Forgive? Maybe. Forget? Never!

As the post-mortems on the McCain/Palin campaign are written, many of them will have these common themes:

• McCain was a man of principle who let himself be turned toward the dark side by Rovian handlers who promised him electoral glory and a big painting in the White House for posterity,
• Palin was unprepared and out of control ... a self-centered, power-hungry woman hardened by rough and tumble Alaskan politics,
• There was no way McCain/Palin could compete with the vast sums of money collected by the Obama campaign,
• Everything would have gone the Republicans' way if the economy hadn't tanked,
  Everything would have gone the Republicans' way if the media had reported our victory in Iraq,
• Everything would have gone the Republicans' way if the media had reported who the REAL Barack Obama was!

But as McCain's self-proclaimed base, the mainstream media, try to rehabilitate his image as a proud, principled, fallen warrior, I will be one of many who will never forget how hateful and ugly the Republican campaign was. As John Aravosis writes on AmericBlog.com:

After eight years of having Republicans call me an un-American troop-hating fag-loving socialist, after months of John McCain embracing the hate to a level where his own supporters were calling out for Barack Obama to be assassinated, no one is going to be permitted to tell me with a straight face that "oh you know, both sides do it."

Your side was abominable. Your side was hateful. Your side race-baited. Your side gay-baited. Your side lied like we've never seen in recent presidential campaign history. Your side used a tax-cheat who would do better under Obama's tax proposal to be your everyman on the issue of taxes. Your side, in a veiled effort at race-baiting, said Obama doesn't put his country first. Your side had the audacity to call Obama a socialist. Your side suggested he was a Muslim. Your side suggested he was a terrorist. Your side suggested he was Osama bin Laden.

Spare me the crap about how both sides do it.

You people are a disgrace, you've been a disgrace for eight long years, and all your hate and lying and venom and vitriol finally bit you in your collective fat ass.

Democrats don't do nasty, and they certainly don't do it well. Lord knows I wish they did, but they don't. Republicans elevate it to a religion. You are the party of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. Angry, bitchy, bitter and elitist. What do we have to compare? Jesse Jackson, I often hear from my Republican friends. Um, maybe in 1980 when he was relevant. It's been 28 years, got any other examples? Michael Moore, you say? What has Michael Moore said - name one thing - that's comparable to the filth that regularly issues forth from Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter and, of late, McCain and Palin?

Democrats, when they skewer (which isn't often enough), do it with biting truth. Republicans skewer, early and often, with vicious lies. It goes back to a more general
philosophy that liberals have: If we just tell them the truth, the people will agree with us. Republicans are far less sanguine. They know that a good lie beats the truth any day of the week.

Except on a Tuesday in November.

.

Not so popular anymore, is she?

We keep hearing the wingnuts spouting off about Sarah Palin being the most popular Governor in America. Well, after the people of Alaska, along with the rest of the country, have watched her in recent months more and more people don't like what they see.

Sarah, meet Janet!

Janet Napolitano is Arizona's governor, currently serving her second term. Her favorability rating of 67-29 is higher than Palin's, which is 65-35 ... Napolitano's job approval rating of 69-21 similarly beats Palin's 61-37. Palin may be giving the Rick Lowrys of the world starbursts, but Napolitano is wowing them with competent governance, and it looks like Arizonans wouldn't mind sending her to Washington instead of McCain.

Go, Janet, go!
I think Obama will not pick Napolitano for a cabinet post, because we don't want to turn the Arizona Governorship over to a Republican. But she would make a great Senator!
.

Sleaziest presidential campaign ever?

This is the ugliest presidential campaign in my lifetime. What do you think?
Here is Josh Marshall:

Flashback: McCain's Sleaze-o-rama

As John McCain just gets sleazier and sleazier, let's review the hypocritical record one more time ...

Have you noticed how the McCain/Palin camps have morphed the Republican Party into the White Nationalists Party? Check out the crowds at all their events. And their new attacks on a respected Palestinian-American historian, Rashid Khalidi, are despicable. Hell, all Sarah Palin had to do Wednesday was mention the guy's name and people who knew absolutely nothing about him started booing ... they booed his name. See, he's different, he's middle-eastern, he's probably a terrorist!

All McCain and Palin have on their side is fear and ignorance.

I choose HOPE.


UPDATE: Oh my ... If you were leading a White Supremacist organization where would you go to recruit new members?
.

More on the Powell endorsement

From Jed:

Powell didn't just endorse Barack Obama -- he also systematically dismantled the entire rationale for John McCain's presidential campaign.

Whatever you think of Colin Powell, in the context of our national discourse, the endorsement of a Republican military figure like Powell is a severe blow to McCain's smear campaign.

Among the key points Powell made against McCain's campaign:

•On the Ayers smears: He thoroughly repudiated McCain's "Obama associates with terrorists" smear job.

•On the religion smears: He not only affirmed the fact that Barack Obama is Christian, but he also rejected the idea that it would be a problem if he weren't, defending religious freedom in passionate terms.

•On the "anti-American" smears: He even targeted Michele Bachmann's divisive rant claiming that there are "anti-American" Members of Congress

•On McCain's judgment and readiness: He destroyed the notion that McCain has either the judgment or policy acumen to serve as president, citing McCain's selection of Sarah Palin and his unsteady response to the economic crisis

•On Republican extremism: He slammed the GOP's rightward tilt, specifically noting that it would be unacceptable to nominate two more hard-right justices to the Supreme Court.

Powell didn't just decimate the McCain campaign rationale, however. Powell also offered up an endorsement of Barack Obama in the strongest possible terms, saying that Obama would be an "exceptional president" and that he had the capacity to be "transformational."

The amazing part of all this is that Powell still considers himself a Republican. While there will never be an excuse for his role in supporting the Iraq war, one thing does seem clear: Powell's endorsement today will be a boost for Barack Obama's campaign, and therefore a good thing for this country.

Obama's lead widents to 94-28

Senator Barack Obama is crushing McCain in newspaper endorsements with 94 recommending voters elect Obama and 28 choosing McCain. Do newspaper endorsements matter? I'm not sure how they sway voters, but when many of these papers usually back the Republican candidate and this time they are backing the Democrat, that is at the very least, interesting.

Here is one from a solid RED state, the full Salt Lake Tribune editorial endorsing Barack Obama for President.

A simple choice: The nation needs Barack Obama in the White House

The next U.S. president will lead a nation that remains embroiled in two wars and is beset by an economic meltdown more severe than any since the Great Depression.

By necessity, the country's next commander in chief must also be its mender in chief, capable of inspiring his angry and divided constituents to join together in a recovery project to restore the peace, prosperity, and self-confidence we once knew.

We fear that a lesser effort may be insufficient to reverse America's slide toward economic, political and societal chaos. The times require dramatic and comprehensive change.

The presidential candidates know it, and have made it their mantra.

Most Americans know it, and, in growing numbers, are demanding it.

The countries that have long depended upon the United States for enlightened global leadership long for it.

For the sake of all, and for those who follow us, we must have it.

The editorial board of The Salt Lake Tribune believes that Barack Obama can deliver it.

Over the 22 months since announcing his improbable candidacy, Obama has transcended his image as a mere political and racial phenomenon. Though blessed with uncommon skills as a writer and orator, he was mistakenly thought to possess too little political experience, too little backbone, and too little evidence of the tangible, and intangible, qualities we ascribe to the best of our leaders. Democrats and Republicans alike thought Hillary Clinton would make short work of him.

Admittedly, we thought so too, and endorsed Clinton, not Obama, for the party's nomination.

Yet, Obama mounted an extraordinary grass-roots campaign, raised gobs of cash, and showed great fortitude and equanimity in the face of the Clinton juggernaut. He endured, and once the nomination was his, he set about uniting his divided party with an impressive display of magnanimity and diplomacy.

John McCain, meanwhile, crushed Mitt Romney to gain his party's nomination, but then blundered badly by not bringing the business-savvy Romney onto the ticket.
Romney would have shored up McCain's poor grasp of economic policy.

Then, out of nowhere, and without proper vetting, the impetuous McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. She quickly proved grievously underequipped to step into the presidency should McCain, at 72 and with a history of health problems, die in office. More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency.

Still, we have compelling reasons for endorsing Obama on his merits alone. Under the most intense scrutiny and attacks from both parties, Obama has shown the temperament, judgment, intellect and political acumen that are essential in a president that would lead the United States out of the crises created by President Bush, a complicit Congress and our own apathy.

The candidates' positions on issues are, in most cases, distinctly different, and no more so than in health care reform. McCain would make a bad system worse by deregulating an insurance industry that is the root of the problem. He would give every family a $5,000 refundable tax credit for purchasing the insurance of their choice, but would tax employer-provided health benefits. Obama's plan would require large employers to offer insurance, or contribute a percentage of payroll to offset the cost of taxpayer subsidies. People could buy into a private or a government-run plan, and the premiums would be subsidized by tax credits based on income.

On tax policy, Obama would sensibly increase taxes for individuals making more than $250,000 a year, while cutting taxes for everyone else. He also would send money to the states for public works improvements that would generate jobs. His intent to increase the capital gains tax, however, is foolhardy while businesses struggle to weather the economic meltdown. McCain would cut taxes for people in all income brackets, as well as mandate big reductions in corporate income taxes. It is a trickle-down plan that would do little to reduce the deficit.

McCain's foreign policy objectives virtually replicate Bush's disastrous course. His disdain for diplomacy is troubling, and his faith in eventual U.S. "victory" in Iraq is ill-defined. We simply cannot afford perpetual war. Obama knows this. And his nuanced approach would help America recover it's global prestige. Indeed, we see too many of Bush's failed policies in McCain's recipe for recovery.

The country desperately needs a new and well-defined road map for the 21st century and leadership that can unite the country behind it.

We believe that Barack Obama can give us both.

If you wonder how this is going over with their readers, check out the comments.

Fact Check on McCain Attack

From TalkingPointsMemo:

Desperation: McCain Claims That Obama Voted To Let Babies Die
By Greg Sargent

Sheer desperation: John McCain hits Barack Obama for allegedly voting to let babies die.

The reference, of course, is to Obama's opposition to a measure in Illinois that would purportedly have provided care for babies born amid abortions -- something that was already legally required, anyway. The bill was widely viewed by critics as a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade.

To our ears, this is a more despicable smear than just about anything we've seen, worse than Ayers or anything else. It wreaks so overwhelmingly of desperation and dishonesty that it's incredible that McCain actually agreed to it when Steve Schmidt or whoever told him it would work and he really, really would score big points if he lobbed this attack tonight.

Chapter and verse on this ridiculous attack here and here.

.

3 - 0 ... a clean sweep

The final debate.
Tone: McCain once again angry, edgy and negative; Obama once again calm, cool, detailed and personable.
Obama = Presidential; McCain = Frantic & Erratic
John McCain's answers usually rambled and he veered from one talking point to the next in a spastic manner, the "kitchen sink" strategy that will leave most viewers saying ... "Huh?"
Barack Obama focused on the issues and his plans, speaking directly to the audience, steady and reassuring ... most people will likely say ... "What is there to fear?"
What continues to amaze me is how the talking heads and pundits continue to get the post debate analysis absurdly wrong. You expect the campaign surrogates and ideologues to stick with their man, but when the reporters and news people try to make their analysis fit the pre-debate projections it is sad and pathetic. These people saw all three of these debates through an old, dirty, scratched lens that said ... "The candidate who is aggressive and on the attack wins points" and "The candidate who is more cerebral is seen as soft and ineffective." But that was then and this is now.
Two wars that have us on our heels, an economy that has dropped us to our knees, eight years of lies and deceit from the Bush/Cheney administration, Katrina, Valerie Plame, US Attorney scandal, Guantanamo and torture, etc., etc., etc. The loud, aggressive, bellicose and supremely confident approach by Rove Republicans leaves a bitter taste in voters mouths. People want to hear about the issues, they want character, they want capable leadership, they want change.
So, while the pundits talked about McCain's aggressiveness putting Obama on the defensive, they weren't listening to the word the candidates were speaking. I think the public saw through the tactics and focused on the answers. And once again, the snap polls are hitting the pundits right between the eyes.
Obama overwhelmingly won the debate, the people are saying. Obama's favor ability numbers are rising and McCain's are falling.
And what do you know, suddenly the pundits change their language. John the Fighter becomes Angry John. John the Aggressor becomes Cranky Negative John. And they seem surprised that the public saw things so differently.
So, what now?
The trickle of Republican politicians running away from McCain to save their own skill will become a flood. The money the RNC has left will go to Senate and House races, not the presidential campaign. And Sarah Palin's people will start talking behind McCain's back about how she should have been at the top of the ticket instead of the old guy.
The next three weeks may still get pretty ugly with negative campaigning, but it won't change the election. This is Obama's time.


UPDATE
I love Duncan Black:

Pundits all agree: despite the fact that McCain looked like a demented lunatic, he won!

.

Hatred ... pure evil ... dangerous ...

Not so funny ...

Time for an intervention

Funny stuff!

More Obama newspaper endorsements

From Editor & Publisher:

From the Wisonsin State Journal:

America is at a pivotal point in its history — a difficult time that demands talented leadership to renew our nation's spirit and pull us together to meet the incredible challenges ahead.

The right leader for the time is Barack Obama.

The Wisconsin State Journal endorses the dynamic and youthful senator from Illinois for president.

Far more than his opponent, Obama represents a new direction. He has shown he can inspire and lead people to action. And his relatively short time in corrupt, self-absorbed, terribly-failed Washington, D.C., may actually be a key strength. Obama is not stuck in the status quo of the Capitol crowd or its long-failed Congress.

Obama doesn't just give pretty speeches. He speaks to people's best instincts, encouraging them to shine.

Obama is best-equipped this election to make America feel good about itself again. That's a powerful feeling — one that could go a long way toward invigorating our economy and national sense of purpose.

Obama is convincing in his call for a new kind of politics in Washington. His life story and history-making bid for the White House also have forced the rest of the world to view America in a new and more positive way.

An Obama presidency will immediately give America more clout and credibility around the globe. It will immediately win over and win back allies and friends.As much as other nations may fear American power and influence, they fear our potential decline even more.

America must not decline. America must remain a beacon of freedom, democracy, innovation and prosperity.

And that's why voting for the first-term senator is worth the risk.

Here is more from the Toledo Blade editorial referrenced in the post below:

The man who has emerged is young (47) but well-educated and accomplished, both as a state legislator and a member of the United States Senate. He is somewhat professorial but not stodgy, and in our direct contact with him he proved to be one of few politicians at his level with the capacity to actually listen to others and appreciate what they have to say.

During the campaign, Senator Obama also has shown himself to possess steely self-control, a single-minded focus, and endearing good humor in the face of specious attacks on everything from his biracial origin to his boyhood upbringing to his acquaintances during his political career in rough-and-tumble Chicago.

His calm and deliberate demeanor is particularly important because steadiness at the helm of government will be necessary to extricate the United States from its current crisis of confidence, both in politics and economics...

America needs a new direction, not just because the current administration's economic policies - not to mention its war-bound foreign policies - have contributed to our current problems, but because we have lost our way in terms of the proper relationship between government and the people and, more importantly, the responsibility we owe each other. Americans who view the future with optimism do not - even in the face of terrorism - give up the basic freedoms our revolutionary forefathers died to secure.

Sen. John McCain, by nature, has shown himself to be incapable of providing the American people with an optimistic vision of the future. Firmly rooted in the failed politics and policies of the past, he cannot guide us on a path he does not see.

Senator Obama already has demonstrated that he is a man of the future in the way he has inspired a new generation of voters to become involved in the political process and to actively strive for a better tomorrow.

As a president from another era suggested, Americans should ask themselves: Am I better off than I was eight years ago? Four years ago? The answer is obvious and, therefore, the option on Nov. 4 is clear.

Historically, Ohio has had a critical role in presidential elections and appears poised once again to be a key in deciding who sits in the Oval Office for the next four years. This is an awesome responsibility, and one that cannot be taken lightly. For the future of Ohio and America, there is only one reasonable choice for president: Barack Obama.
.

Obama newspaper endorsements

From The Hotline blog:

St. Louis PD, Toledo Blade, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette For Obama

Three battleground newspaper endorsements for Barack Obama this a.m. Each is located deep in the heart of the white working class constituencies Obama needs to win in November.

From the Toledo Blade:

For guidance in arriving at this momentous decision, the election of the next president of the United States, we can look to the sober lessons of history. Without exaggeration, the country faces a transformational election on Nov. 4, not unlike that of 1932, which prefaced Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and a long slog out of the Great Depression.

Like the choice 76 years ago, next month's election is one in which voters have the power to cast aside the failed, greed-driven principles of governance and economics that have led to the current downturn and return to an equilibrium in which hard work is again rewarded by a decent standard of living for the average American.

To be sure, the path to recovery won't be easy for the next president. There are ominous signs that the economy will continue to falter before confidence can be restored in the financial system. The leadership required to contain and reorder the economic mess created by eight years of heedless deregulation will have to be both inspired and inspiring.

We believe the person best equipped by temperament and intellect to firmly grasp the reins of government and guide it safely forward in these uncertain times is Barack Obama.

Like another member of Congress from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, Senator Obama initially rose to prominence on the strength of soaring oratory. Over the past 18 months of the grueling campaign, his background has been thoroughly inspected and dissected by the press and a political opposition dedicated to keeping him from the White House.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Mr. McCain is not the steady hand he purports to be, and nothing proves it more than his reckless selection of Sarah Palin, whose lack of knowledge to take over as president has becoming increasingly obvious and embarrassing. If Mr. McCain had chosen one of the many accomplished women in the Republican Party, his candidacy would have the stamp of seriousness. Instead, it bears the superficial imprint of pandering populism.

But this election is not just about the shortcomings of Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin and the failed legacy of a philosophy that they seek to perpetuate under the hastily erected banner of maverick.

It is about the strengths of Barack Obama, whose rise to prominence is not a fluke or national infatuation but the consequence of his remarkable skills -- a keen intellect, noble intentions and the wit and grace to express them in ways that have inspired millions across the country. He has a rare gift exactly suited to the fearful times -- he knows the language of reassurance and hope.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Over the past nine months, Mr. Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, has emerged as the only truly transformative candidate in the race. In the crucible that is a presidential campaign, his intellect, his temperament and equanimity under pressure consistently have been impressive. He has surrounded himself with smart, capable advisers who have helped him refine thorough, nuanced policy positions.

In a word, Mr. Obama has been presidential.

Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, the senior senator from Arizona, became the incredible shrinking man. He shrank from his principled stands in favor of a humane immigration policy. He shrank from his universal condemnation of torture and his condemnation of the politics of smear.

He even shrank from his own campaign slogan, “Country First,” by selecting the least qualified running mate since the Swedenborgian shipbuilder Arthur Sewall ran as William Jennings Bryan’s No. 2 in 1896.

.

More ignorance and vile hatred

A disturbing video from bloggerinterrupted:

It’s no wonder that the slightest incitement from Sarah Palin or John McCain will turn one of their rallies into a lynch mob. Just talk to the folks who attend. My camera was rolling for literally seconds before people happily said to me, on camera, that Barack Obama is a terrorist.
...
Bonus footage of people claiming they know Sarah Palin better than they know Barack, and in fact, never heard of Barack.

I’ve been doing blog video for a while, and presidential rallies a lot longer. And this is the most strange, ignorant, uninformed, angry, up-to-no-good, and gullible group of people I’ve ever seen at a political rally.

.

WTF?

Hat tip to Kos

Drunk Ignorant Rednecks

Brace yourselves before you watch this.

As Andrew Sullivan writes: Sit down, take a deep breath and get a better idea of why the people introducing Palin and McCain keep referring to Barack Hussein Obama:
.


.

Palin: a "fatal cancer" to her party who "celebrates ignorance"

I'm not a fan of New York Times columnist David Brooks for a number of reasons, one of which I often don't think he really believes what he is writing, he is just writing what he thinks he needs to to support the Republican Party. On Monday he spoke from the heart in an interview and, what do you know, he said some things he hasn't said in print. Maybe he should write a column based on these comments from an article by Danny Shae:

David Brooks spoke frankly about the presidential and vice presidential candidates Monday afternoon, calling Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party" but describing John McCain and Barack Obama as "the two best candidates we've had in a long time."

In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg at New York's Le Cirque restaurant to unveil that magazine's redesign, Brooks decried Palin's anti-intellectualism and compared her to President Bush in that regard:

"[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices."

Brooks praised Palin's natural political talent, but said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president. He explained,

"The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

The New York Times columnist also said that the "great virtue" of Palin's counterpart, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, is that he is anything but a "yes man."

"[Biden] can't not say what he thinks," Brooks remarked. "There's no internal monitor, and for Barack Obama, that's tremendously important to have a vice president who will be that way. Our current president doesn't have anybody like that."

Brooks also spent time praising Obama's intellect and skills in social perception, telling two stories of his interactions with Obama that left him "dazzled":

"Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I'm getting nowhere with the interview, it's late in the night, he's on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he's cranky. Out of the blue I say, 'Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?' And he says, 'Yeah.' So i say, 'What did Niebuhr mean to you?' For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr's thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.

"And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception."

Brooks predicted an Obama victory by nine points, and said that although he found Obama to be "a very mediocre senator," he is surrounded by what Brooks called "by far the most impressive people in the Democratic party."

"He's phenomenally good at surrounding himself with a team," Brooks said. "I disagree with them on most issues, but I am given a lot of comfort by the fact that the people he's chosen are exactly the people I think most of us would want to choose if we were in his shoes. So again, I have doubts about him just because he was such a mediocre senator, but his capacity to pick staff is impressive."

I think Sarah Palin scares the old guard in the Republican Party. She is dangerous. And if her political career (or FOX TV career) takes off after the McCain/Palin defeat in November she may one day be a presidential nominee, but I predict it won't be for the Republican Party. If she has a future, it is in a third party movement.

Here is more from "a prominent Republican Party professional" writing to Jay Carney at Swampland:

"Fascinating.

She really is what Bush pretends to be -- she 's a true anti-intellectual. She's has this very Pentecostal view of the world. We don't need to study the Bible, we don't need ministers, we can just feel the spirit and let the spirit speak through us. It's this classically Alaskan value system that places experience over all other values. I know what mothers need because I am a mother.

We don't need to read or even learn because that just fills our heads with confusing ideas and facts and figures. We feel.

Bush plays at this anti-elite stuff but he's Harvard/Yale/Andover, all of that. She is really a celebration of a glorious know-nothingness that is truly dangerous....

She's terrifying and represents a streak of the Republican party that is a permanent minority. She will not play well with suburban women in Montgomery County [OH]. They want their kids to go to good schools and college. Palin basically says that isn't necessary. You can just speak plainly from the heart and that's good enough. But that's how you end up a fish picker from Alaska.

It's not that she is an idiot that bothers me. It's that she celebrates non-learning and anti-knowledge. She celebrates ignorance.

Terrifying."

No shit!

.

One of the most appalling campaigns we can remember

New York Times Editorial Board:

Politics of Attack

It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

...

Ninety minutes of forced cordiality did not erase the dismal ugliness of his campaign in recent weeks, nor did it leave us with much hope that he would not just return to the same dismal ugliness on Wednesday.

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult.

...

Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.

Mr. McCain’s aides haven’t even tried to hide their cynical tactics, saying they were “going negative” in hopes of shifting attention away from the financial crisis — and by implication Mr. McCain’s stumbling response.

We certainly expected better from Mr. McCain, who once showed withering contempt for win-at-any-cost politics. He was driven out of the 2000 Republican primaries by this sort of smear, orchestrated by some of the same people who are now running his campaign.

And the tactic of guilt by association is perplexing, since Mr. McCain has his own list of political associates he would rather forget.

In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.

But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.

.

A two-fer from the Post

Two tidbits from Kathleen Parker:

FIRST

"Who won? Overall, I’d say that it was a fairly even split, with Obama oozing good guyness and connecting with everyday Americans over the economy and McCain inspiring confidence that he’s the man when it comes to national security and foreign policy. No surprises there.

Obama also inspires confidence, but in a completely different way than McCain. He’s a cat. He’s doesn’t sweat... anything. He is the envy of cucumbers. When everything is collapsing around him -- the economy, the Dow, the job market -- Obama is perched on the stool like Frank Sinatra between sets. Got a light? That’s not insignificant, I think. At the same time, when he talks, he sounds perfectly reasonable -- not at all the pal of radicals who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
...
Obama has a knack for connecting without condescending, which engenders trust. He seems to say, look, I get it. We’ll work it out together. He’s Bill Clinton without the lip biting.
...
But McCain tripped on his own lines by emphasizing the need for experience, saying this isn’t a time for on-the-job training. We couldn’t agree more, so tell us again why you picked Sarah Palin as your Heartbeat Away?

McCain was weird when he mentioned hair transplants and rude when he said “that one,” pointing to Obama, the U.S. senator from Illinois. (See You Tube.) He was smart and clever when responding to whether Russia is an evil empire.

"Maybe,” he said. “If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.”

Obama answered the same question as a psychologically aware parent, who says of his child: “You’re not bad, but you’re acting badly.” Russia is guilty of evil behavior and nationalist impulses that are bad, Obama said. The message to naughty children and nations is that though you misbehave, we still love you and want to help you be better.

Ultimately, Obama probably came out on top, if only because he’s in the winner’s seat and only had to not fall off ..."

SECOND

When John McCain pointed to Barack Obama and said "That one" during the debate - pointing to his opponent as one who had voted for an energy bill loaded with goodies for the oil companies - I emailed a friend and said, "Tell me he didn't say, 'That one'."

The exact quote: "You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me."

McCain supporters have tried to explain what he meant, but there's a reason it was so stunning in the moment. I'm don't think it was racist, as some have argued. But it was objectifying. "That one" isn't the same as "that man." One is an object; the other is a person. A human being. 'That one' has a dehumanizing effect and one is right to recoil.

Giving McCain the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he was merely expressing contempt for Obama's position and the implicit hypocrisy. Even so, McCain would do well to recognize why people are upset about it. Given the heat of recent rhetoric aimed at painting Obama as The Other, the McCain campaign must work harder to find the high road he used to travel and from which he has strayed.

.

How low can he go?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/


.

“I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

A must-read by Thomas Friedman at the New York Times. He takes a look at Sara Palin's response to Joe Biden's statement that it is "patriotic" to pay your fair share of taxes.

"...There was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.”

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

I only wish she had been asked: “Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

...

How in the world can conservative commentators write with a straight face that this woman should be vice president of the United States? Do these people understand what serious trouble our country is in right now?

...

Whether or not I agree with John McCain, he is of presidential timber. But putting the country in the position where a total novice like Sarah Palin could be asked to steer us through possibly the most serious economic crisis of our lives is flat out reckless. It is the opposite of conservative. "

.

Presidential in every way

Another solid, respectful and presidential debate performance by Senator Barack Obama. He continues to win over Independents with his calm, cool demeanor and more detailed policy answers. People see a man who is smart, articulate, introspective, compassionate, and inspirational. On the other hand, you have Senator John McCain staying in the past, throwing up hail-mary policy suggestions, and demonstrating a crankiness that is unbecoming. Without a knockout punch McCain can't win, and tonight he hardly touched Obama. The snap polls show that Obama won, and the pundits seem to agree this time. Tomorrow and in the coming days you will see the polls stay where they are or continue to slide Obama's way.

The best polling site on the Web is http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/.
Check it out!
.