad: McCain "Erratic" and "Out of Touch" (with video)

2008-10-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

SusanG, front-paged now on Kos, with video (00:30):

Obama's coming out with a new ad Monday, and playing nice and reaching across the aisle won't be the themes of the day.

Discussion of this ad and the Obama campaign's promise of a harder hitting stategy is underway in mysticlaker's diary.

Obama pulled no punches in Asheville, North Carolina, today either. He went directly for the jugular on the McCain campaign's desire to turn the page from focusing on the dismal economy. Excerpts from his speech today as provided by the Obama campaign.

Howie P.S.: Ari Melber tracks another Obama ad from earlier this week, "Color by Numbers: Bush-McCain Tax Plan," video (00:35). This one is flying low, somewhere.

Ben Smith posts Obama's new health care ad, "Coin," video (00:30).

Barack Obama

Begala on MTP: "This guilt by association thing could blow up in McCain's face" (video)

2008-10-05T09:30:00.000-07:00

mowens213, video (02:56):

On Meet the Press, Democratic strategist Paul Begala warns McCain of the dangers of playing guilt by association.

Howie P.S.: There is also the matter of Mr. and Mrs. Palin's relationship to the Alaska Independence Party. As Greg Sargent(TPM) notes:

If Palin is going to say this, it is now perfectly legitimate to point out that she repeatedly courted a secessionist group founded by someone who openly professed hatred of the American government, cursed our flag, and wanted to secede from the Union. Sarah's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of this group, which continues to venerate that founder to this day, for years.

H/t to Ben Smith.

"David Letterman-Brian Williams-1of2-Oct-3rd-2008" (video)

2008-10-04T23:03:00.000-07:00

Mango77774, video (10:16). If you want to hear from Williams that both Obama and McCain are "quality hangs" you will have to go to Part Two, video (05:45). For an even more caustic view of Palin and "what her candidacy says about America" check out Matt Taibbi's new piece in the Rolling Stone.

"Bruce Springsteen Performs "The Rising" for Obama Rally!" (video)

2008-10-04T22:25:00.000-07:00

NCDem, video (10:32):

Bruce Springsteen performs "The Rising" for an Obama Get Out the Vote Rally in Philadelphia, PA on October 4, 2008.

Barack Obama

"Tina Fey As Sarah Palin In VP Debate On SNL (VIDEO)"

2008-10-04T22:06:00.000-07:00

Huffington Post with video (11:39):

Saturday Night Live's sketch about the vice presidential debate starred Queen Latifah as debate moderator Gwen Ifill, as well as Tina Fey, reprising her role as Governor Sarah Palin.

"Cut, Kill, Dig, Drill"

2008-10-04T10:13:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Raban (London Review of Books):

(excerpt) What is most striking about her is that she seems perfectly untroubled by either curiosity or the usual processes of thought. When answering questions, both Obama and Joe Biden have an unfortunate tendency to think on their feet and thereby tie themselves in knots: Palin never thinks. Instead, she relies on a limited stock of facts, bright generalities and pokerwork maxims, all as familiar and well-worn as old pennies.

Given any question, she reaches into her bag for the readymade sentence that sounds most nearly proximate to an answer, and, rather than speaking it, recites it, in the upsy-downsy voice of a middle-schooler pronouncing the letters of a word in a spelling bee. She then fixes her lips in a terminal smile. In the televised game shows that pass for political debates in the US, it’s a winning technique: told that she has 15 seconds in which to answer, Palin invariably beats the clock, and her concision and fluency more than compensate for her unrelenting triteness.

Howie P.S.: Raban is one those gifted writers (like Timothy Egan) living in Seattle whose major audiences don't. H/t to Andrew Sullivan.

The Daily Show: "Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Bailout Bill Passes" (video)

2008-10-04T08:53:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show, video (08:24).

Howie P.S.: The video ain't pretty, but it is pretty funny. On the other hand, what the McCain campaign is going to do in the next 31 days is neither:
Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat's judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

"Here's That Nasty Attack Ad Suggesting Obama Doesn't Care If Babies Die"

2008-10-03T16:39:00.000-07:00

Greg Sargent (TPM) with video:

This morning, we reported that an independent group was running ads in Wisconsin attacking Obama for supposedly letting babies die by hitting him for opposing an Illinois measure that purported to protect the lives of babies who had survived an abortion.
Now Mark Halperin has obtained a copy of the ad, which is the work of some group called the Committee for Truth in Politics, and it's a nasty piece of work that actually features a cooing baby.
In the next month, we're going to see an assault on Obama's character, patriotism, and fitness to be president that is unprecedented in American politics.

Howie P.S.: Here comes shitstorm 2.0, courtesy of John McCain.
Barack Obama

"Moosehunter"

2008-10-03T09:16:00.000-07:00

To those pundits that have said last night's debate will put a stop to the Palin-mocking, I say "not so fast, doggone it!" Check out this from Aden Nak, via Political Wire, from whence the diagram above and the title of this post originates. Aden Nak's site was so busy just now, I couldn't log on, so the market for Palin-bashing seems firm.

John Nichols: Biden Teaches Palin the Meaning of 'Maverick'

2008-10-03T07:30:00.000-07:00

John Nichols:

ST. LOUIS -- On the night after the U.S. Senate endorsed a $700 billion plan to bail out collapsing banks, and on the day before the U.S. House will be asked to do the same, the economy was going to be the central issue of the first and only vice presidential debate.

Neither Sarah Palin nor Joe Biden wanted to be on the wrong side of the divide between what a previous vice presidential contender famously -- and accurately -- described as "two Americas."

So it was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the sitting governor of the nation's physically-largest state spent the evening talking about buying gas "with a guy named Joe" and rallying "Joe Six Packs (and) hockey moms across the nation."
Biden and Palin both buffed their blue-collar credentials. They told stories of personal woe. Biden referenced tough times on streets of Scranton and Wilmington. Palin recalled going without health-care coverage. Biden's voice caught as he spoke of caring as a single parent for an injured child.

For the most part, however, the candidates eschewed personality profiling in favor of full-throated denunciations of all things Wall Street.

"If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I don't think you needed any more evidence than what you see now," griped Biden.

"Darn right it was the predator lenders, who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house. There was deception there, and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that," grumbled Palin.

If they walked the same stylistic line when it came to trying to out-populist one another, however, the candidates divided on the issues.

And that is how Biden prevailed.

Let's be clear that Palin did not crash and burn as her most ardent detractors anticipated – or, at the least, hoped – she would. Yes, the governor rambled at times, and she had no comebacks at those moments when Biden directly challenged the validity of her over-the-top claims about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's Senate voting record. But Palin gave Republican spin doctors enough material – mainly in the form of folksy one-liners -- so that they could cheer her "success" without sounding entirely ridiculous.

The anticipated gravitas gap was on display, especially when the senior senator's encyclopedic knowledge of foreign and domestic policy – and of Republican presidential nominee John McCain's voting record – was contrasted with Palin's encyclopedic knowledge of tax codes in Wasilla, her desperate clinging to the word "maverick" and her line-of-the-night observation that unleashing "nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people and too many parts of our planet."

But Palin was not the moose-in-the-headlights that America saw talking with CBS News anchor Katie Couric. She was generally on message, and the message was "us-against-them" populism.

Asked by moderator Gwen Ifill about the condition of the economy, Palin responded, "You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, ‘How are you feeling about the economy?' And I'll bet you, you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market. Did we just take a major hit with those investments?"

That was suitably "of the people" – especially coming from a rather wealthy suburban Republican.

Unfortunately for Palin, Biden recognized an opening, and he took it.

"(It) was two Mondays ago (that) John McCain said at 9 o'clock in the morning that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Two weeks before that, he said… we've made great economic progress under George Bush's policies," the senator began. "Nine o'clock, the economy was strong. Eleven o'clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis. That doesn't make John McCain a bad guy, but it does point out he's out of touch. Those folks on the sidelines knew that two months ago."

Again and again, when Palin went populist, Biden went after McCain.

Take the point at which Palin was ready to lead the rabble to the barricades.

"(Let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again," she announced. "Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our saving…"

Biden did not ridicule his opponent's pretense.

Rather, he suggested that, while Palin could talk all she liked about rallying the masses against Wall Street, she would have a hard time getting John McCain on board for the revolution.

"Two years ago, Barack Obama warned about the sub-prime mortgage crisis. John McCain said shortly after that in December he was surprised there was a sub-prime mortgage problem. John McCain, while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do, was literally giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal saying that ‘I'm always for cutting regulations.' We let Wall Street run wild. John McCain and he's a good man, but John McCain thought the answer is that tried and true Republican response: deregulate, deregulate," Biden told Palin, and America.

"So what you had is… overwhelming deregulation. You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself. And while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half called for more deregulation. As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

That was an ouch moment.

And it got more painful for Palin when, toward the end of the debate, Biden took the word the Republican clung to so fervently Thursday night – "maverick" – away from her, and from John McCain.

"Let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives," Biden carefully explained. "He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there. He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate. He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college. He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table. Can we send -- can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't -- we can't make it. How are we going to heat the … house this winter? He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter. So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table."

A Republican named Sarah Palin tried to convince Americans that she was running on a populist ticket.

But Joe Biden reminded the voters sitting at those kitchen tables, in those small houses with big mortgages, that the man who heads that ticket, a Republican named John McCain, is not on their side.

And, in so doing, Biden did not merely score a debating point. He did what a vice presidential candidate is supposed to do. He helped the man who heads his ticket, a Democrat named Barack Obama, stake a significantly stronger claim on the presidency.

Howie P.S.: Joe Biden calls out McCain-Palin in this debate video clip, "Maverick He Is Not" (01:09).I agree with this prediction of a hard attack by McCain in the weeks ahead from a story in yesterday's Times Online (UK):

His campaign is now at a crossroads. Mike Murphy, who ran his last bid for the White House eight years ago, described how many established Republicans had become exasperated with recent decisions. “Almost to a person they are dismayed by what they see as the stunning lack of competence in the McCain operation,” he said.

Others believe he will roll the dice again and become even more aggressive, arguing that Mr McCain should start attacking Mr Obama over his Chicago past, including the controversial pastor Jeremiah Wright, the convicted fraudster Tony Rezko and the 60s radical Bill Ayers.

David Goldstein produces the definitive "Maverick" moment:

Barack Obama

"A Spicier VP Debate Hits YouTube (VIDEO)"

2008-10-02T23:23:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

Thursday's vice presidential debate was a serious and substantive affair. With superb moderating by Gwen Ifill, the conversation stuck to policy-driven sparring, but the footage is already taking a different shape on YouTube.
Before the debate clock had run out, spicier clips from the debate were piling up on YouTube. Two of the most passionate featured Biden, speaking about personal adversity and why the "past is prologue" when it comes to John McCain's record:

Palin's pluckier side -- love it or hate it -- is on display in a short clip quoting her own assessment of her experience as a running mate. "How long have I been at this - like, five weeks?" she asked.

The policy debates over Iraq seemed more ferocious and slightly less scripted than the nominees' debate last week. Palin went after Biden for changing his position on the war -- and she misrepresented Obama's record on troop funding, as FactCheck.org reported -- but both candidates spoke passionately about the service of their own children. (Biden also went out of his way to note the service of McCain's son, something the Republican nominee almost never mentions on the trail.) While most voters oppose the Republican ticket's Iraq policy, Palin went on offense anyway, accusing her rivals of waving the white flag of surrender, although she had previously called for an "exit strategy" before she joined McCain's ticket:

Yet watch that same exchange with CNN's distracting dial charts, which crawl across the screen with live reactions from swing voters in Ohio, and you'll see it didn't play well with the focus group. One YouTuber is already pushing that failure, under the banner "Sarah Palin sees support dive when attacking Joe Biden." Of course, watching for Palin to fail makes viewers more likely to think she failed, so some reactions to the debate will depend on whether voters watched the raw footage, or CNN's real-time strategic clutter, or handpicked clips on YouTube.

"Net Backlash Hinders Bailout"

2008-10-02T16:37:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

If you believe the wisdom of the crowd, this bailout blows.
An intense and often spontaneous Internet backlash hindered bipartisan efforts to pass the $700 billion bailout. As soon as the basics of the measure were publicized, e-mail and Web discussions exposed a sharp and important divide between the public and elites on the proposal. Proponents insist the "rescue plan" is essential to shoring up credit and stabilizing the financial markets, while critics say taxpayer money should not be spent to bail out irresponsible behavior on Wall Street. A remarkably broad coalition of elites back the bailout measure, of course, from both parties' nominees and congressional leaders to the majority of commentators across the corporate media spectrum. Across the fuller spectrum of the Internet, however, it's a different story.

Websites of all stripes are brimming with intense opposition to the plan. Bailout talk dominated the blogopshere this week. References to the measure hit a staggering 14,000 per day at its peak, for the vote on Monday, according to the blog search engine Technorati.com. (By comparison, references to "Obama," an international Web sensation, average about 8,000 per day.) On Capitol Hill, the high volume of constituent e-mail against the bailout has computers on the brink of crashing--literally. Congress temporarily banned e-mail to representatives because its website, House.gov, was about to go down. On Tuesday, a House official told members that the unusual step was "temporarily necessary to ensure that Congressional websites are not completely disabled by the millions of e-mails flowing into the system."

The vast majority of e-mails are against the bailout, according to politicians who have disclosed estimates. Senator Sherrod Brown said in a newspaper interview that a whopping 95 percent of his e-mail opposed the measure and "nearly all" of Senator Barbara Boxer's e-mail was against the bill, according to her staff.

"What happened this week online has been far more spontaneous than organized," said blogger David Sirota, author of The Uprising, a recent book about the "populist revolt" against Wall Street and Washington. "Many of the organizational players actually stayed on the sidelines, but the Internet became a real outlet for activists and the public to vent its outrage to Congress," he told The Nation. Groups like U.S. Action tapped into that sentiment, using net and grassroots outreach to quickly organizing more than 250 street protests around the country. Activists also used the Web to pick apart and expose the entire bailout bill, which some members did not read in full. (The version that passed on Wednesday ran hundreds of pages, and Senator John McCain acknowledged he did not read the three-page summary circulated by the Treasury Secretary. Web transparency advocates are fighting that habit, too.)

On the popular progressive site Hullabaloo, a blogger named dday wrote that Monday's dramatic House vote was the culmination of an uprising by average citizens, online and off, who have lost any faith that political elites are acting in their interest.

"Nobody has confidence in the political system," dday argued, "there's no trust and no belief, and so a popular uprising is the result... While the support of the bill was mixed, the opposition was quite vocal and almost nobody believed that regular people would get anything out of it." It was clearly "regular people," in districts red and blue, who deluged the House, expressing scorn for the bailout and rejecting the crisis narrative that was unfolding on the nightly news. There is no way to determine exactly how many members of Congress were swayed, but many who opposed the vote said they were prioritizing the public's views over intense pressure from their party, their donors and (some) experts.

"When the White House and Congress, two highly unpopular institutions at the moment, come along with a top-down, no-debate, no-transparency, save-the-fatcats bill and ask for its immediate passage," writes TechPresident co-founder Micah Sifry, "we shouldn't be surprised to see those same forces reflexively hit back."

Sifry, a longtime campaign finance reform advocate (and former Nation staff writer), argues that the Internet is beginning to counter the dominance of special interests and top-down deal-making. It is "not enough to stop" the ultimate passage of the bailout bill, he says, but the backlash hints at fundamental ways to "alter the way business is done on Capitol Hill."

Pitted against a united political and media establishment, average voters were outgunned on the bailout battle from the start. If you believed the media and experts last week, the bill was an essential measure headed for speedy passage on Monday. It was another one of those inevitable, bipartisan solutions--crafted on Wall Street, sold on K Street, purchased in the Capitol and relentlessly promoted back in the Midtown Manhattan broadcast studios--with no role for the public who would foot the bill. The Web helped people storm the debate, rallying opposition to buck two branches of government and shock the markets.

Ultimately, reactive net movements are not positioned to spontaneously unite behind one alternative, and the bailout's powerful backers are getting much of what they want. That is not, however, the only result. A different Congressional leadership might have tapped this uprising to break with the president, and push a completely new plan (vesting authority in an independent body instead of the Treasury Secretary, for example, or prioritizing credit assistance, domestic spending and re-regulation instead of such a large package for Wall Street.)
A significant number of politicians and candidates have been jolted by the reaction. And only the public knows if the uprising will continue after Election Day.

"Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits" (video)

2008-10-02T07:37:00.000-07:00

TPM, video (05:46):

All the best moments of Sarah Palin interviews, starring Sarah Palin, Charlies Gibson, Katie Couric, Sean Hannity, and special guest appearance from John McCain himself.

Howie P.S.: Like Palin in the video , I am unable to muster an appropriate response to this parade of hits.

"Huge Celebrities Tout Voting on YouTube" (with video)

2008-10-01T21:43:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber, with video (04:45):

When celebrities push their politics, it's often annoying and rarely effective. A new YouTube video, however, has the makings of the kind of viral hit that could help -- yes -- Raise Awareness for something important.

There are only about five days left to register to vote in some key states, including Ohio, Florida and Colorado, and this video features a fleet of traffic-driving A-listers urging people to register before it's too late.

The public service announcement is packed with quips from Halle Berry, Dustin Hoffman, Natalie Portman, Sarah Silverman, Forest Whitaker, Leo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Usher and Demi Moore, to name only a few. Kevin Bacon is also in the mix, you know, to keep everyone connected.

The video opens with a twist, as famous faces spit out the cliched reasons that people don't vote, and then flips the script by hammering home all the issues at stake in the election. The irreverent message is strictly non-partisan -- urging people to contact five friends and register to vote through Google Maps -- though conservatives will grouse that many of the issues have a progressive tint. (Pro-lifers do get a shout out, though.) This effort also overlaps with the Obama campaign's aggressive push to register voters before the looming deadlines. Senators Leahy and Kennedy are tapping their lists to drive people to Obama's registration portal, VoteForChange.com, and the campaign has been running ads on TV, news websites and Facebook to recruit first time voters.

Howie P.S.: Here's another reason to vote: Caribou Barbie attempting to blow smoke in our faces.

Senate Bailout Vote: Murray "Yes"--Cantwell "No"

2008-10-01T20:25:00.000-07:00

Andrew (NPI Advocate):

Minutes ago, the United States Senate voted seventy four to twenty five to pass fundamentally flawed legislation that would bail out Wall Street's mistakes to the tune of nearly three fourths of a trillion dollars.

Ken posted the roll call earlier.

Voting yes were Senators Patty Murray, Larry Craig and Gordon Smith. Voting no were Senators Maria Cantwell, Mike Crapo and Ron Wyden.

Senators Obama and McCain voted yes.

The following is the text of Senator Cantwell's unprepared remarks (delivered earlier this evening on the Senate floor) calling for a redesigned solution that addresses the causes of this financial crisis - a solution that safeguards America's common wealth and holds Wall Street accountable.
Mr. President, I don't think 5 minutes would possibly be enough time for me to explain all the things I would like to say. I am sure I could spend an hour talking about credit default swaps. I am sure I could spend 2 days talking about the lack of transparency in the financial markets.

I am sure I could spend a lot of time explaining what I think is the right thing we should do to put as much liquidity into the markets as possible. So I will try to be succinct.

I came to the Senate knowing what it is like to take a tough vote. To make the decision that is right for the American public. It’s most important to do the right thing. I also know what it is like to see millions of dollars in the stock market go away and watch a stock bubble burst.

I also know what it is like to stand on the Senate floor, as I did 3 years ago, when someone tried to cram legislation in the Defense authorization bill to open up drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and I said then that is was the equivalent to legislative blackmail.

I am not going to vote for this legislation tonight based on whether someone crams in tax credits, for which I actually have fought so hard. I am going to render my decision based on what I think is important for the American people.

I think there is something that is missing in our discussion. I applaud Chairman Dodd who has worked hard on the Banking Committee. I applaud my colleague who just spoke, who spoke eloquently about the need to do something.

But the problem with the legislation before us is that it is choosing winners and losers in corporate America. It is inserting the Federal Government in a role in which they decide, along with the private sector, exactly how funds should be allocated.

I am for the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government backing these institutions. What I am not for is turning the keys to the Treasury over to the private sector.

There is much we could agree on tonight. We could agree on the new changes to the FDIC rule. We could agree on mark to market accounting changes and to bringing better marketing and accountability to the system.

We could agree on the up-tick rule and other predictability measures that help the market understand that there is a broad commitment by this institution to do something to help stabilize the markets.

But I am very concerned about the "pick here, pick there" approach that has transpired in the last several weeks.

I ask you to just think of one institution, in my State, Washington Mutual - which I would not necessarily applaud for its subprime lending rates or for its use and backing of credit default swaps, but I would ask you to consider the fact that as that institution was forced into sale by this Government.

Who were the winners and losers in that?

JPMorgan got the assets of that institution and benefited from that. In fact, JPMorgan predicted to me on a conference call the night they acquired Washington Mutual that after one year with their investment, they would have an over $500 million on that investment. That is a 27 percent returned in one year.

The FDIC got some money out of that, too. And then to say nothing about the over 60,000 shareholders who were wiped out.

My complaint is: where is JPMorgan - who should be standing up for the retirement plans, the deferred compensation plans, and other packages that the employees at that company were due?

It is very convenient for us to now choose that we are going to add to JPMorgan's bottom line. In fact, if we would instead do what I am suggesting, we could have an equity proposal instead of having TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, as the roof over America.

Instead, we could have an equity program where the United States would leverage our capital and spur ten to twelve times the private sector investment at the same time, our Nation would be better funded, better prepared, for the onslaught of trouble that is still going to remain after we pass this legislation.

I could not even get my amendment to be considered.

So, so much for the transparency of the Senate.

I am going to continue to work for this idea, for equity, for a more leveraged position, and that we do the traditional role that Government has done time and time again: to use our equity to leverage the private sector to secure our economy.

Thank you Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
We at at the Northwest Progressive Institute strongly applaud Senator Maria Cantwell for her courageous vote.

She is a dependable champion for the public interest, and her speech tonight (which was not prepared in advance) is filled with uncommon sense.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Congressional leadership would be wise to listen to the very serious concerns that Senator Cantwell raised.

If this bailout bill is supposed to be a cure, it's almost worse than the disease that caused it. This is not the timely, deliberative reform that America needs.

Howie P.S.: Here's Patty Murray's statement, via the NPI Advocate. They also have Obama's statement here. Booman says "This was not a popular bill or a particularly good bill. I supported it, but without enthusiasm. Most of the Senate felt the same way. Now we will see what the House does."

Barack Obama

Obama: "Yes We Can Do Deficit Spending"

2008-10-01T05:55:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

RENO, Nev. — Deficit spending is back.

Obama spoke to Sec. Paulson about the bailout from Colorado yesterday. (Credit: Obama Flickr.)

If you listen to Sen. Barack Obama campaigning today, a government bailout of the U.S. financial system will not require drastic domestic spending cuts. Some of Obama’s ambitious proposals for increased spending on health care and energy may get kicked down the road, Obama said, but deficit spending is also part of economic recovery.

“People have asked whether the size of this [bailout] plan, together with the weakening economy, means that the next President will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals,” Obama said at a morning rally at the University of Nevada at Reno. “The answer is both yes and no.”

He conceded that, “With less money flowing into the Treasury, it is likely that some useful programs or policies that I’ve proposed on the campaign trail may need to be delayed. But there are certain investments in our future that we cannot delay precisely because our economy is in turmoil.

“You can always put off giving your house a new paint job or renovating your kitchen, but when your roof is crumbling or your heater goes, you realize that these are long-term investments you need to make right away,” he explained — using of one several folksy analogies to sell the bailout today.

The era of big deficits never ended, stress some observers, so Obama’s reliance on deficit spending would be no different from President Bush’s current approach. Yet Obama is clearly moving to rebut the emerging conventional wisdom — minted by Jim Lehrer’s dogged questioning about cutting spending in Friday’s first presidential debate — that a financial bailout or weakening economy requires scaling back on the domestic spending that Democratic administrations typically advocate.

Barack Obama

"Rise Up, Daylight Breaks" (video with Pat Wright and The Total Experience Gospel Choir)

2008-10-01T05:25:00.000-07:00

BergevinBrothers, video (06:04):

Joe Bergevin and his family went to listen to Senator Barack Obama speak. Joe shook hands with Barack after the event, and commented to him, "I think you're going to get the job done." Barack replied to Joe, "With your help I will, with your help.

Barack Obama

"Obama Demands Bailout in Major Address"

2008-09-30T12:12:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

RENO, Nev — Sen. Barack Obama doubled down in gambling country Tuesday, telling a morning rally at a university here that Congress must pass a bailout plan to tackle the financial problems that are "no longer just a Wall Street crisis, [but] an American crisis."
"It's the American economy that needs this rescue plan," Obama told 12,000 millennials in a serious, impassioned tone.

For the first time, the Democratic presidential nominee explicitly hitched his ongoing argument about social change to the financial crisis, arguing that the nation must transcend its differences and unite behind the bailout.

It was his most dramatic economic address since the financial crisis began. In contrast to the parsing that passed for policy leadership at last week's first presidential debate, Obama emphatically advocated an urgent bailout, regardless of public opinion or partisan squabbling.

"To the Democrats and Republicans who opposed this plan yesterday, I say – step up to the plate and do what's right for this country," he told the crowd packed into the quad at the University of Nevada at Reno.

Then Obama offered a new narrative, one that many Americans may resist: He cast the bailout as another historic American achievement — a challenging but invigorating opportunity to come together for the common good.

"This country and the dream it represents are being tested in a way that we haven't seen in nearly a century. And future generations will judge ours by how we respond to this test," he said. "Will they say that this was a time when America lost its way and its purpose? When we allowed our own petty differences and broken politics to plunge this country into a dark and painful recession? Or will they say that this was another one of those moments when America overcame? When we battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success?"

By now, such rhetoric is familiar to the public: Obama's knack for fusing the language of (progressive) movement organizing with (conservative) American exceptionalism. Today, he took a risk by wrapping it around a deeply unpopular and complex measure that is widely seen as a sop for reckless elites. It was MLK meets CNBC.

"I believe that this is one of those moments. I know that many of you are anxious about your future and the future of this country," Obama continued. "Despite all of this, I ask you to believe – believe in this country and your ability to change it. I ask you what has been asked of the American people in times of trial and turmoil throughout our history – what was asked at the beginning of the greatest financial crisis this nation has ever endured. In his first fireside chat, Franklin Roosevelt told his fellow Americans that "..there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people themselves. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. Let us unite in banishing fear. Together, we cannot fail."

Obama channeled FDR's era — the fear of depression and the promise of a populist agenda — to recast the bailout as a working-class imperative:

"America, together, we cannot fail. Not now. Not when we have a crisis to solve and an economy to save. Not when there are so many Americans without jobs and without homes. Not when there are families who can't afford to see a doctor, or send their child to college, or pay their bills at the end of the month. Not when there is a generation that is counting on us to give them the same opportunities and the same chances that we had for ourselves," he said, his voice hitting the characteristic intensity that rounds out Big Speeches.

"Now is the time to make them proud of what we did here. Let's give our children the future they deserve, and let's act with confidence and courage to show the world that at this moment, in this election, the United States of America is still the last, best hope of Earth."

It was the kind of grand, sprawling argument that Obama makes better than most politicians alive — whether you agree with him or not. Right now, most American don't.

Barack Obama

Democracy Now: “Bridge Loan To Nowhere” (audio and video)

2008-09-30T08:12:00.000-07:00

Democracy Now with audio and video:

On Monday, the House voted 228 to 205 against authorizing the largest government intervention in the financial market in U.S. history. The measure would have granted the Treasury unprecedented authority and up to $700 billion dollars to relieve faltering banks and other firms of bad assets backed by home mortgages, which are falling into foreclosure at record rates. As the economic crisis worsens and spreads across the globe we speak with Robert Johnson, former chief economist of the Senate Banking Committee and Bruce Marks, the Founder and CEO of NACA, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.

"Bailout - local delegation votes, reax" (with video)

2008-09-30T04:29:00.000-07:00

Strange Bedfellows (Seattle P-I online-only political blog):

How Washington's House members voted on the $700 billion emergency financial rescue package that was defeated Monday:

Yes: Rep. Jim McDermott. Rep. Norm Dicks. Rep. Adam Smith. Rep. Rick Larsen. Rep. Brian Baird (All Democrats).

No: Rep. Dave Reichert. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Rep. Doc Hastings. (All Republicans). Rep. Jay Inslee (Democrat).
Here's what they are saying:

Rep. Jim McDermott, Democrat, 7th Congressional District (Seattle). Voted for the bill.

"I thought long and hard about it, and I know that (House Speaker) Nancy (Pelosi, D-Calif.) and (House Financial Services Committee Chairman) Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who negotiated it, care about the American people in much the same way I do and they got the very best deal they thought they could get. I can tell you 27 reasons why it was not a good package but I think we needed to get started on this issue," McDermott said in an interview with the P-I.

McDermott said the Democrats who voted against the bill shared his concerns about it: that it didn't give the government enough of an equity stake in the distressed assets that would be bailed out; that it didn't provide for enough oversight by Congress; and that it didn't offer homeowners enough protection from foreclosure.

McDermott also said he wished Congress could hold hearings on the bill.

"We're trying to do this on the back of a galloping horse," he said.
Despite the setback for the bill, McDermott said he thinks negotiators will resume discussions and produce a financial rescue package that can win approval.
"Every time something like this happens, people think it's the end of the world; it's not," he said. We're going to come up with something, I think, because everyone agrees something needs to happen."

Rep. Jay Inslee, Democrat, 1st Congressional District (northern King and southern Snohomish counties). He voted against the package, the only Washington state Democrat to join the state's Republican members in opposition.

"For all the talk of protecting the taxpayer, there were only limited promises that the taxpayers' $700 billion investment would be paid back and there were no provisions to help struggling homeowners," Inslee was quoted in a news release from his office.
"We needed a pro-growth bill to stimulate the economy, and that is not what we got," Inslee said in the release. "The American people deserve better. I could not, with good conscience, vote for the bill presented to me."

Rep. Dave Reichert, Republican. Voted against the bill.

"Undeniably, action is necessary to address the crisis in our financial markets and ensure that credit remains available for middle class families to buy homes and put their children through college. That's evident by the daily fluctuations in the market. I'm hopeful that Congress will soon consider a modified version of the bill that was rejected today that will stabilize markets, utilize more private capital, and bring new oversight, reform, and accountability while protecting taxpayers.

"It's more important to get this legislation right than to act in haste. Panic on Wall Street brought us to this point, and we cannot let panic in Congress push through a remedy that is worse than the illness. Instead of a $700 billion blank check, we need a comprehensive package that helps Wall Street recover with more private capital, not taxpayer dollars; that holds accountable the bad actors who contributed to this crisis; and that enforces existing laws while modernizing outdated ones."

Darcy Burner, Democratic candidate for the 8th Congressional District (running against Reichert)

"Darcy believes we need to do something to strengthen our financial markets but she did not support this current bailout package. She felt it did not do enough to protect taxpayers andlimit out of control executive pay. And it did not address in an effective way the deregulation and lack of oversight over the financial markets that has been responsible for putting us in this situation in the first place." � Sandeep Kaushik, Burner spokesman.

Rep. Adam Smith, Democrat. Voted for the bill.

"Like many Americans, I had major concerns with the Bush Administration's initial financial recovery proposal. It contained no help for ordinary Americans struggling with their mortgage payments, no oversight and no protection for taxpayers. It was a major power grab attempt by the Administration in the form of a $700 billion blank check and Congress correctly rejected that plan. I also worried about the true extent of this economic crisis � would it just punish Wall Street people who acted unwisely? Or would it impact us all? And, if the latter was true was action by Congress required?"

"After listening to many of my constituents, small business owners, local bankers, and many others in the business and financial world, I have concluded that this crisis is more serious than just the normal downside of the business cycle; that failure to act by Congress could turn a severe economic slow down into a panic--a run on banks and all financial institutions that could plunge us into a deep and lasting recession; and that the plan before Congress, while offering no guarantees, represented a prudent and necessary step to prevent this much more painful economic outcome."

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican. Voted against the bill.

"The financial crisis we are facing right now is greater than anyone could imagine. It is difficult for all of us to get our arms around the depth and complexity of this crisis. The decision on whether to support this package is one of the most difficult I have faced. I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with. It does more to protect the taxpayer, it does more to ensure Wall Street executives are held accountable, and it does more to increase oversight.

"Despite the positive changes that were made, I voted against this bill because, on principle, I am not convinced it is the right approach and I believe there are still numerous questions about its feasibility. Committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate."

Rep. Doc Hastings, Republican. Voted against the bill.

"I judged this bill on two primary grounds: what could the cost be to the taxpayers and is it good policy for the federal government to seize the financial markets in this way.

The final bill provides more taxpayer protections than the first proposal, yet it still potentially leaves taxpayers holding the $700 billion bag for the reckless actions of Wall Street and that is something I cannot support.

And on the question of increased government intervention in the marketplace, I am just plain opposed to such a massive intrusion into the economy and the marketplace.

As to the crisis about which we are warned, I hope it can be abated, though I do believe additional steps can be taken to allow for the infusion of new capital, instead of focusing solely on preventing a freeze of existing capital. I also believe an insurance-centered approach would allow for relief in a way that places the responsibility for paying on Wall Street and those being bailed out."

Howie P.S.: You can watch Nancy Pelosi's remarks that "Lead to GOP Finger-Pointing" here, and Barack Obama's remarks yesterday here. Ben Smith is now reporting that Obama "steps off the sidelines with a specific proposal calculated to win more Democratic support for the bailout, and a promise to involve himself personally. His statement, out early this morning," here. Ken Camp reviews the options in "Bailout: What's next" (NPI Advocate). Matt Stoller chimes in with "Treasury Officials Admit Bill's CEO Compensation Measure and Restrictions on Paulson Were a Farce" (H/t to Glenn Greenwald who's no fan of the bailout bill that failed yesterday). Booman says "Be a Grown-Up...it is an acceptable piece of legislation under the circumstances." Ari Melber, riding onboard Air Obama, has "Obama Demurs on McCain Bailout Attack, For Now" this morning. Ari says ends with this back and forth

Jeff Zeleny, a reporter for The New York Times, crouched near the motorcade and asked for a response to McCain’s latest attack — that Obama was “injecting politics” into the fight over the bailout.

Obama said he had already addressed the issue in his speech on Monday, and he pledged that he would have more to say tomorrow. This is a campaign, so that promise is pretty safe.

Obama also yelled back that he’d learned not to take the bait — though that’s not an exact quote, and I’m not sure what it means anyway. (McCain’s bait? Zeleny’s?)

Howie P.P.S.: I vote for the bait in question as belonging to McCain.

Barack Obama

"O2B Candidate Burner on the Bailout Bill" (with video)

2008-09-29T18:23:00.000-07:00

mcjoan (front paged on Kos):

Orange to Blue candidate Darcy Burner has joined those Democrats who recognize that the financial crisis needs to be addressed, but that bailing out the financial industry to the tune of $700 billion without helping Main Street isn't the way to do it.
From an e-mailed statement:

Darcy believes we need to do something to strengthen our financial markets but as she said this morning prior to the vote she did not support this current bailout package. She felt it did not do enough to protect taxpayers and amounted to little more than a wealth transfer from the middle class to the very wealthy. It did not do enough to limit out of control executive pay. And it did not address in an effective way the deregulation and lack of oversight over the financial markets that has been responsible for putting us in this situation in the first place.

More from the Seattle Times

Eighth Congressional District candidate Darcy Burner said this morning that if she were in Congress, she would have voted against a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry that the House of Representatives is considering this morning.

"We need to do something," she said. But she said the compromise package being pushed by Democratic leaders in Congress doesn't go far enough to protect taxpayers.

Burner said it doesn't fix the underlying problems that caused the financial crisis, namely too much deregulation of the financial industry. And she said it doesn't do enough to limit executive pay.

Which is what she said on September 20, when the $700 billion Bush proposal was announced.

Burner, like a lot of candidates and a helluva lot more Americans, want this thing done fairly. This bailout package can be restructured in a way that protects taxpayers, that helps to actually stem the financial crisis that all of the people who've lost their homes are in the middle of, while it also addresses Main Street. It can be done. It has to be done.

Is Palin "slowly melting" or is McCain "Stuck With Palin"?

2008-09-29T17:35:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber:

Gov. Sarah Palin’s candidacy is clearly deteriorating. The only question is whether the decline is more like Lehman Bros or a polar ice cap.
Palin’s initial popularity could turn out to be a bubble – a delusional valuation that crashes the moment that reality reasserts itself. Critics are watching Thursday’s debate for such a moment. That’s when raw, unfiltered information about Palin will finally hit the political markets.

Palin’s shortcomings, however, could take much longer to break through. Couple the scripted strategy of the McCain campaign with an A.D.D. press corps – distracted by everything from lipstick on a pig to the pigs on Wall Street – and Palin’s looming vice presidency may bother the public about as much as global warming. Yes, some people see the inevitable disaster, but the majority thinks the problem is distant enough to be ignored.

On the Obama plane en route from Chicago to Denver today, I tried asking Obama’s staff about the possible routes for Palin’s further demise. A normally chatty spokesperson turned taciturn – no comments on Palin at all. During that exchange, Sen. Obama himself briefly walked through the aisle, clutching an open laptop, but he was not taking questions.

Back in Chicago, the closest Obama staffers come to touching Palin is clicking the forward button – they emailed reporters today with a scathing new column by Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria. The normally measured columnist, former editor of Foreign Affairs and one of the cooler Sunday pundits, rips into Palin as a novice disaster, a talking-point-dispensing robot full of “nonsense” and “gibberish” who is “utterly unqualified to be vice president.” Amplifying that low rumble among conservative critics, he called for her early exit: “Will someone please put Sarah Palin out of her agony?”

Palin’s favorable ratings have been slowly melting, and today’s Washington Post reports that more heat is on the way. “The worst may be yet to come for Palin,” writes Howie Kurtz, “sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.”
If there are more memorable mistakes piling up this week, Palin will have even less room for error at Thursday’s debate.

George Stephanopoulos says the stakes are high — and he knows, since network anchors help decide who “wins” debates.

“A major mistake on foreign policy would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy,” he said on “Good Morning America.” “She’s become a problem for Senator McCain, no question about it,” he explained. “When you become a punch line in politics, it is one of the worst things that can happen, and that is what’s happening to Sarah Palin now.”

Obama is attacking McCain in Colorado today for his gambling ties, and while no one here is saying it, the biggest bet of McCain’s career is about to get called on Thursday.

Andrew Sullivan:

Nate Silver says dropping Palin doesn't make electoral sense for McCain:
Not only would this hurt McCain, but it would also harm downballot candidates; the odds of Democrats finishing with 60+ Senate seats or 260+ House seats would increase markedly.
If he drops her or she quits, it's devastating. Why? Because it's all about his judgment and executive skills. He did no vetting and made his pick in an instant of insanity. This was his first serious presidential-level decision. It makes Bush's decision-making look Solomonic. If McCain is forced to acknowledge this, his own campaign is over too. So they cannot give in; they have to double-down; they will train her to do something crazy and polarizing in the debate. They will pray that Biden is sexist or condescending and, given Biden, that may not be too big a gamble. There will be more fireworks and more gambits and more nuttiness: just to prevent Americans from thinking through the real decision before them.

But Americans will still have to ask themselves: could we trust Palin as leader of the free world at a moment's notice? And: why did McCain present us with this option? Unlike the pundits, the voters have to check reality. And the Palin reality is objectively horrifying.

Barack Obama

Presidential Debate: SNL Version (video)

2008-09-29T12:29:00.001-07:00

NBC.com, video (09:12):

McCain and Obama go head to head...

Barack Obama

"Journalist William Greider on the Financial Turmoil and Bailout Plan"

2008-09-29T11:01:00.000-07:00

BREAKING--Howie P.S.: It has just been announced that the bailout plan bill has failed to pass the House.KUOW.org (audio):

Congress struggled with the proposed $700 billion bailout plan last week. The cost per taxpayer – about $2500. William Greider, political journalist and National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation, says Paulson's proposal is a "historic swindle." Why? Greider writes that tax payers "are the naked investors in this drama, asked to put up many billions to rescue Wall Street firms with nothing more than a vague promise it will save the Republic." Today we look at the financial turmoil with Greider.

Democracy Now: "“Is This the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?” Rep. Dennis Kucinich Rejects $700 Billion Bailout"

2008-09-29T08:11:00.000-07:00

Democracy Now (with audio and video):

The House is set to vote today on a $700 billion emergency bailout plan for the financial industry. The proposed legislation was forged during a marathon negotiating session over the weekend between lawmakers from both parties and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The 110-page bill would authorize Paulson to initiate what is likely to become the biggest government bailout in US history, allowing him to spend up to $700 billion to relieve faltering banks and other firms of bad assets backed by home mortgages, which are falling into foreclosure at record rates.

Howie P.S.: The Kucinich interview starts after the daily news roundup. If you stay tuned afterwards, there are two more good stories: 1)"FDR in 1933: There Must Be A Strict Supervision Of All Banking and Credits and Investments" with the NY Times' Adam Cohen and 2)"Senators John McCain and Barack Obama Debate Iraq, Pakistan, Russia During First Debate" with The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss.

Ari Melber: Reporting from "O Force One"

2008-09-29T06:48:00.000-07:00

Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Fredericksburg, Va. (Flickr, Obama Campaign)

Ari Melber ("Obama Plays Offense on the Road"-Washington Independent):

Sen. Barack Obama is not looking back. In a flurry of campaign activity since Friday’s debate, the Democratic presidential nominee hit several large rallies, paired up with Sen. Joe Biden, his running mate, for two joint events, delivered a keynote address to a Congressional Black Caucus gala, sat for a half-hour grilling on “Face The Nation,” huddled with advisers in Chicago and prepared for a tour through Western swing states early this week.
In interviews and discussions aboard the campaign bus, Obama’s aides sold the packed schedule as a contrast to Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, who hunkered down in Washington after the debate, continuing his strategy of playing economic statesman inside the Beltway. “As John McCain sat in his condominium in Arlington, Sen. Obama spoke directly with more than 20,000 voters in North Carolina,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

While all campaigns declare victory after debates, the Obama camp’s post-debate posture looks more like genuine offense than strategic bluffing.

Snap surveys and traditional polling after Friday’s debate largely favored Obama, which campaign manager David Plouffe heralded in a presentation for the traveling press. He pointed to a CBS survey indicating that after the debate, the number of uncommitted voters who said Obama understands their “needs and problems” jumped 21 points, to 79 percent. In a separate question about McCain’s standing, the Republican nominee improved 5 points on that score, from 36 to 41 percent.

Plouffe argued that Obama’s increase was striking because he already had a “healthy edge” on understanding people’s problems. The campaign also flagged a new USA Today/Gallup poll showing that 12 percent more debate viewers thought Obama won on Friday — 46 percent said Obama did better, while only 34 percent who said Mccain did better.

Yet Obama’s aides did not address a significant setback in the same debate polling. While Obama used the debate to prioritize his signature issue of opposing the Iraq war, a view now shared by most of the public, more voters actually thought McCain would make the “right choices” in Iraq.

In fact, McCain’s support on that measure jumped 12 points among uncommitted voters after the debate — to 56 percent. Only 48 percent of voters said the same about Obama, who gained four points on Iraq from the debate, according to the CBS poll of uncommitted voters. Sensing an opening, GOP operatives spent the weekend blasting Obama for advancing a “misguided and weak” foreign policy that offers “defeat” in Iraq.

Without directly responding, Obama’s campaign appears to have staked its confidence on the surveys showing a lead among debate viewers — which suggests that the Iraq issue did not hinder Obama’s overall standing.

The ultimate indicator of a campaign’s confidence, however, is not in the spin or the early polls or debate reviews. It is written, with sparse prose studded with logistics, in a nominee’s weekly schedule.

Obama’s current itinerary reinforces his retooled stump speech: It is a portrait of bullish offense.

Since the debate, Obama has drawn crowds topping 20,000 in two reliably red states, North Carolina and Virginia. It is hard to imagine McCain pulling off the same feat in, say, California. Then, Obama pulled 36,000 to a Sunday rally in the pale blue state of Michigan.

Obama may have been cool and cordial during the debate, but he punched hard at those weekend rallies. He alternatively blasted and mocked his opponent’s campaign. Looking over crowd of 20,000 in Greensboro, N.C., on early Saturday morning, Obama made a show of laughing at McCain’s newfound interest in running as a change agent. “He’s been grabbing our signs, using our slogans. Come on, John!” Obama said, “come up with your own stuff!”

Later, at a large 26,000-person rally at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia, where the soccer team rescheduled a game to accommodate the campaign stop, Biden reinforced Obama’s post-debate aggression. He assailed McCain for saying after 9/11 that the U.S. could simply invade “Iraq, Iran or Syria” in retribution for the attacks. The GOP nominee was “dangerously wrong,” Biden hollered, for mistaking Iraq as the central front in the battle against terrorists.

On the economy, Biden depicted McCain as erratic and out of touch, “lurching” between opposite positions. “I served with John McCain,” he said, explaining that he had personally seen McCain devote a career to deregulation and “tethered to Bush’s economic policies.”

As dusk turned to darkness, and rain drenched the enthusiastic young crowd, Obama repeated his core attack on McCain’s debate performance. “Through 90 minutes of debating, John McCain had a lot to say about me, but he had nothing to say about you,” Obama thundered.

The rain kept coming until Obama’s white dress shirt was soaked through. Biden even interrupted, to offer him a baseball cap as protection from the downpour, but Obama declined. The rough weather seemed to mirror Obama’s outrage against McCain’s debate performance: “He didn’t even say the words ‘middle class’ — not once!”

Just as he had at other stops, Obama mixed righteous indignation with withering ridicule. Reprising McCain’s now infamous line about fighting earmarks for bear research in Montana, Obama channeled Jon Stewart to dismiss this as a distraction. “He’s really hung up on those bears,” he said to laughter and applause.

Obama also tweaked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for her doubletalk on earmarks. If you believe McCain and Palin will cut their lobbyist ties after they reach the White House, Obama told the students, “I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Alaska!”

Obama’s happy warrior vibe carried over off-stage, as best I could tell. He made a rare social visit to the press section of “O Force One” on Saturday afternoon, congratulating a Wall Street Journal reporter on her recent engagement. He joshed around, inspecting her ring, asking where her fiancé worked (Goldman Sachs), and bantering with a few other reporters about baseball. Obama looked perfectly happy, and only begged off after a reporter asked a serious question about the debate.

The first presidential debate was widely covered as a draw, though undecided voters leaned towards Obama anyway. That may reflect a gravitational shift towards the Democratic nominee, regardless of his prime-time sparring ability, but even that dynamic could lull Obama into complacency. Some supporters worry that even when he’s doing well, Obama is doing just enough to get by.

“This debate was Obama’s whole campaign in miniature: morally ambiguous, a slew of missed opportunities for devastating blows and a fundamental lack of a well-crafted plan,” wrote Paul Rosenberg on the liberal blog OpenLeft. In the end, he concluded, it was little more than “a good-enough strategic posture smoothly executed to pull out a tie, which is all he really needed.” Obama probably needs more to close the deal.

On Monday, Obama continues his offensive, visiting two states Bush carried in 2004 that could tip the election. He first has a rally at a high school gym in Westminster, Colo., then a stop in Nevada. Yet if swing voters there take to his current style — calm in debate, aggressive on the stump — then Obama may just be a happy warrior long past November.

Howie P.S.: For a look at how race, gender and class issues are impacting Obama's campaign, check out James Carroll's "Obama's three challenges" in today's Boston Globe.

Barack Obama

"Barack in the Virginia Rain" (video)

2008-09-28T20:37:00.000-07:00

BarackObama.com, video (26:10):

The day after his first presidential debate, Barack Obama addresses over 25,000 in Fredericksburg, VA -- calling for the political and economic reform needed to fix our broken economy.

Howie P.S.: Jed Lewson adds

You can find local news coverage of the event here, including the front page of the local newspaper.

Barack Obama

"An Appropriately Populist Anti-Bailout Rant"

2008-09-28T20:05:00.000-07:00

Dennis Kucinich (The Nation):

The $700 billion bailout for Wall Street, is driven by fear not fact. This is too much money in too a short a time going to too few people while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren't we having hearings on the plan we have just received? Why aren't we questioning the underlying premise of the need for a bailout with taxpayers' money? Why have we not considered any alternatives other than to give $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren't we asking Wall Street to clean up its own mess? Why aren't we passing new laws to stop the speculation, which triggered this? Why aren't we putting up new regulatory structures to protect investors? How do we even value the $700 billion in toxic assets?

Why aren't we helping homeowners directly with their debt burden? Why aren't we helping American families faced with bankruptcy. Why aren't we reducing debt for Main Street instead of Wall Street? Isn't it time for fundamental change in our debt based monetary system, so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the United States Congress or the board of directors of Goldman Sachs? Wall Street is a place of bears and bulls. It is not smart to force taxpayers to dance with bears or to follow closely behind the bulls.

That Kucinich is spot on comes as no great surprise.

Howie P.S.: The Nation post concludes with

When he bid for the Democratic presidential nomination this year, he spoke more consistently and more bluntly about the economic crisis than any of the other contenders.

Kucinich was not treated particularly seriously the media or his fellow Democratic candidates.

Now that Kucinich has been proven right, however, Barack Obama might want to pay attention to what the former mayor, state legislator and veteran congressman is saying.

He actually gets it.

"Hell to Pay: Burner v. Reichert" (with video)

2008-09-28T02:09:00.000-07:00

BarbinMD, with video (00:31) (front-paged on Daily Kos):

Update: And in an hour we passed our goal and are at 3,502 donors and have raised $20,565 tonight (so far)! Kudos to the entire community for helping to let the Republican slime machine know that there will be Hell to Pay when they smear and lie about our O2B candidates. And I know it's been a long night, but let's set one last goal...can we reach 3,600 donors before morning? I'll give the final numbers in tomorrow's Midday Open Thread. But until then, let's keep this going and help get Darcy Burner elected.

DONATE!
Update: Did I say 3,400? It took you guys less than an hour to reach and pass that goal. You rock! We're now up to 3,424 donors and have raised $18,154! And that's not counting the donations you've made to the other great O2B candidates. Let's keep this thing going...heck, it's not even 9:00 on the west coast, so let's give the late arrivals a chance to get involved. After all, we need to give Darcy a little breathing space so she can track this woman down and give her a talking to:

Darcy has a great story about the irrationality of all this. She was out shopping for Batman band-aids for her boy, and a woman spotted her in the aisle. "You look just like Darcy Burner," the woman said. "I am Darcy Burner," said Darcy. "Oh, I am so excited," said the woman, "I can't wait to vote for you and Sarah Palin." Darcy swears that this is true.

It's still early, so let's go crazy...let's try for 3,500 donors before the end of the night.

DONATE!

Update: I am in awe of you guys. In just under 2 1/2 hours, we've added 355 donors, for a total of 3,273 and $14,192. Okay then...let's try something new. We know that many people give until it hurts, but there's also a lot of people who give even though it does hurt, and to remind people that every donation counts, let's see how see how many $5 donations we can get in the next hour. And if you can give more, spread a little love to our other O2B candidates. And let's set a new goal for donors tonight...how about 3,400?

DONATE!

Update: Wow, this is amazing! In just under 90 minutes, we've already got 244 donors and have raised $9,634. I guess I underestimated you guys. Okay, how about we try for 3,300 donors tonight? And remember, it's Darcy's night, but while you're donating, don't forget our other outstanding O2B candidates.

Let's make sure this is the message that's blanketing the airways in WA-08!

DONATE!

Darcy Burner is, simply, one of us.

You know ... progressive geeks. And proud of it. Her grace under the pressure of losing her home, her firm commitment to advancing everything we believe in--from net neutrality to getting out of Iraq--and her pride in robust progressivism make her the ideal candidate in a district ripe to flip our way this cycle. And the Republicans know it, which is why Burner's repeat challenge this year to incumbent Republican Dave Reichert is coming under steady fire from the right because she came within inches of unseating him in 2006. She's become the target of two of the wealthiest arms of the conservative movement: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the NRCC.

As laid out in the original Hell to Pay nomination thread Thursday:

In WA-08, Darcy Burner is running an innovative and energetic race. She didn't even let losing everything she owned in a house fire in July stop her. Which is why the Republicans have made defeating Burner their number 1 priority among House races. The Chamber of Commerce blanketed Seattle-area airwaves with an ad lying about her economic plan. That's on top of the whopping $1 million NRCC has reserved in television time in the Seattle market to run attack ads against her.

Darcy Burner has a fight on her hands and we need to make sure she has the ammunition to fight back. Are you ready to make sure that there is Hell to Pay for the rightwing attack machine's lies about one of our Orange to Blue candidates? The lies and smears have already cost James Inhofe $12,000 and Norm Coleman $25,000, and tonight it's Dave Reichert's turn to learn that you don't mess with ~~Texas~~ Kossacks. So tonight let's send a message to Dave Reichert, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the NRCC that there will be Hell to Pay when you launch lying ads against one of our own.

She's starting out tonight with 2918 donors on the Orange to Blue candidate page. Let's aim for getting her ... 3,200 donors by the end of tonight.
Ready? Set? DONATE!

She's BAAACK: "Tina Fey As Sarah Palin: Katie Couric SNL Skit (VIDEO)"

2008-09-28T01:32:00.000-07:00

Huffington Post, with video (click here for the SNL video):

Tina Fey returned to Saturday Night Live to reprise her widely hailed impersonation of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The sketch mocks Palin's recent interview with CBS News' Katie Couric (played on SNL by Amy Poehler), touching on Palin's trip to New York and her comments about Russia and the financial bailout.
Note that Fey often quotes directly from Palin's original interview -- apparently no parody was required. Here's the SNL transcript with the original video:

FEY AS PALIN: "Like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this. We're saying, 'Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?' But ultimately what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help...uh...it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddy back on the right track and so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending...'cause Barack Obama, y'know...has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants. That's gonna help. But one in five jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know...Also..."

Some more highlights:
POEHLER AS COURIC: "On foreign policy, I want to give you one more chance to explain your claim that you have foreign policy experience based on Alaska's proximity to Russia. What did you mean by that?"

FEY AS PALIN: "Well, Alaska and Russia are only separated by a narrow maritime border. (using her hands to illustrate) You got Alaska here, this right here is water, and this is Russia. So, we keep an eye on them."
POEHLER AS COURIC: "And how do you do that exactly?"

FEY AS PALIN: "Every morning, when Alaskans wake up, one of the first things they do, is look outside to see if there are any Russians hanging around. And if there are, you gotta go up to them and ask, 'What are you doing here?' and if they can't give you a good reason, it's our responsibility to say, you know, 'Shoo! Get back over there!'

POEHLER AS COURIC: "Senator McCain attempted to shut down his political campaign this week in order to deal with the economic crisis. What's your opinion of this potential 700 billion dollar bailout?"

FEY AS PALIN: "Like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this. We're saying, 'Hey, why bail out Fanny and Freddie and not me?' But ultimately what the bailout does is, help those that are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help...uh...it's gotta be all about job creation, too. Also, too, shoring up our economy and putting Fannie and Freddy back on the right track and so healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending...'cause Barack Obama, y'know...has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans, also, having a dollar value meal at restaurants. That's gonna help. But one in five jobs being created today under the umbrella of job creation. That, you know...Also..."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "What lessons have you learned from Iraq and how specifically, would you spread democracy abroad?"

FEY AS PALIN: "Specifically, we would make every effort possible to spread democracy abroad to those who want it."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "Yes, but specifically what would you do?"

FEY AS PALIN: "We're gonna promote freedom. Usher in democratic values and ideals. And fight terror-loving terrorists."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "But again, and not to belabor the point. One specific thing."

(several seconds of FEY and POEHLER staring at each other)

FEY AS PALIN: "Katie, I'd like to use one of my lifelines."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "I'm sorry?"

FEY AS PALIN: "I want to phone a friend."

POEHLER AS COURIC: "You don't have any lifelines."

FEY AS PALIN: "Well in that case I'm gonna just have to get back to you!"

Howie P.S.: I was hoping for an opening skit featuring Grumpy McSame's debate performance, but Caribou Barbie was pretty good, again. James Fallows makes a request for us "To be serious about Palin and Couric." It's not that easy. His conclusion:

I am not aware of any other current figure in national politics -- by which I mean any member of the Senate or House -- who would do a worse job under questioning. There could be some I don't know about. But they're not on a national ticket.

MTV News: Barack Obama Says McCain's Debate Attacks 'Didn't Make Much Sense' (with video)

2008-09-28T00:59:00.000-07:00

MTV News, with video:

Less than 15 hours after he made his closing remarks in the first presidential debate, Democrat Barack Obama gave his first post-debate interview when he and running mate Joe Biden sat down with MTV News following a campaign stop in Greensboro, North Carolina.
The discussion ran the gamut from Biden to Kanye West, but Obama seemed most eager to dissect Friday night's often-testy debate with Republican nominee John McCain, specifically McCain's repeated assertions that his experience makes him the stronger candidate and that Obama "just doesn't understand" the complexities of issues like foreign policy and the economy.

"I don't get taken aback by that kind of stuff. The problem was, every time he said it, when he tried to follow it up with an actual statement about policy or his positions about what it was he presumably understood or did 'get,' it didn't make much sense," Obama told MTV News' Sway Calloway. "If you look at Iraq, for example, the question was asked, 'What lessons have you learned?' and his lesson was 'Well, we should just stay.' Well, that's not a policy. ... The question was 'Should we have gone?'
"He says that because he doesn't have a record to defend himself. We've become accustomed in our politics to folks just being able to make stuff up — it's one of the few areas of public life where the standards somehow are lowered in terms of what you say about other people," he continued. "For example, he suggested that I'm talking about raising everybody's taxes, when every analyst has shown I'm actually calling for a tax cut for 95 percent of [American] families."
He also took issue with a just-released McCain campaign commercial, which made pointed reference to the number of times Obama agreed with the Arizona senator's comments during the debate: "I don't assume the American public are passive consumers, watching these things going, 'Oh, John McCain runs an ad, so I guess it must be true.' If that were the case, we'd already be losing." Obama also addressed a recent New York Times story that pointed out "dubious claims" in some of his own campaign ads.

"The truth is, we put out tons of ads, and there have been two or three times where we've slipped beneath my standards, where it was kind of a stretch. And when that happens, I tell my team, 'Pull it down,' " he said. "In this kind of thing — where it's a fierce competition — it's not going to be perfect. [But] I think generally people will take a look at how we've run this campaign, and people will say, 'This is someone who has been positive, who's been factual and who's been trying to promote the core ideal that we need to change our economic policies so that we have prosperity not just at the top, but in the middle of America.' "
And to that point, Obama said he wasn't outwardly concerned with who actually won last night's debate (though, when pressed, he admitted that he has data that says he did), but rather that the issues wouldn't get lost in the post-debate cloud, saying that, oftentimes, the media get too focused on who won instead of what's really important to the American people: "What did each candidate say?"
"I think the pundits and the press, you guys are looking at tactics. What the American people are looking at is they might lose their job ... they might lose their house," he said. "And I could cite all the polls that showed the overwhelming number of people who watched [the debate] thought I won ... but even that's not actually relevant. What's relevant is the substance of this thing, which is people out there are hurting, and John McCain has promoted the same policies of George Bush, and people know they're not working. They understand we can't continue four more years of doing the same thing."

Barack Obama

"On strategy and tactics" (with video)

2008-09-27T18:28:00.000-07:00

James Fallows (The Atlantic):

The least self-aware moment for John McCain in last night's debate came at the half-way point, when he said, "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy."
In a sense McCain was sticking to his battle plan in saying this -- the plan being on-message hammering-home of the "Obama doesn't understand" theme. In another sense, he lost his way, since he immediately segued not into a discussion of strategic matters in Iraq and Afghanistan but into an anecdote. But that kind of literal parsing of his answer -- tactical analysis, you might call it -- really misses the point.

There has been no greater contrast between the Obama and McCain campaigns than the tactical-vs-strategic difference, with McCain demonstrating the primacy of short-term tactics and Obama sticking to a more coherent long-term strategy. And McCain's dismissive comment suggests that he still does not realize this.

Some examples are so familiar as to need no explanation: McCain choosing the ten-day tactical "bounce" from the surprise choice of Sarah Palin, in exchange for the enormous strategic risk in choosing an un-vetted and now obviously unqualified running mate. Or McCain rolling the dice with his threat to boycott the debate -- and then, once on stage, appearing to be only mildly interested in the financial-bailout deal that 72 hours earlier was the stated reason for overturning all agreements about the debates .

But the personas that the two men chose to present in the debate indicated the difference in a profound way. The truths of debates are these:

* Emotional messages, which are variants on "how do I feel about this person?", are all that matter in presidential debates. Issues discussions are significant mainly to the extent they shape these impressions. For instance: a candidate's view on the economy feeds the impression of whether he sympathizes with "people like me." Or views on foreign policy feed the impression of whether he would be "a leader we can trust."

* Barring a truly disastrous performance, each side's partisans will think their candidate did well, and will be reinforced in the reasons for supporting the person they already like. Thus John McCain supporters will think he sounded confident and masterful; Obama supporters will think he kept presenting the big-picture perspective on national security and the economy. Which means therefore:

* The audience that matters is people who start out undecided or uncertain -- and finally are looking for emotional reassurance about who they can imagine as president for the next four years. In general, such viewers are only now starting to pay serious attention to the campaign -- in contrast to people already committed to helping (or stopping) one of the candidates. That is why the first debate is a unique "re-launch" opportunity for the candidates to present themselves to people who realize it's time to make up their minds.

Everything John McCain did on stage last night was consistent with trying to score tactical points in those 90 minutes. He belittled Obama with the repeated "he doesn't understand"s; he was explicitly insulting to him in saying at the end "I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience" for the job (a line Joe Biden dare not use so bluntly on Sarah Palin); and implicitly he was shockingly rude and dismissive in refusing ever to look Obama in the eye. Points scored -- in the short term, to the cheers of those already on his side.

Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more "likeable," the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. (Update: though from here on out he doesn't have to say "John is right..." anywhere near as often as he did last night.) .

For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could "win" the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. Last night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it.

Howie P.S.: Goldy also directs the reader to John Coles' "The Narrative Starts to Settle In" with a video mashup by Jed Lewison--"Angry John McCain" (video 01:22)." Here's a taste from the Coles post:

That is just a sample of what is going to come. Look for the appearance of the following words in days to come: cranky, grumpy, crotchety, angry, mean, rude, sneering, snarling, contemptuous, off-putting, snide, boorish, and worst of all, not Presidential. SNL will probably drive the point home in a skit that will become the dominant narrative tonight, and McCain will become boxed in regarding his behavior in the second debate, much as Gore was unable to be as aggressive as he wanted in the second debate (I remember the running joke was that Gore had been medicated for the second debate).

Barack Obama

Barack's Dilemma

2008-09-27T12:56:00.000-07:00

David Goldstein (HorsesAss.org):

I don’t know if Obama’s cool and collected debate demeanor is a strategy or simply who he is, but as much as I would personally like to see our candidate punch back as good as he gets—and better—I think last night’s approach ultimately serves him well.

Not because voters don’t want to see their presidents appear strong—they most emphatically do—but Obama, perhaps uniquely, must carefully avoid appearing too strong. If you know what I mean….

Ahem… um… as McCain might phrase it, “the point is“… while we may have come a long way toward fulfulling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, white America doesn’t much like its big, black men to appear aggressive or threatening… and in case you hadn’t noticed, Barack Obama is a big, black man.

Oh sure, on the football field or the basketball court such aggression is accepted and even celebrated, but in the political arena the standards are quite different. Yes, in politics, we still like our big, black men to be orderly and loyal, like Colin Powell, or quiet like Justice Thomas… or even a sweet, dumb, gentle giant like that character in The Long Green Mile.

But threatening? No, Obama can’t afford to come off as threatening, let alone contemptuous of an elderly white man like McCain. So as much as I’m with the brawling Irishmen on what I’d personally like to see from our candidate, I understand I’m not the typical swing voter, and nowhere near the mindset of an undecided independent. No, as much as it may pain me, Obama needs to show McCain respect, even when it is totally unreciprocated, if he is to win the hearts, minds and votes of the uncommitted.

He may not have stirred any passions in his base, but I’m guessing more voters than not came away from the debate with a greater sense of comfort in the notion of Obama as commander in chief, and that’s all he needed to achieve last night.

Howie P.S.: Obama is actually a big, skinny, half-black man, but David's point is well-taken.

Barack Obama

Saturday Morning Leftovers

2008-09-27T06:58:00.000-07:00

David Horsey, Seattle P-I (image).

"Zero," video (00:31)--BarackObama.com.

"Initial Polls Show Obama Winning The Debate," TPM Election Central.

"Obama Is Right: McCain Was Wrong [video-01:22]," Jed Lewison (Huffington Post):
McCain had no defense for Barack Obama's best riff of the night. Fact is, McCain was wrong on Iraq. As they say, the YouTube doesn't lie:

Barack Obama

Debate Reactions Roundup (excerpts)

2008-09-26T22:11:00.000-07:00

"Debate Open Thread" (with video)--Jed Report:
My basic take on why Obama won the debate is really simple -- I think he showed that he is absolutely ready to become president, that he has the judgment and resolve to do the job. And just as importantly he showed that he cared. In some ways, I think McCain was irrelevant -- his only chance was if Obama fell on his face -- but the fact that he was angry and sneering sure didn't help his cause, not one bit.

"Un-Suspended: Live-Blogging the Debate" (with video)--Al Giordano:
Focus group and polling data is coming in now, from Fox, CNN, CBS, and Mediacurves so far. All of them agree that Obama and McCain each "won" among members of their own party, and Obama significantly won among Independent voters. The latter group is all that matters. Obama helped himself among swing voters tonight. McCain, not. In Reaganesque tones, he upped the "comfort" factor with him as commander in chief. I think within a couple days this is likely to be reflected in swing state polling.

"FOX News Focus Group: Obama Wins Debate" (video-02:46)--Huffington Post:
Frank Luntz interviewed undecided voters in Las Vegas. Verdict? Obama won.

"My reaction"--Markos:
Here's what really struck me: Obama's biggest weakness is the notion that he's not ready or experienced enough. It was the basis of many a McCain attack: "Senator Obama doesn't understand/doesn't get it..." He flat out accused Obama of not having the judgment to lead at one point.

Obama fought back by speaking at length on every issue, aided by a format that allowed him to speak beyond 30 second sound bites, and he name dropped countries and foreign leaders by the bucketful, to underscore the fact that he knows what he's talking about. It was very effective.

"Who Won The Debate? Reviews Go To Obama" (with video)--Nico Pitney (Huffington Post):
Several positive reviews for Obama. A CBS News instant poll finds:

40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.
68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.

49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.

Barack Obama

"What Is This Money Even For?"

2008-09-26T07:22:00.000-07:00

Hunter (front-paged now on Kos):

What Devilstower said in an earlier post can't be repeated enough. The $700 billion figure isn't an explainable one, given the purported problem at hand of "bad mortgages".

And that's where we get that math problem. 1% of all mortgages -- the amount now in default -- comes out to $111 billion. Triple that, and you've got $333 billion. Let's round that up to $350 billion. So even if we reach the point where three percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure, the total dollars to flat out buy all those mortgages would be half of what the Bush-Paulson-McCain plan calls for.
Then we need to factor in that a purchased mortgage isn't worth zero. After all, these documents come with property attached. Even with home prices falling and some of the homes lying around unsold, it's safe to assume that some portion of these values could be recovered. In the S&L crisis, about 70% of asset value was recovered, but let's say we don't do that well. Let's say we hit 50%. Then the real outlay for taxpayers would be around $175 billion.

Which, frankly, is a number that Wall Street should be able to handle without our help. After all, the top firms on Wall Steet payed out $120 billion in bonuses alone between 2000 and 2006. If they've got that kind of mad money, why do they need us to step in now? And why do they need twice as much as all the mortgages that are even likely to implode?

Indeed. And despite what we've been told, then, we can only presume that the problem is in fact not all the bad, scary subprime mortgages. And it's not. Yes, a lot of people are finding themselves upside-down on their houses right now, but Paulson isn't proposing we do squat to solve that -- and even the "controversial" Democratic counterproposal, that we actually do at least a little something to help those people, after they've already gone bankrupt, is pathetically weak.

Instead, we're getting a Wall Street bailout not of the mortgages, but of the absurd, speculative, economy-wrecking derivatives based on those mortgages, derivatives that investors and banks ravenously sold each other at unsupportable and quite-probably-crooked prices. Those derivatives, generally speaking, are "bets" on the state of the underlying mortgages. And they didn't just bet wrong -- they bet irrationally, based on presumptions of near-zero risks to those underlying mortgages. And worse, the big banks even -- bafflingly -- got special permission to overleverage themselves 40 to 1, all but assuring collapse if those derivatives went south. Which they did.
Fine, then, but how is that self-induced bubble an unweatherable economic crisis for the rest of us? Yes, those banks may fail -- as they should. It'd be a crime if they didn't, given their mismanagement of their accounts. But the real problem is that those banks are, literally, too big to be allowed to fail. Their failure would present a liquidity problem for the rest of the market. They can do anything -- they could even burn money on the street -- and the strong preference of government would be to bail them out for it, because the alternative is financial chaos.

The subprime mortgages aren't the problem. And the overleveraged firms shouldn't be a problem. The problem is keeping the rest of the economy afloat no matter what happens to the firms in trouble.

The problem is that there's a lot of different ways to do that, and it's not at all clear that Paulson's way is the best. Paulson proposes to bailout the firms in question, by giving them the Mother Of All Do-Overs. We taxpayers will buy, from banks both in trouble and not in trouble, up to $700 billion dollars worth of the overpriced, now-worth-much-much-less derivatives in question. That will provide a real (inflated) price for the derivatives, and lo and behold -- the firms will be saved, because we've now created a market for their unmarketable, worthless products. They stay afloat, because the taxpayers pay them to do it. And, importantly, since all the banks now know that if any of the other banks are hemorrhaging money through these bad derivatives, the taxpayers will bail them out at some decent price, all the banks trust each other again, and feel free to loan each other money again, and the liquidity problems are solved. In theory. If the Fed can keep up with all the bad paper being tossed at them.

But while that's unquestionably the best possible plan Wall Street could themselves possibly come up with -- it doesn't just save their bacon, it makes large parts of their debts simply vanish -- it's an obscenely expensive thing, and is rife with problems. The temptation for profiteering on the part of the corporations is going to be huge, and quite doable. The underlying mortgages are still defaulting, and more importantly the bursting of the housing bubble has put millions of people into an insupportable amount of debt, and those are not going to be happy consumers, so the economy is still going to go very south, very quickly.

And it smacks, strongly, of the very same dynamic that has governed the last few decades of American history. We're transferring yet another giant chunk of money from the general public to the most wealthy. In this case, a trillion dollars or so worth.

All the while, we're being told that we can't be punitive about this, and punish the firms in question. We can't set new regulations. We can't take equity in the firms we're giving so much money too. We can't do squat except buy their bad paper, and hope to hell that they survive, while the rest of us wallow in the steep recession almost certain to come as a result of the housing bubble collapse.

Is that the best approach? I'm not convinced, and I'm more than a little angry at the Democrats for, once again, accepting what they are given and trying to tweak it rather than coming up with true counterproposals. Propping the housing market up from the bottom may be much cheaper than trying to prop up the entire derivatives market from the top, and would seemingly have the same stabilizing market effects. Taking equity in firms in exchange for taking their crappy, non-marketable products would, yes, seem the absolute least we could do -- there must be an upside for the taxpayer in providing this trillion-dollar investment at the expense of ballooning our national debt and crippling public sector works for a decade or more. But that's still weak tea, all things considered.

Not being talked about as much, though, is that we must allow overextended companies to fail. It is an essential part of our economy that economy-threatening recklessness on the part of speculators not be rewarded, and especially not be rewarded by the government. Any actions to stabilize the economy should indeed inject liquidity -- but it's not clear that injecting liquidity through the very companies most in trouble is sustainable or even rational.

More than that, I think Americans can and should be quite furious at the way this extraordinarily business-friendly proposal has been steamrolled through under premise of imminent crisis, with no serious debate of any more balanced alternatives. It is another black mark in the legacy of the Bush years -- for both parties. If the Congress really passes the Paulson plan with, as it looks now, absolutely no substantive debate of alternative plans, it has once again shirked its most basic duties, and is an embarrassment to the nation it supposedly represents.

One thing is for certain, though. No matter how bad a deal looks, doctrinaire Republicans can always be counted on to come up with an "alternative" that would be ten times worse. Their "alternative" plan, the one they're holding out for? Cut corporate taxes -- again -- and remove even more regulations on those companies -- again. Because that'll release the magic money fairies and the problem will be solved. And no, I'm not kidding. Except about the fairies. Maybe.

There's been nothing about the Washington reaction to this that has inspired confidence. And now that the fight has turned explicitly political -- with no regard whatsoever for the underlying economics -- I can only imagine it getting less substantive from here.

Barack Obama on NBC Nightly News: "Obama hopes to 'build' off bailout progress" (video)

2008-09-25T22:33:00.000-07:00

MSNBC, video (02:34):

Detouring from the campaign trail, both presidential candidates arrived in Washington as President Bush and congressional leaders negotiated the proposed bailout package. NBC's Brian Williams speaks with Sen. Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

"150 Economists Petition in Opposition to the Bailout Plan"

2008-09-25T22:05:00.000-07:00

From Meteor Blade's front pager on Daily Kos, "Bailing Out the Yachts":

To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate:

As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan:

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)

Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J. (UCLA)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lott John R. Jr. (University of Maryland)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)

"Obama Activists Launch Debate Petition"

2008-09-25T10:59:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber (Washington Independent):

That didn’t take long. Within hours of Sen. John McCain’s effort to scuttle Friday’s presidential debate, a group of liberal activists launched a sleek online petition for Americans to “demand the debate” goes on. The site currently shows Sen. Barack Obama behind a lectern — thoughtful, poised, in command — squaring off against a floating question mark — in bright red — representing Sen. John McCain’s mystery status.

The site declares it represents a group of “concerned citizens” who are not “affiliated with anybody.” It does appear independent of any campaign or political organization. But, the effort is pro-Obama, obviously, and was created by Michael Whitney, a self-described “progressive… interwebologist” in D.C. who helped found Generation Dean.

If a carefully negotiated agreement and public promise don’t make Sen. John McCain feel that he has to keep his word to debate, a progressive web petition isn’t going to make the difference. But the site sill provides a focused portal for all kinds of voters to track and speak out on the debate over the debate. At this point, the Commission on Presidential Debates can surely use any public attention it can get to hold McCain to his commitment.

Finally, Congressional leaders just announced a fundamental agreement on the bailout, so McCain may be the only one who thinks his presence is needed in Washington at 9pm Friday.

Barack Obama

"A Stronger Economy" (video)

2008-09-25T09:45:00.000-07:00

BarackObamadotcom, video (01:02):

In 'A Stronger Economy' Senator Obama tells the American people what he will do as President to put the middle class first and get our economy back on track. On the air...

Barack Obama

Is the bailout Bush's economic September 11th and/or McCain's "September surprise" campaign opportunity?

2008-09-25T08:39:00.000-07:00

"Bailout Outrage Races Across the Web" (Business Week):

Arun Gupta was enraged as he learned the details of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to fix the U.S. banking system with $700 billion in taxpayer funds. The 43-year-old copy editor and freelance journalist, who publishes his own alternative newspaper, The Indypendent, needed to channel his angst but couldn't find a live protest to attend. So on Sept. 22, he sent an e-mail to some politically active friends in New York. Within days, they'd planned a protest against the bailout in New York and at 80 other locations in the U.S. on Sept. 25.

"David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign" video, (09:11):
It's already #1 on "Today's Top 20 Viral Videos: with over 400,000 views.

"McCain's Financial Crisis Timeline" (Sam Stein, HuffPo):

When John McCain held an unexpected news conference mid-Wednesday afternoon he addressed the current economic crisis with direness previously unseen. His campaign would be suspended, he told reporters, in order to work on the bailout legislation in Congress. The debate scheduled with Barack Obama on Friday night, he added, could be postponed.

Observers, critics, even fellow Republicans, were left wondering: where did this sense of urgency come from? After all, it was this past Sunday that McCain hinted on 60 Minutes that he would support the bailout -- "we have to stop the bleeding" -- only to express deep criticisms on Monday and then admit he hadn't even read the three-page proposal on Tuesday.

"Paulson, Senate Dems reach tentative bailout deal" (The Hill):

Senate Democrats emerged from a meeting Wednesday with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to report a general, conceptual — but fragile — agreement on a $700 billion plan to rescue the U.S. financial markets.
Senators said Paulson and the Democrats struck very tentative deals on Democratic demands on oversight and transparency, executive pay limits, and equity interest on taxpayers’ behalf as part of the massive plan. A hard-fought Democratic provision to allow bankruptcy judges to revise mortgage terms was not likely to survive the horse-trading, however, as Paulson would not agree to the provision that is already in the House and Senate versions.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said a bill could be produced as early as Thursday, with debate and a vote likely over the weekend. Ideally, Durbin said the Senate would finish the bill before Wall Street opens on Monday.

“There is high anxiety about the opening of the markets on Monday,” Durbin said. “It’s good to have a deadline, and we have a deadline now, with the Jewish holiday and the opening of the market. Frankly, I want us to stick to that. If we start talking about another week or two, it will take another week or two.”

Senators cautioned that the package’s fragile framework could very easily fall apart as more specific definitions and details begin to be ironed out.

“We can have these broad agreements in principle, but it’s got to translate into details,” said Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “And there’s a lot of work to be done.”

Senators described a very somber, serious meeting, with Paulson describing the risk of inaction and working hard to sell the plan to skeptical Democrats during the closed-door caucus meeting. Paulson said unemployment rates could approach 10 percent if the plan was not adopted, senators said, although he did indicate possible receptiveness to the idea of implementing it in stages. Such a plan, Paulson told senators, has worked in countries like Japan, where financial rescue plans were done in stages.

“He talked about the risks in the markets, the risk of the financial system locking up, the risk of companies not being able to borrow money, the risk of major firms failing, the risk of a substantial increase in unemployment,” said Conrad.

Presidential politics hung thickly throughout the meeting, held just hours after Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) announced he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to participate in the debate. McCain has urged his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to do the same and postpone Friday night’s planned debate, but Obama has refused.

Democrats defended that decision Wednesday night, accusing McCain of an attempt to inject presidential politics into the process with his presence, and that the debate should be held.

“The American people need to hear from both candidates,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the party’s 2004 presidential nominee. “This notion of rushing to Washington and grandstanding, frankly, is I think inserting presidential politics right into it. It’s silly and impulsive and erratic and doesn’t do justice to the process of running for president.”

Kerry noted that McCain doesn’t even sit on the Senate’s Banking or Finance committees.

“To the best of my knowledge, he doesn’t serve on any of those committees,” Kerry said.

But Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., a top McCain supporter, said both nominees can play “very important” roles in shaping the debate.

McCain can help “take what I see as the conceptual agreement and now work out the details, because it’s clear from this discussion that the details are not worked out.”

The Senate has just two more working days before its scheduled Friday adjournment, with an agreement still outstanding on a continuing resolution to fund the government.

Most seemed resigned to the idea of weekend work, especially on the financial bill, and several also said they weren’t convinced that a Monday morning deadline was even feasible or necessary.

“I’m not sure that’s possible,” said Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) “For the life of me, I can’t see the difference from an economic or even a confidence circumstance, the difference between Friday and a day or two days later or Monday.”

Barack Obama

"Joint McCain-Obama Statement"

2008-09-24T21:29:00.000-07:00

Mark Halperin (The Page, TIME):

“The American people are facing a moment of economic crisis. No matter how this began, we all have a responsibility to work through it and restore confidence in our economy. The jobs, savings, and prosperity of the American people are at stake.
“Now is a time to come together – Democrats and Republicans – in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people. The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.

This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.”

Speaking for himself, Senator Obama outlined the following principles that he calls on Senator McCain to support:

I believe that several core principles should guide this legislation.

First, there must be oversight. We should not hand over a blank check to the discretion of one man. We support an independent, bipartisan board to ensure accountability and complete transparency.

Second, we need to protect taxpayers. There should be a path for taxpayers to recover their money, and to turn a profit if Wall Street prospers.

Third, no Wall Street executive should profit from taxpayer dollars. This plan cannot be a welfare program for CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility has contributed to this crisis.

Fourth, we must help families who are struggling to stay in their homes. We cannot bail out Wall Street without helping millions of families facing foreclosure on Main Street.

Fifth, we both agree that this financial rescue package should move on its own without any earmarks or other measures. We have different views about the need for other action, but this must be a clean bill.

This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. This is not a Democratic problem or a Republican problem – this is an American problem. Now, we must find an American solution.

Barack Obama

"Barack Obama Responds to McCain Wanting to Cancel Debate" (video)

2008-09-24T19:55:00.000-07:00

heathr456, video (08:48):

Part one of Barack Obama's press conference responding to McCain wanting to cancel the debate.

Barack Obama

Still Not Ready for Prime Time: "CBS Sarah Palin interview" (video)

2008-09-24T19:24:00.000-07:00

greenschair42, video (05:35):

Sarah Palin on Rick Davis, Bailout proposal, John McCain's legislative record. CBS News, 09/24/08.

Howie P.S.: I had vowed to lay off Palin, because there is nothing else left to prove about her incompetence, but this episode was too tempting to pass up.

"The Drama Queen's Big Gamble"

2008-09-24T13:59:00.000-07:00

Jed Lewison:

What we are witnessing right now is what a McCain presidency would be like -- herky jerky, bouncing from crisis to crisis, overreacting at every step.

It's taken him exactly ten days to go from the economy is strong to we're heading into the Great Depression and must stop the campaign.

But nothing has changed other than the polls, and that's why it's impossible to take this gamble seriously.

McCain can see that he cannot win the presidency unless the campaign narrative changes dramatically, so he's decided to roll the dice.

After all his talk of bipartisanship, John McCain has decided to make an intensely political move. He does not have a plan, but he's willing to drag the country through his personal drama, no matter the cost, just so that he might win the presidency.

McCain wants to demonstrate his leadership skills, but instead he's demonstrating beyond any doubt that he is temperamentally unfit to be president.

Howie P.S.: Obama is now telling a press conference

“It’s my belief that this is exacty the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible with dealing with this mess.”

Barack Obama

"McCain Ducks Debate and "Suspends" Campaign"

2008-09-24T13:10:00.000-07:00

Ari Melber (The Nation):

After calling for debates all summer, John McCain is cutting and running from the first one.

In one of the weirder political ploys of a long campaign season, McCain says he will "suspend" his campaign on Thursday. He is also pushing for a postponement of the first presidential debate. McCain says he is taking these dramatic steps because he wants to focus on congressional negotiations over the bailout. It's not clear how a national presidential debate -- the ultimate bully pulpit in this political season -- would detract from any effort to build national consensus on solutions for the economic crisis.

The debate, scheduled for 9pm EST on Friday, would have provided the first direct, extended exchange between the nominees on foreign policy, and presumably would have included economic discussions as well, given the current crisis. Both candidates could travel to Washington the next morning -- Obama is already scheduled to do so -- so McCain's decision to bail on the debate as his polling slips is odd. Today's Washington Post/ABC poll showed Obama taking a national lead, powered by voters flocking to him on economic issues.

The Obama campaign just released a statement describing their collaboration with McCain, though it did not directly address his debate gambit:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

That's nice. Here's a better idea: Lay out those details in public, in a transparent, free-wheeling televised the debate this Friday, after officially changing the topic from foreign policy to the economy. Good leaders can change course to meet a crisis, but they don't run from public scrutiny. John McCain may hope his Beltway trip looks presidential, but you don't need to be in Washington to rally the American people to a solution to these problems.

Howie P.S.: The AP just put up this response from the Obama campaign. Ben Smith comments:

The only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling.

Barack Obama

Howard Dean: John McCain "hot-headed...irascible" (video)

2008-09-24T09:54:00.000-07:00

Jed captures this video (04:43) from 9/23/08, on MSNBC. While I hold no formal office in the Howard Dean Fan Club, I endeavor to pass along his ass-kickers, as well.

Howie P.S.: The NY Times covers "Pinpoint Attacks Focus on Obama," or as I call them, "Swiftboat 2.08."

Barack Obama

Naomi Klein: “Now is the Time to Resist Wall Street’s Shock Doctrine” (with audio and video)

2008-09-24T07:51:00.000-07:00

Democracy Now with audio and video:

While the collapse of this country’s financial system continues to send shock waves around the world, we speak to the bestselling author of “The Shock Doctrine.” Naomi Klein says the public should be wary of the Bush administration trying to use the crisis to push through more of the radical pro-corporate policies that helped cause it in the first place.

Howie P.S.: The Naomi Klein interview comes after the morning news roundup @ about 23:00. On this day in particular, the roundup is worth a listen. True Majority, Progressive Democrats of America and other groups are sponsoring a public event in Seattle, "Protest the tax money giveaway to Wall Street," (Thursday, Sept. 25th) from 5-6:30PM at the Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue.

"Obama issues warning on bailout"

2008-09-24T07:44:00.000-07:00

First Read (MSNBC)with video (04:00):

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones:
CLEARWATER, Fla. -- In his strongest language to date regarding the hotly-debated plan to rescue America's financial system, Obama called on President Bush to be more flexible about changes to the proposal and warned Wall Street CEOs against being selfish about the terms of the bailout.
“Yesterday, the President said that Congress should pass this proposal to ease the crisis on Wall Street without significant changes or improvements,” the Illinois senator told reporters, arguing that everyone has a stake in solving the crisis to protect the jobs and the life savings of millions. “Given that fact, the President’s stubborn inflexibility is both unacceptable and disturbingly familiar. This is not the time for my-way-or-the-highway intransigence from anybody involved.”

In a roughly 20-minute press conference here Tuesday at the hotel where he is set to spend the rest of the week preparing for Friday’s debate, the Democratic nominee said power over $700 billion in taxpayer money should not be placed in the hands of one person without adequate oversight. Obama suggested an independent, bipartisan board be set up to “provide oversight and accountability at every step of the way”. And he noted he was pleased that in testimony on Capitol Hill this morning Treasury Sec. Henry Paulson appeared to be softening his position on the oversight matter.

Obama said the country was being “tested by a very serious crisis” and he committed to returning to the Senate to vote on the bill if it appears that the vote will be close. He repeated and expanded on some of the other principles he has said must be part of the legislation, including providing a mechanism for taxpayers to benefit from any future profits as Wall Street recovers - -for instance through a Financial Stability Fee on the entire financial services industry that would repay any losses to the American people; help for families that are struggling to stay in their homes and protections against rewarding the “bad behavior” of Wall Street CEOs.

“There’s been talk that some CEOs may refuse to cooperate with this plan if they have to forgo multi-million-dollar salaries,” he said sternly. “I cannot imagine a position that’s more selfish and more greedy at a time of national crisis.”

He said he wanted to deliver a message directly to those CEOs: “Do not make that mistake,” he said. “You are stewards not only of your companies, but of workers and communities all across the country who have put their trust in you. With the enormous rewards that you’ve reaped come responsibilities and we expect and demand that you to live up to those responsibilities. This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives.”

The tough talk is in line with the Obama campaign’s efforts over the past several weeks to cast the Democratic nominee as a champion of working and middle class Americans and to portray his rival as a caretaker of big business and the wealthy.

The senator said negotiations over the next few days would be difficult but did not answer directly whether he would vote against the bill if it did not contain the measures he had laid out, at first saying only that it was important to deal with this emergency situation in the right way to avoid future problems. Later, he added, “If the plan that emerges does not address the principles that I’ve discussed then I will strongly recommend to Sec. Paulson that he go back the drawing board and find an approach that does address them.”

Obama also reiterated his plans to go forward with his agenda for middle class tax cuts, universal healthcare, investments in renewable energy and other areas despite the tax burden of the bailout, arguing they were necessary to strengthen the economy. He again urged Bush and McCain to join him in supporting an economic stimulus plan to help working families, though he made it clear that he was not insisting this package be included in the bailout legislation.

He said he was open to the idea of the government buying other bad non-housing related loans, like car, college and credit card loans, if the Federal Reserve and the Treasury deemed that necessary to stabilize credit markets.

*Several days in Tampa

The senator plans to be in the Tampa area until he departs for the foreign policy debate in Oxford, MS on Friday. Prominent lawyer and foreign policy specialist Greg Craig will be standing-in for his Republican rival during these practice sessions.

It’s no accident Obama chose Florida to spend this time. Polls show a close race in this state, one that has been called a must-win for McCain and that the Democrat hopes to snatch away with the help of extensive campaigning, voter registration, and get out the vote efforts. He leads the Arizona senator in the Tampa Bay area by a six-point margin, according to the latest TODAY Show/NBC/Mason-Dixon poll.

This was Obama’s second press conference in the state this week. His last meeting with reporters was Friday in Coral Gables, FL.

Soon after landing in nearby St. Petersburg earlier in the day, the senator spent a while talking with locals at a Clearwater pub, including a pair of men in the real estate industry, a real estate lawyer and a contractor, who asked about the bailout discussions in Washington.

My sense is we'll get something done. You know, this is beyond politics, but the problem is you've got a lame duck president and he can't really rally the public. I mean nobody is really paying attention to what Bush has to say right now,” he said. “So basically Bernanke and Paulson are running the thing and we're trying to negotiate with them and some of my colleagues in Congress - Democrats and Republicans - you know they want to play games, but we'll figure it out. We'll figure it out."

Howie P.S.: A key part of my official duties as Second Vice-President of the Ari Melber Fan Club is to pass along video (04:00)whenever he kicks some Republican ass.

Barack Obama