Truth vs Lies

American campaigns are no stranger to falsehood, lies, and character attacks. That has been going on since the days of Washington and the rocky birth of our remarkable Democratic experiment.

However that does not make the practice appealing, and clearly in the current campaign it has been the McCain campaign that has gone the farthest to bring up irrelevant nonsense and distort the truth.

Following up on many of the right wing claims about Obama has been an exercise in frustration and shoddy thinking by Obama detractors. This has taken the form of crazy nonsense like the notion Obama was born in Kenya to juxtaposing Obama quotes to make a very reasonable statement seem unreasonable.

Just today I reviewed a bogus claim that Obama, writing at Daily KOS
two years ago, had called for removing moderates from the Senate. Incredibly the writer had simply taken something Obama said should NOT be done in the interest of moderate approaches and then lifted the words in such as way to make it appear to state opposite. These cases of blog fraud or incomprehensibly stupid lack of reading comprehension would not be so bad if they were not immediately picked up by other sites and presented as "fact" along with the misquotes or lies.

Even mainstream media "fact checking" is often very questionable. The latest "guilt by association" play suggests Obama is pals with a Palestinian activist named Khalidi, now a professor and consultant. One of the challenges in this case is that a John McCain board gave a Khalidi consultancy over $450,000 for projects polling in the middle east. Most of McCain's campaign has tried to rely on painfully weak connections to figures that mainstream Americans find objectionable in one way or another. Thankfully that strategy appears to have failed - and perhaps we can hope this is because we as voters have become more reasonable rather than simply because the McCain campaign failed to make the smears stick.

All the smears have happened within a context of an arguably very unqualified Republican VP nominee hit with abuse of power charges *during the campaign* and McCain's very challenged personal history. The Obama campaign has chose not to focus on the personalities and character of the opposition, and stayed squarely on message in a near-flawless and mostly positive campaign. Will this approach succeed? If so, can we expect future campaigns to take a higher road than in the past?

Ashley Todd - McCain Campaign Worker "Attack" is a Hoax

The Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Ashley Todd attack was a hoax designed by a low level McCain campaign worker to fuel the ongoing smear campaign against Obama:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/mccain-campaign-volunteer-admits-alleged-attack-hoax/

Although the right leaning Drudge Report and FOX News deserve some of credit for putting the “hoax” coverage on their internet home pages, enough damage has been done that any objective observer would question the motives of news agencies reporting as fact such a suspicious story.

This was initially reported by Fox news in a totally questionable fashion that simply accepted Todd’s dramatic story that was designed to play on many of the irrational fears and stereotypes that have been used to smear Obama supporters. Drudge and FOX were (outrageously) running the lies last night even as it became crystal clear she was lying about all or some of this. That abuse of the news cycle is simply unconscionable.

Also outrageous is that Todd was an official McCain *campaign worker*. Given the smears against Obama based on people and groups who have little or no connection to his campaign I think it’s clear we have a disturbing double standard.

Electoral Counts Give Obama the Win

With a large and stable lead in the polls, an even more favorable lead in the electoral analysis, and a huge amount of money in the bank the Obama campaign juggernaut looks very hard to beat:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

"The Bradley Effect", where polled people tend to vote differently than they tell the pollsters due to race, seems unlikely to play a role although some think this may work against Obama in the final tallies.

Clearly the most important factor at this late time is the mother's milk of American politics....money. Obama's campaign raised a jaw-dropping 150 million in September and will be able to outspend McCain by something like 3 to 1. This is a huge advantage and makes it much harder for McCain to "raise his voice" and profile in the public eye at this critical time.

Vote Fraud vs Vote Suppression

There's a massive campaign in the conservative media to connect the Obama campaign to the ACORN vote registration scandals. There does not appear to be a significant connection - certainly no suggestion that the Obama campaign has done anything to encourage ACORN to cheat on their behalf. Here's my summary of the situation:

ACORN registration fraud is at the individual level, where workers are padding their registration piles with fake registrations to make more money.

No signs that the fake registrants would actually be voting in the election. FOX is very conspicuously failing to talk about this, though I'd guess somebody will find a small number of ACORN people who had plans to go and try to vote based on the fake registrations.

It is possible, but I think unlikely, that there is a conspiracy on the part of ACORN to conduct a large scale vote fraud campaign based on the fake registrations. The evidence does not support this at all. For example "Mickey Mouse" mass duplicated names, and pro football name registrants are going to get scrutinized at the polling places and likely rejected.

Far more significant in terms of affect are the voter suppression campaigns where secretaries of state are removing huge numbers of names from the registration rolls. Often this appears to be a legitimate attempt to clean ineligible voters from the rolls but in some cases such as Ohio 2004 it appeared to be a very calculated approach to change outcomes. This year Ohio's voting process is under the control of the Democrats and it appears they are working too hard in the opposite direction - effectively having too few checks on the registration process.

The system failed in 2000, and Democracy is still reeling from our inability to qualify voters and count votes properly. Partisans who are more interested in outcomes that the Democratic process should bow their heads in deep shame (warning: do not hold your breath on this).

Of Plumbers and Presidents

The inane stupidity of the "Joe the Plumber" discussion tells us a lot about how out of touch the media is with America. As a "Joe" myself, I'm in a better position to understand Joe the Plumber than, say, Lou Dobbs.

My take is that neither left nor right wing media understands why Joe the Plumber is relevant to the current debate, which is simply because he is representative of many middle income Americans who make about 40-80k per year, would actually benefit in the short term from Obama's tax plans, but don't share Obama's sensibilities about how to run country or the idea that deficit spending is a good idea.

First, Joe does not even come close to making 250k. No plumbers make 250k. Some plumbing *businesses* with several workers might make that in, although many are mom and pops making far less. Lou Dobbs and some McCain folks have *idiotically* asserted that the issue is about Plumbers when it's about small businesses, most of which do not make 250k.

Joe is not a small business - in fact he's not even a plumber. He was (probably wrongly) thinking that if he bought the plumbing place he worked for he'd have trouble paying Obama's taxes, and Obama foolishly just assumed that was true. Unless this is a pretty good sized plumbing business and Joe is a heck of a good businessman it is very unlikely he'll pull in 250k taxable income. Do the math! There are 2000 working hours in a year. Factoring in travel time and such, most plumbers are not going to work that many hours but even assuming they do they'd need to make on average $125 per hour to bring their annual take up to 250k. $125 per hour? Maybe in New York CIty but most places charge far less. But wait there's more.... that's just revenues. You get to deduct expenses, so even if Joe is the best paying guy AND the best business guy AND has several plumbers all pulling in 250k annually for him after he pays them and deducts expenses he'll likely fall where most small businesses fall - under the Obama threshold for tax benefits.

But wait.... that does NOT suggest he should vote for Obama. If he's strongly anti-abortion, or really big on gun rights, or wants military spending to be a huge priority he should probably go with McCain. If he hates Democratic control of politics he should vote Republican.

So, there are plenty of reasons Joe the Plumber might want to vote for McCain.

Taxes, however, are quite ironically not one of those reasons.

Ed Rollins, Republican Guru: It's over, It's Obama

On CNN tonight Ed Rollins said it's over and Obama has won. He suggested that the tidal wave of bad economic news means McCain no longer has much if any chance at winning, and the issue is whether the Republicans will lose so many seats their influence in congress is demolished.

Rollins is one of the master modern political strategists and a key architect of the Reagan rise to power. He's also much less of a spinner when he'd being a pundit on the many political shows that talk to him.

Gwen Ifill's Debate Dilemma

PBS's VP Debate moderator Gwen Ifill's upcoming book about the rise of African American politics in the "Age of Obama" is raising some eyebrows as she'll be moderating the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden tommorrow night.

As Brit Hume correctly noted today there is little reason to think she won't be objective but it is of some concern that the book, set to release on *inauguration day* means that Ifill has a significant financial stake in the outcome of the election (ie her perspective if Obama wins is far, far more valuable than if he loses).

With journalistic objectivity pretty much in a death spiral already, I think PBS should be getting *out* of the game of partisan journalism rather than finding themselves squarely in the eye of that storm.

Given that Gwen just broke her ankle she's got a great excuse to pass her debate duties along to another and she probably should do that. Unless the McCain campaign had been briefed about her book when they agreed to have Ifill moderate the debate it's not reasonable for her to claim this should be of no concern at this time, especially given the publication date which clearly presages the outcome of the election. Ifill is involved in predicting and profiting from the outcome of this election and therefore should offer to excuse herself from the debate.

FYI Ms. Ifill - McCain will tell you to go ahead anyway, so why not take the high road here?

Debate polls

CNN's phone poll of about 500 showed Obama as the strong debate winner among those who watched, but John King at CNN noted that since more Democrats tend to watch debates this poll does not give us a good enough picture of things. We'll want to know how each candidate fared within their own parties and more importantly how noncommitted voters viewed this debate. Ultimately the candidates need to change minds, not reinforce existing votes from already supportive constituencies.

Fox's text poll, now underway on TV, is a shamelessly foolish excercise in biased polling that will offer little insight into anything. Fox viewers are not representative of national averages, and since only Fox viewers can participate in that poll (other folks won't see the contact number) it's probably going to show a huge McCain bias. The text aspect is also a distortion which will pull in FOX's younger viewers. Unlike CNN's phone poll which reasonably is a measure of *all* those who viewed the debate, FOX is a measure of how FOX viewers viewed the debate.

82 percent McCain in the FOX poll. Fair? balanced?. More like extremely biased. I can't believe people think this is journalism.

Fannie Mae Reform Bill Fact Check - McCain was NOT an original sponsor...

Reports that John McCain was at the forefront of legislation that would have prevented the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appear to be greatly exaggerated, though it took more than a little sleuthing to figure this out.

McCain shows as one of three cosponsors of the legislation spearheaded by Chuck Hagel. A quick read of it does not suggest to me that the authors saw a pending catastrophe, but even if they did it was very odd to find that John McCain's name did NOT appear on the legislation when it was introduced. In fact he cosponsored this a full 16 months *after* it was introduced for reasons I don't have time to figure out, but given the time frame it would appear this was done more for political affect than anything else.

Here's the official record:

S.190
Title: A bill to address the regulation of secondary mortgage market enterprises, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] (introduced 1/26/2005) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2005 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

---

COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] - 1/26/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 5/25/2006
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] - 1/26/2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P

More from the news: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/17/mccains-warning-fannie-and-freddie/

Obama to McCain: See You Friday Dude!

It's too early to say but it looks to me like the McCain campaign suspension play is backfiring in part due to Obama's response to McCain which is clear and is "see ya Friday, dude"...

This was a bold play by McCain but since he waited until the last minute he's on *very* thin ice arguing that he's got no place attending the most anticipated presidential debate in history. His proposal to delay the Palin Biden debate - a duel that is almost as interesting to the public as the McCain Obama debate - will only add to the speculation that this is a political rather than bipartisan presidential play.

Suggesting that McCain will debate Obama if congress enacts a plan by Friday seems unlikely to do more than complicate and confuse the many issues at hand and offer the Democrats a type of dysfunctional control over McCain's plans.

If Obama is sitting on the stage Friday without McCain it is unlikely to bode well for McCain unless Obama makes the mistake of saying something outrageous which is unlikely. In fact the imagery of John McCain wandering around D.C. trying to broker a deal with a congress that is mostly hostile to his candidacy would not appear to paint a pretty campaign picture.

McCain to Obama: Suspend Campaign - Let's Work Together

John McCain has temporarily suspended his campaign and will return to Washington to campaign for the fiscal reform package aka "The Bailout", which he feels is of critical importance.

This is a remarkable move that is very consistent with the kind of bipartisan political cooperation both McCain and Obama talk so much about. However it's also something of a curve ball thrown to Obama, who must either look like a "follower" by joining McCain or look opportunistic if he refuses.

Clearly politics played something of a role here because McCain could have called Obama and had them issue a joint announcement *update: McCain said he called Obama before his announcement to inform him of the decision*.

So what should Obama do? Both strategically and realistically he should counter-propose to McCain a high level meeting with the Bush folks and the economic advisors of both campaigns (one of which will take over this mess) . Together a bipartisan bill should be crafted that addresses the crisis immediately.

It's the Economy, and we are ALL stupid.

On the one hand, it is mistaken to suggest that the pending economic disasters are the fault of people or parties more than the collective fault of our hopelessly inefficient and politicized, lobbied, and manipulated regulatory systems combined with serious flaws in our capitalist infrastructure.

That said, it's very hard to escape the fact that the Bush administration will be seen - probably with justification - as the party most asleep at the wheel as the American economy was teetering on the brink of collapse. This is likely to play far better for Obama the McCain, and unless the McCain party line can find a way to distance itself from the huge failures of current US economic policy Obama's lead is likely to become insurmountable. McCain will have to find a way to acknowledge that the current economic situation is totally unsustainable but not the fault of the Bush administration. This will be a tough row to hoe.

I'm by no means suggesting that Obama and fellow Democrats should not shoulder some of the blame for the current crisis. Although they have been ranting against the current economic approaches of the Bush administration it appears pretty clear that the Democrats - like the Republicans - failed to see looming catastrophe until it was too late. More importantly Democrats failed to intervene years ago when the seeds of the current catastrophe were planted. In fact a key Obama advisor was the CEO of Fannie Mae until 2004. If Obama keeps him on board (or lets him go as he shoud) I'd say both of them have some explainin' to do.

I'm very unclear about why this crisis was not at least the subject of a lot more speculation, because it has been obvious for at least two years that the real estate bubble would burst, dropping trillions in equity from balance sheets.

The polls are starting to show a shift to Obama based on the dire economic news, and it seems likely this shift will continue. The importance of the debates on Friday is likely looming large for many undecided voters desparate to know who can return prosperity to a flagging US economy.

Sarah Palin's Official Website & Blogs

Almost everybody is asking "Who is Sarah Palin" so I thought I'd provide a list of the best links, including some to her official websites that come from the state of Alaska where she is the Governor.

McCain's Palin pick is certainly successful at focusing attention on her and away from the Democratic Convention and Obama which have completly dominated the US news cycle for the past four days. Unlike Obama's VP Joe Biden, Palin has a very "new and interesting" appeal to the media, though I remain skeptical that Hillary Clinton supporters are likely to change their party allegiances to vote for somebody who is even more conservative than McCain.

Alaska Governor - Sarah Palin's official web site

Sarah Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alaska Governor Bio - Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin Profile by Fred Barnes at Weekly Standard in 2007. Barnes is a conservative pundit who speaks for many Republicans in the conservative wing of the party, and may have been a significant influence in McCain's decision.

Palin at Politico (a critical Palin piece)

Palin at Huffington Post (critical)
Palin from Michelle Malkin (a favorable Palin Piece)

McCain picks Palin as his VP running mate

In a move that seems to have surprised almost everyone, John McCain has picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for his Vice Presidential running mate.

The announcement came this morning, strategically undermining a news day that otherwise would have been filled with Democratic Convention imagery making Barack Obama look as much like a rock star as a presidential candidate. The pick also is clearly an attempt to chip away at what appears to be Obama's weakness in appealing to some Hillary Clinton supporters.


Palin is a conservative who is pro-life, favors drilling in Alaska (ironically McCain has opposed this but I think will change his position after the election), and is a strong advocate for gun rights.

The McCain campaign strategy here appears to be an attempt to please the conservative base - many of whom like Palin a lot for her outspoken and conservative ideas about Government - while also appealing to what appears to be a minor backlash among Democrats against Obama for not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

It's going to be very interesting watching the Biden - Palin debates, though I can't help but think Palin will struggle to show how she can match Biden's foreign policy and military experience. Biden will be hard to swiftboat given his affable nature and non-confrontatational history in the Senate, where Palin's youth, experience, and good looks may hinder her ability to connect with voters.

Saddleback Forum

Barack Obama is taking questions at the Saddleback forum from moderate evangelical Pastor Rick Warren. Warren may emerge as a significant player in the election as his moderate philosophy is appealing to many, and the evangelical vote represents a key electoral block. McCain tends to hold most of that vote and will for the election, but if Warren speaks equally about the qualifications of each candidate it'll be a boon to the Obama campaign, possibly justifying for some evangelicals a vote outside of their normal frame of reference. Alternatively if Warren comes out strongly for McCain we could see a new groundswell of the support McCain has lacked so far - the kind of passionate conservative power block that helped GW Bush in both his presidential campaign victories.

Veepstakes at Hardball

Hardball arguably offers the most intense political analysis, and they are sizing up the VP competition as following:

McCain's top 3 in what Harball says is the increasing order of likelihood of winning:

3. Former Rep. Bob Portman
2. Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty
1. Mitt Romney, Former Governor of Massachusetts.

Although Romney is a good pick for McCain, I think they missed the boat here. Another smart choice is Kay Baily Hutchinson to peel away the Hillary Supporters still reeling from the Obama defeat. As a woman she'd pull more total votes than other VPs, though I'm not clear if that support would come from the necessary states. Still, enough states will be close that the best VP strategy is a powerful *national* support getter.

For Barack Obama:

3. Senator Evan Bayh
2. Tim Kane, VA Governor
1. Joe Biden, Senator from Delaware

I think two senators are weak on a ticket, so it'll be Tim Kane in this group but I think more likely is Wesley Clark, a smart and sharp campaigner who could put to rest any military challenges to the ticket.

Zakaria Interviews Rice

Fareed Zakaria is one of the most thoughtful observers of the American geopolitical landscape and today he interviewed US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Some have suggested Rice is a very unlikely candidate for McCain's VP spot because she clearly pins him to the Bush Administration's foreign policy, but I think she is probably on the very short list right now in part because she would represent the smooth policy transition advocated by McCain, a position that has become increasingly popular as Iraq stabilizes. However the main reason to pick Rice would be to sway the Clinton supporters and soft Obama supporters for whom Rice might represent a viable alternative to Obama's likely ticket, which almost *cannot* include a woman other than Hillary Clinton and is *unlikely* according to most to include Clinton.

CNN GPS Website:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/

More about Zararia's GPS

McCain's non-scandalous scandal

The John McCain lobbyist scandal seems to be dying down in light of the New York Times' failure to produce anything other than rumors of the appearance of impropriety combined with McCain's sharp denial of any romantic involvement or betrayal of the public trust.

Frankly, I think the story's somewhat foolish original intention was not to accuse McCain of illegal or immoral activity, rather to suggest that even McCain is not immune to the lure of the huge gray areas in political ethics. These are challenges McCain has talked about times both in regard to his involvement in the Keating S&L scandal and challenges with our process in general.

McCain's case is interesting because I'd suggest it is pretty clear what happened, but media speculation and frenzy simply cannot handle middle ground very well:

McCain had a friendship with lobby girl which was flirtatious but probably not scandalous - I doubt they slept together and may never have had any romance, though I'm guessing he technically lied saying "no romantic involvement".

Like other Senators, McCain participated in our crappy lobby system in legal ways.

Vicki Iseman's influence over McCain him was a notch above the normal due to the flirtatious and/or romantic overtones, but she did not *directly* ask for favors and he did not *directly* offer them. McCain is a man of honor and it would have been totally out of character for him to act otherwise.

Isemant did get more attention than average, but nothing that would approach illegal preferential treatment or breach any reasonable ethical standards other than the one that suggests our current and past lobbying systems are poor ways to do the people's business.

Note that decisions and clients are on the record, so where is the record of corruption here?

Appearance of impropriety here? Sure, but that's not enough.

McCain leading Republicans in national primary polling

Polling problems have become a conspicuous feature of American politics, but generally they still are useful as predictors and John McCain's campaign must be thrilled with the latest reports from CNN which have McCain leading nationally by about 10 points over Mike Huckabee.

Part of the challenge with national polls is that they may be subject to a lot of simple "name recognition" bias - ie people are saying their favorite candidate is simply the one they've heard of. As the TV ads hit and the race heats up in the dozens of states with primaries coming up in a matter of weeks, we are likely to see a narrowing of the polling numbers in almost all races.

Tomorrow's Michigan vote will be a significant factor in the race, especially if McCain "steals" victory away from Romney. A Romney loss in Michigan could sound a death knell for his campaign which failed in Iowa and New Hampshire despite substantial effort and expense in those states.

Republican Presidential Debate

FOX News hosted a debate among the Republican contenders for the 2008 US Presidential Crown. It is interesting to see how Huckabee as an "up and coming" candidate in the polls and Romney as one of the leaders seemed to be in top form. At one point Tom Tancredo, who has been an outspoken critic of how the other candidates are not conservative enough, stopped to note that he thought all the candidates were men of quality but offered different alternatives.

As in the prior debate I saw, Thompson seems to be failing to address criticisms and seems to be falling back on canned statements rather than possessing the quick wit of a Giuliani, Huckabee, or Paul. Thompson does clearly not have the campaign presence of Ronald Reagan despite the fact he's being billed like that by Republican supporters. I predict this will condemn his campaign after what will likely be lackluster showings in southern states - probably around February or March of 2008.

Despite a standing ovation after John McCain's joke and criticism of Hilary Clinton, his performances lack the "fire" needed to win this race. He was the front runner and failed to consolidate his position early in the race. I actually think age is playing a role with McCain and he simply does not have the energy required for these massively social experiences which involve traveling millions of miles annually and meeting tens of thousands of people every month.

Man to watch here? Mitt Romney. Clearly he's got *all* the others in the stature department, most conspicuously Giuliani who always looks squirrely and shrill in a Romney v Giuliani persona lineup. Contrary to what most of us think about how we evaluate people it's based in large part on the way they look and carry themselves and not on what they say or do. This factor, in my opinion, will trump what seem to be diminishing concerns about Romney's Mormonism.

Prediction: 2008 election will be Romney vs Clinton