(As Andrew Sullivan says..) Know Hope
51 years ago, on the 3-year anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, Dr. King took to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial - 6 years before he would deliver his "I Have a Dream" speech there. Distressed by the lack of real progress, and feeling betrayed by both major political parties' failure to pass and enforce meaningful legislation based on that landmark ruling, he joined leaders of the NAACP and about 20,000 supporters to urge elected officials to act. Their request was simple. Speaking last, this is what he said:

[O]ur most urgent request to the president of the United States and every member of Congress is to give us the right to vote.

Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.

Give us the ballot, and we will no longer plead to the federal government for passage of an anti-lynching law; we will by the power of our vote write the law on the statute books of the South and bring an end to the dastardly acts of the hooded perpetrators of violence.

Give us the ballot, and we will transform the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty mobs into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens.

Give us the ballot, and we will fill our legislative halls with men of goodwill and send to the sacred halls of Congress men who will not sign a "Southern Manifesto" because of their devotion to the manifesto of justice.

Give us the ballot, and we will place judges on the benches of the South who will do justly and love mercy, and we will place at the head of the southern states governors who will, who have felt not only the tang of the human, but the glow of the Divine.

Give us the ballot, and we will quietly and nonviolently, without rancor or bitterness, implement the Supreme Court's decision of May seventeenth, 1954.

And then he turned to the frustrated crowd to exhort them as well, to promise them that these things they dreamed of would become reality so long as they continue to seek change in the name of love and not hatred, in the spirit of humility and not retribution, with faith in themselves and in the better nature of those who oppressed them.

Go out with that faith today. Go back to your homes in the Southland to that faith, with that faith today. Go back to Philadelphia, to New York, to Detroit and Chicago with that faith today: that the universe is on our side in the struggle. Stand up for justice. Sometimes it gets hard, but it is always difficult to get out of Egypt, for the Red Sea always stands before you with discouraging dimensions. And even after you've crossed the Red Sea, you have to move through a wilderness with prodigious hilltops of evil and gigantic mountains of opposition. But I say to you this afternoon: Keep moving. Let nothing slow you up. Move on with dignity and honor and respectability.

I realize that it will cause restless nights sometime. It might cause losing a job; it will cause suffering and sacrifice. It might even cause physical death for some. But if physical death is the price that some must pay to free their children from a permanent life of psychological death, then nothing can be more Christian. Keep going today. Keep moving amid every obstacle. Keep moving amid every mountain of opposition. If you will do that with dignity, when the history books are written in the future, the historians will have to look back and say, "There lived a great people. A people with 'fleecy locks and black complexion,' but a people who injected new meaning into the veins of civilization; a people which stood up with dignity and honor and saved Western civilization in her darkest hour; a people that gave new integrity and a new dimension of love to our civilization." When that happens, "the morning stars will sing together, and the sons of God will shout for joy."

50 years later, occasional Republican shenanigans notwithstanding, the ballot belongs to us all. And after all are counted tomorrow, chances are good that an African-American who was not yet born when that address was given will receive more votes than anyone ever has in this country. 20,000 had the nerve - the will, the fortitude, faith and courage - to demand the ballot. By 1963, they would become 200,000 and then more. A milestone that must have seemed a distant dream then is now on the verge of reality, just a half-century later. There lived a great people, indeed.

Election Night Survival Guide, Short Version [UPDATED x2]
By popular demand.

[UPDATE: I've prepared a one-sheet scorecard (pdf) that should be handy in following the presidential returns. It works like this: the states are divided between Obama and McCain in the way most likely to lead to a 269-269 tie. Once a candidate wins a state from the other guy's column, you subtract those electoral votes from the loser's total, and add them to the winner's. That should make it easy to look ahead and see what has to happen for either to hold on for the win.]

President: If it's close or McCain has an early lead, let's not panic (this is for me as much as anyone). If some of these so-called battleground states start to look like they are going McCain's way: GA, IN, NC, OH, FL, MO, NV, AZ, and even VA, we will not freak out, because Obama doesn't have to win any of them. His most narrow path only requires holding PA...then adding CO to his wins in IA and NM (which seem certain). Essentially, to beat Obama, McCain must run the table on those "battlegrounds" above and also win either CO or PA. Once any of them start falling for Obama instead, we can start to relax.

If McCain pulls the upset in CO, Obama can replace it with *any of those other battlegrounds* and still win. (though if he only wins NV out of that bunch, it will be a 269-269 tie and go to the House.)

If McCain pulls the upset in PA, but Obama wins as heavily expected in NH, NM, and IA, Obama can win with any combination of FL (27), OH (20), GA (15), NC (15), VA (13), MO (11), IN (11), AZ (10), CO (9) NV (5) that adds up to 27 Electoral votes.

Senate: Including Lieberman, Democrats have 51 Senators in its caucus. They look to add [GOP incumbent in parenthesis]: NH (Sununu), NC (Dole), VA (open), CO (open), NM (open), OR (Smith) and AK (Stevens) making 58. To get to 60, they need to win 2 more out of these 4: MN (Coleman), GA (Chambliss), MS (Wicker), KY (McConnell). [UPDATE 2: Just a note. If neither candidate in GA wins 50%+ of the vote, it will go to a runoff at a future date. Let's win outright so we don't have to worry about all that turnout again.]

House: Who knows? Predictions have ranged from a net gain of 20 to 35 for Democrats. I'm looking especially at Bachmann's seat in MN, Shadegg's seat in AZ and Musgrove's seat in CO, all loathsome Republicans in varying degrees of trouble.

Other: The night will be bittersweet if CA passes proposition 8. Let's hope reason prevails and discrimination against gay couples goes down to a big NO.

Was 2004 a Blessing in Disguise?
Kevin asks a decent question... I can't quite go there but interesting to think about. What would this election be like if Kerry had won? (on the other hand, what shape would the country be in?)

Election Night Survival Guide, Part V (final)
By 10 PM Eastern, barring a judge leaving polls open late, 11 states will be left to close. There could be lots of close states still not called. Iowa, Montana, Nevada and Utah will close the polls at 10. One hour later California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Dakota will stop, and 2 hours after that, at 1 AM, Alaska will close. Most of these will not be close. Obama should add 84 EVs after IA, CA, OR, WA, and HI. McCain will add 15 with AK, ND, ID, and UT. McCain is trying in IA, but I don't think he will be successful, polls have shown double-digit Obama leads - a key Democratic pickup from 2004. If we add those totals to the projections I've already made - giving GA, IN, NC, AZ and WV to McCain and NM, NH, MN to Obama - Obama will lead 243 - 186.

Other races to watch out West? I've got my eye on 3: California's Prop 8 which would overturn the court's gay marriage provision, if passed. Should be close and will be one of those disappointments to make the night less jubilant if it is successful. In Oregon, Democrats expect to pick up Jeff Smith's Senate seat, a necessary one for the fight for 60. And netroots favorite Darcy Burner is giving a second try to take Dave Reichert's House seat in WA-8.

As for Pres, this hour adds 2 states - MT and NV - to the waiting list.

Montana would be gravy, and with a popular Democratic Governor, it could go for Obama but is not necessary, or really expected. Let's assume McCain pulls it out eventually, making his total 189.

Nevada is becoming a key state to join CO and NM in a Western state strategy to overcome possible loss in PA. Obama seems to be ahead here and even if everything up in the air goes McCain's way all night, they are the last line of defense that would still send Obama to the White House.

At 243, that leaves Barack 27 short with FL (27), OH (20), MO (11), CO (9), VA (13), PA (21), NV (5) still to be determined. Let's take Ohio off the table, if only because I believe if he wins OH he will have won PA and the presidency right there. So give that to McCain to make it 243 - 206 with 6 states left. Even if OH goes down, here's how Obama wins - with any one of these scenarios:
1. Win Florida. Voila. 27. Lose all the rest including PA and he's still President.
2. Win PA plus any of the other 4: CO, VA, MO or NV (though NV would leave it at a 269-269 tie and send it to the House. Nightmare.)
3. Win VA + any 2 of NV, MO, CO.

Even if McCain is successful in PA (and OH and FL), he has to hold off Obama in VA to pull the upset.

Shorter late-night version: Assuming New Mexico comes through as indicated by polls, hold PA and only one other thing has to go our way, with many to choose from. Plus options remain even if PA falls.

Election Night Survival Guide, Part IV
(See Part I, Part II, Part III)

At 8:30 AR closes and is called quickly for McCain, making the count 82-75 for Obama with a handful of states still counting in which the outcome is not clear. Let's presume that with a strong close for the underdog, McCain gets IN and NC finally called for him putting him ahead 101-82. As the polls close at 9 Eastern in 14 more states, we're still waiting on VA, PA, FL, OH, MO. Those 14 will boost McCain's total to 161, after KS, LA, WY, TX, NE and SD, and Obama's to 154, after RI, NY, WI, MN and MI. Some of those may take longer to call than others (MN for Obama, SD for McCain), but I think not too long over the course of the hour once vote tallies start coming in.

Of these states there is one race to watch: Franken v. Coleman in MN. I am skeptical of Franken's chances, if only because MN always seems to close up in the GOP favor. But if there was no other election on Nov. 4, I'd still be glued to my TV for results in this one. It is key to the Dem chances of getting to 60 Senators. It's also a grudge match as Franken has always loathed Coleman for his treatment of the Wellstone tragedy 6 years ago.

Minnesota also holds one of the House races to watch, as Michele Bachmann tries to hold on to her seat after suggesting we should have investigations into whether members of Congress (and Barack Obama) are "anti-American". Until she said that on national TV, she was going to win easily. Now, she may not.

Back to President, that adds 3 more states to those we're waiting on for results, as it will be too tight for networks to make a call before they get significant actual vote totals: AZ, CO, and NM. I just can't believe AZ will go for Obama so let's suppose McCain holds his home state after an hour or 2 of worrying over the numbers, putting him ahead 171-154.

New Mexico: Obama should win. It could take a while. New Mexico was counting into the wee hours of the morning in 2004 and in 2000. Assuming some of those early close states start to tilt McCain (GA, IN, NC, FL, OH, even VA), then NM joins a group of Western states that should help Obama over the top at the end, along with especially...

Colorado: If McCain looks to be winning all of those big Bush '04 states like OH and FL, then CO becomes a key buffer. Obama is ahead there but not by much. If somehow McCain is toppling PA too, CO is one of the states we will be counting on to undo that.

Let's give NM to Obama - where his lead has been fairly strong, making the McCain lead 171-159 and leave CO in the tossup line with VA, PA, OH, MO and FL, heading into 10:00, and even though this looks to give the GOP an advantage a little too late into the night, I am breathing easy, so long as it looks like Obama is doing well in PA...and now watching CO. Those are 2 he *should win* and are the only 2 of those I would say he *needs to win* to keep me from entering a phase 1 panic.

Shorter Version of 9 PM Closing: After this hour, network calls may have the race looking pretty close, but it's really about only a couple states. Even if everything goes right for McCain, it's about PA and CO at this point. If Obama takes CO, he will be eating into the Bush map with a clear route to victory. If McCain takes PA, he will be undercutting that path on one of his only chances to win. Assuming Obama wins them both, he can lose VA, OH, MO and FL (along with all the other close ones I've given to McCain) and still be well-positioned to win.

Election Night Survival Guide, Part III
Part I took us through the first half-hour after the polls close at 7 Eastern, and Part II surveyed the second half as polls close at 7:30 in a few states.

Now, it's 8:00 Eastern time. Many states we are waiting on have yet to be called (in fact if turnout is heavy people could still be voting, poll hours may have been extended). The current electoral vote count is 21-3 in favor of McCain and we're waiting on a handful of states (IN, NC, GA, VA, OH) that would be nice but *not essential for an Obama victory*. Suppose Georgia - as I'm expecting - doesn't close the way we'd hoped and it's 15 EVs are called for McCain, making it 36-3. We are still well on the path to victory. Step away from the ledge.

At 8 Eastern, polls close in 15 states and the District of Columbia. Network calls should come right and left on several. McCain will claim TN, OK, MS, and AL quickly and raise his EV total to 69. Meanwhile Obama grabs CT, DE, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, DC and, after 20 mins or so of making sure, NH. That brings his total to 82. (See? Feel better?) New Hampshire is worth watching. Common sense says it should be close, but recent polls have had Obama winning by double digits. If it stays too close to call for a while, or looks like a McCain upset, it may be a sign of trouble.

There are still other important races to watch in these states, even though the Presidential contest shouldn't be close in them: MS offers the most longshot of the Senate races still considered possible. If incumbent Roger Wicker is not confirmed pretty quickly as the winner, it will be an exciting surprise. It is one of 3 races Democrats must win to have a shot at 60, along with McConnell's unlikely seat in KY. Democrat Ronnie Musgrove has fallen behind in polls, but who knows. For a longshot House race worth following, check on AL-03 where incumbent Mike Rogers is being challenged by friend-of-a-friend Democrat Josh Seagall. Josh has no business winning this race, but in a year like this who knows. Now, on to the close states in the presidential closing at 8.

Florida: For me, FL is like Ohio. Once it looks like McCain is pulling ahead there - very possible - his supporters will whoop and news anchors will fall over themselves building up McCain's chances, but once again this is really not the key state it was in 2000. At least not in Plan A or B. It could be a fail-safe in a Plan C, which I'll get to later and hopefully we won't have to think about. Anyway, I'm not worrying about FL for Pres. Watching to see if we can beat the Diaz-Balart brothers in FL-21 and FL-25.

Missouri: I love watching MO because it seems to undergo a big shift at the end. Remember Super Tuesday, some networks had called it for Clinton and Obama pulled in big numbers late to overtake her - really an essential moment in the primary. MO looks close in polls and won't be called anytime soon. Move along...

Pennsylvania: This is the big one so far in the night. McCain has been gaining and putting lots of resources here. The primary Obama routes to the presidency go through PA. Polls have been all over between a big Obama win and a slim lead. If PA is called before this half-hour is up - and I doubt it will be - we can really unclench one of our fists and know that McCain's options for winning just nearly vanished. If McCain pulls of a win here, he most certainly took OH as well as IN and if it happens we will pivot quickly to Virginia. Adding VA to some states out West, that will make up for PA. But here's why PA is so important. If Obama wins PA, he can lose all of the tossup states that have closed so far: OH, FL, MO, IN, NC, VA, GA and *still* be right on target to win. The path would be narrow, but still smooth.

Shorter Version: After the 8 PM Eastern poll closings, Obama will lead 82-69 (if we give McCain GA) and we will be still watching 6 states: PA, OH, FL, MO, IN, NC and VA. And the greatest of these is Pennsylvania. Win there and none of the others can stop him. Win there + one of the others? And we can start to relax and root for Musgrove (Sen) in MS.

Time Change Health Effects?
Don't forget, we move clocks back an hour this Sunday - an extra hour of sleep that may be good for you. This is fascinating, if true.

Heart attacks decrease by 5 percent the first Monday after the time change, and by 1.5 percent over that week, according to an analysis in this week's New England Journal of Medicine. The findings are based on 20 years of data from a Swedish registry of nine million residents.

The springtime transition to daylight saving time poses more of a health hazard: Heart attacks increase by 5 percent over the first week after clocks are pushed back an hour, spiking by 10 percent on that Tuesday, epidemiologists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm found.

I have my doubts, no offense to Swedish scientists (or Swedish hearts). For one thing, if screwing with your sleep schedule that slightly was that bad for you, wouldn't we notice a similar heart attack increase among people going through jet lag after long flights? I dunno, maybe that does happen? I've certainly never heard of it though.

Election Night Survival Guide, Part II
In Part 1, I talked through the way I will be neurotically, nervously watching the returns on Tuesday at 7 pm Eastern when the first polls close in 6 states. A half-hour later, polls will close in Ohio, North Carolina and West Virginia. The key for this 30-minute stretch is to keep our eyes on the prize. These states don't necessarily matter. Follow me:

So, it's 7:30 and (I'm guessing) 3 states (VT, SC, KY) have been called giving McCain an electoral vote lead of 16-3. GA, IN and VA are still too close to call, and maybe Obama's behind in all three as the earliest votes are counted. Breathe. Remember, GA and IN are pile-on states. Indicators to be sure, but in no way necessary for Obama's electoral strategy. As West Virginia is called 10 minutes later, putting McCain up 21-3 and dashing hopes of a big upset there, we will not worry. This was all to be expected.

Ohio: I am not as optimistic about Ohio as others. But here's the thing: it's not that important. Winning OH (like winning FL) would just about assure an Obama win, but neither is necessary. I expect OH to be close and will not be called for the next hour at least. I'm going to try and just ignore it. In 2004, Ohio was everything for Kerry's chances. Not so this year. Barack's most fundamental route to 270 takes Kerry's result (including the losses in OH and FL and VA) and adds Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico.

Is Ohio important at least to insulate against a McCain upset in PA? I'd say no. If Obama wins OH, he will win PA, where he has consistently run 5 pts or so ahead of his Ohio numbers. It's hard to imagine him winning OH and losing PA. Every news anchor is going to go on and on about what a deciding state Ohio is. But this year, it is much less likely to be so.

No, if you want to watch Ohio closely, forget about President and pay attention to House races. In OH-15, Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy should pick up an empty seat, and in OH-2, Republican incumbent Jean Schmidt seems likely to hold on to her seat in this district Bush won by a huge margin, though it could be close. If either of those expectations are not met, it will be telling, about the Ohio vote generally, and Democratic House prospects. Also watch OH-01, where Steve Chabot (R) looks to be in one of his toughest re-election races. If this breaks strongly either way it will be an important indicator. Here's another reason to root hard in that one: Chabot was one of the 12 Clinton impeachment managers, one of only 3 who will still be in the House if he wins.

North Carolina: Obama doesn't need to win here, not at all. But it's been exciting to see the polls put him very close, or even ahead. The main thing here is for it to not be an early McCain call. If it is, that may not bode well for Obama in VA, and the map will tighten up, putting lots of pressure on PA and CO should VA not come through.

Shorter Version of 7:30 closing: Don't panic. These 3 states are not essential. WV should be an expected and substantial loss. OH and NC would virtually assure a win, but are not necessary, no matter what Wolf Blitzer tells you about how huge Ohio is. By the time the 30 minutes are up and we're ready for 8 pm closing, let's expect the count to still be 21-3. If GA, IN, OH, NC and VA are still too close to call, things are going according to plan, and if it looks like Obama is poised to win *any of them*, or any of them have been called in his favor, he will be well on his way to victory. The only bad news will be if he is losing them (especially VA where he looks to be well ahead in polls) decisively, as that would suggest the polls are off nation-wide.

In Case You Missed It
Obama's prime-time half-hour. I hope it works. It worked on me, of course.

Election Night Survival Guide, Part I
At 7:00 Eastern time Tuesday night, polls will close in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia. Here's what I'll be looking for as I freak out during the first half-hour:

Indiana: No Early Call. In 2004, at 7:00:01, the networks called Indiana for Bush. This year, Obama is making a push and keeping it close in polls. Assuming it breaks for McCain in the end, the longer it takes to call this state, the better omen it is for Obama's chances across the country. The quicker it goes, the better sign for McCain. If, at any point, IN gets called for Obama, he will be President, and probably win in a landslide. Another important marker to watch for is the house race in IN's 3rd District. There Republican incumbent Mark Souder, in a district that went heavily for Bush, is receiving a stiff challenge from Democrat Mike Montagno. I always expect the incumbent to find a way to pull out these close ones, but it will be worth watching just how late in the night IN-03 goes.

Georgia: Basically the same as Indiana, but even more heavily assumed to go McCain. Heavy African-American turnout in early voting has some dreaming of a surprise here, but not me so much. This will be a real test of the turnout. A quick call in GA would not be as upsetting as IN, but would indicate that this will not be an Obama blowout nationwide. What I'm more interested in GA is:

Senate seat: Jim Martin has been closing on Saxby Chambliss, the despicable Republican incumbent. There are 3 close (hopefully) races, 2 of which will have to go blue for Democrats to reach 60 Senators. This is one. I'm hoping the first half-hour of coverage includes a Martin lead.

Kentucky: This will be called for McCain pretty early, I'm guessing the 3rd call of the night. But there is another reason to watch KY: to see if Republican Senator Mitch McConnell will get a close race or not. This is another of those 3 races (along with GA) that will decide the scope of Democratic victory in the Senate. If I had to choose, I'd rather pick this one up, if for no other reason than McConnell is such an ass. But he probably is the most likely to hold on.

South Carolina: Not much to see here. I'm expecting it to be the 2nd state called in the evening, going to McCain.

Vermont: Ditto. I expect it to be the 1st state called, for Obama of course.

Virginia: This is the most important of the early closing states. Indiana or Georgia would be gravy for Obama. Virginia has become a key player in Obama's electoral routes to 270. At 538.com, VA is now the #1 tipping-point state, meaning it is the one that, after all the blowout states are allotted, the state most likely to put Obama over the top. He can win without it, but - with a healthy lead in state polls - a loss here would indicate a substantial over-estimation of Obama's GOTV effort. It would mean there is no chance in NC, and PA might be in question. He could still win without those, but the margin suddenly becomes very small. In this early group, it is for Obama what GA is for McCain, in the sense that the longer it takes the favored candidate to be declared the winner, the bigger a boost the other guy will get.

Shorter Version of the 7 pm closing: By 7:30, I expect VT, SC and probably KY to already be in the bank. And hoping that Senate races in KY and GA have not been called. *Really* hoping that IN and GA look like they will take all night to sort out, and it will be telling to watch which state between VA and GA gets called first. It's hard to see how McCain wins without taking them both.

Tennessee Leads the Nation
No, not in kidney stones, though we are pretty high. According to this site tallying the early/absentee vote across the country, Tennessee is #1 so far in early voting turnout as a percentage of the total turnout in 2004. At just over 1 million through Monday, early and absentee votes number 45% of the 2.4 million total votes cast in 2004, that just beats out the 44% put up by Colorado. Not bad for a state that is not expected to be competitive.

Does this point to a huge boost in turnout this year here in the Volunteer State? Not necessarily. The early vote was nearly 50% of the turnout 4 years ago too. By the time the early vote ends after Thursday, we should be past that for sure. But, it remains to be seen whether Nov. 4 turnout will also exceed expectations, or if everyone is just voting early. My point is: a 50+% early vote turnout here is not as notable as it would seem to be in, say, GA, which lags behind TN but is far exceeding its early vote share from 2004.

Is there any good news for Obama in the TN turnout? A little. in 2004, John Kerry won 18 of TN's 95 counties in getting drubbed 57-43 by Bush. Those 18 counties (mostly Nashville and Memphis) made up 29% of the statewide turnout total back then. In the early vote so far this year, those same 18 - which should go for Obama - account for 32% of the statewide total. An increase in the share, modest as it may be...

Errol Morris Films for Obama
One of my favorite filmmakers (as you know), Errol Morris has made some spots highlighting and targeting voters "in the middle". There are 7 of them - don't know if these are just web ads or will actually air on the teevee. Take a look.

Drink More Water
What's happening to the children?

To the great surprise of parents, kidney stones, once considered a disorder of middle age, are now showing up in children as young as 5 or 6.
...
[P]ediatric urologists and nephrologists across the country say they are seeing a steep rise in young patients. Some hospitals have opened pediatric kidney stone clinics.

Kidney stones are apparently really painful and generally result from a diet of either too much salt or too little fluids, or both. I'm wary of this danger because of calcium deposits in my kidneys that showed up on an x-ray several years ago. Until reading this, I had no idea that I live in the "stone belt" because of the high rate of kidney stones in the South (which has extended to children here as well).

The article makes the case that kids have much more salt in their diet these days, and are reluctant to drink fluids during the day to avoid using the restroom at school.

In general, intake of fluids helps, but the contributing factors in specific beverage consumption are confusing at best. While caffeine intake has been believed to increase risk of stone formation, this study found that in fact coffee and tea both have an inverse relationship to the recurrence of stones (as do beer and especially wine, though all of the other behaviors associated with significant alcohol consumption mitigate any benefit), where apple and grapefruit juice increase the risk. Go figure.

One Week to Go
Throughout the final week, I expect my poll and electoral college obsession to be in full bloom, sorry. I spared you for most of the general election at least... But continuing my weekly series, the number of electoral votes Obama would have if he won each state he currently leads by 3 or more in the pollster.com average is 314 (321, 333, 300), 44 more than he needs (previous weeks, from most recent, in parenthesis). Regaining Ohio into the +3 column and losing Florida accounts for the loss of 7 EVs.

If he wins all states he leads by any margin, he would have 367 (367, 353, 353), the same as last week.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Synecdoche, New York
Looking forward to Charlie Kaufman's newest. This is his first screenplay since Eternal Sunshine, which longtime readers will remember me obsessing over a few years ago. I'm avoiding the reviews and trailers because what little I've heard sounds like it's better seen blind. But if you're not worried about getting spoiled, there is a preview here. You know this, but just to get the links in... Schenectady, by the way, is the town in New York. Synecdoche is something else.

Obama's Closing Argument
You can read some excerpts here.

"Let Them Eat Potatoes"
An answer to the growing food crisis?

Though the price of grains has receded in recent months from historic highs, grains are still far more expensive than they were just two years ago. The United Nations agency continues to strongly encourage countries to diversify into potato production...
...
Potatoes are a good source of protein, starch, vitamins and nutrients like zinc and iron. As a crop, they require less energy and water to grow than wheat, taking just three months from planting to harvest. Since they are heavy and do not transport well, they are not generally traded on world financial markets, making their price less vulnerable to speculation. They are not generally used to produce biofuels, a new use for food crops that has helped drive up grain prices. When grain prices skyrocketed, potato prices remained stable.

Beyond that, potato yields can be easily increased in most of the world, where they are grown inefficiently and in small numbers.

Also, did you know the UN has named 2008 the official year of the potato? Me neither.

Friday Afternoon Deep Thought
Thinking about the Greenspan post below, it occurs to me there are only 3 kinds of Republicans: 1) The Bush-Cheney model that never admits to a mistake of any kind, 2) The kind that - like Greenspan and perhaps the McCain of old - will admit to a mistake but only after it's too late to do anybody any good; and 3) the kind that are now for Obama.

What Would Aunt Bea Think?
The best campaign-related video of the year?

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

Now He Tells Us
Do Republicans ever learn of their mistakes when they're still in a position to do something about it? Thanks for nothing, Alan.

[O]n Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
...
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”

Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”

Use the Google!
It's good for your brain:

Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles, have shown that searching the Internet triggers key centers in the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning. The findings, to be published in the upcoming issue of The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, suggest that searching the Web helps to stimulate and may even improve brain function.

If you Google while you eat beets, you will live to be 120...though that's only true so long, of course, as you don't have sealants on your molars leaking chemicals into your blood stream. Being healthy can be very complicated.

Are You There, Margaret? It's Me, Don
When I see that someone like Margaret Atwood has an op-ed in the NYTimes, it gives me a Chris Matthews-style chill down the leg in anticipation. She wrote A Handmaid's Tale! And she has something to say on current affairs!? Indeed, the piece reflects her view of the current financial crisis, specifically the idea of debt.

Alas, after reading it - and trying to ignore the fact that just 24 hours after being published, her first sentence is now entirely inaccurate - I just honestly don't have much of an idea of what she's trying to say. It seems to be something along these lines, which she kind of gets to eventually: Debt is the stuff of human drama and always has been. Until our structures of credit instill confidence in their fairness, we will never get along and our society will not prosper.

I read all the way to the end looking for the part where she gets to the point though, urges some action, identifies some specific unfairness, but to no avail. Where I thought she was going was to build on the idea that most of us in debt have the benefit (or curse) of being individual moral agents, whereas most of the holders of debt are some form of corporation that lacks moral concern. That lopsided relationship - the point might continue - is partially responsible for the mess we're in. But that starting point seems to be one I just imagined. Here's what we get instead:

As for what will happen to us next, I have no safe answers. If fair regulations are established and credibility is restored, people will stop walking around in a daze, roll up their sleeves and start picking up the pieces. Things unconnected with money will be valued more — friends, family, a walk in the woods. “I” will be spoken less, “we” will return, as people recognize that there is such a thing as the common good.

Huh?

Palin
I've been one all along to disagree with the charge that Gov. Palin isn't too bright. It seems to me she is obviously intelligent, but with little experience thinking through issues she's now supposed to know well. (I know the anti-intellectuals out there will not want to accept the idea that thinking is something that is necessary for experience, but it is.) Still, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around her statement that as VP she would be "in charge of the Senate," whether she was answering a child's question or not. That's not simplifying your answer that's just being wrong. Surely she knows that being President of the Senate doesn't mean being in charge of it, in any sense. And she must know that everyone else knows that - and that she's on TV. So why say it?

Who are the Undecided?
David Sedaris (via Andrew Sullivan):

I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Deep Socialist Thought
Now that McCain is accusing Obama's tax plan of being socialist, I'm confused.

For the last couple of months, McCain and Palin and the GOP have had one basic argument to counter his plan to cut taxes on people making less than $250K: he's lying. He's a Democrat. He will raise your taxes, no matter what he says. Now, there's a new message that - it would seem to me - is in complete contradiction to the earlier one: Obama wants to tax the rich and give to the middle class! Socialist! So, does this mean they no longer dispute that he does indeed intend to cut taxes for everyone making less than 1/4 million? If it's such a bad idea, why did they try to claim he didn't mean it? And anyway, I thought he was a liar? Is this just one of the few instances in which he forgot to cover up his sinister un-American plans?

Monday Timewaster
Via Kos, the Eyeballing test. I did not do well. Best score for a whole round was 5.01, after I developed a few strategies. Even that seems to put me below average. I especially stink at making a parallelogram and finding the center of a circle.

2 Weeks To Go
My weekly poll update - just one a week, keeping my obsession in check. It's dragging on sooo slowly. As I did the last 2 weeks, added up the states in which Obama leads by 3+ points in the pollster.com average (trend in parenthesis). Today that puts him at 321 (333,300), 51 more than he needs to win the election. If he wins all states in which he leads by any margin, he would have 367 (353,353).

Ohio moved back into the less-than-3 pts. category, while North Dakota, and Nevada moved over 3. Missouri was added to the leaning Obama list.

I expect things to tighten up considerably over the next 2 weeks. Next week's update will likely not look as rosy as this week's.

Protect Your Obama Sign
With a $5 alarm, a wire hanger, some fishing line and, of course, duct tape. HOW TO here.

Powell Endorsement

Socialism and Un-American Activities
Shorter GOP desperation strategy: Let's stop this tradition of re-fighting the culture wars of the 1960s every four years. Instead, let's go back farther and re-fight the culture wars of the 1950s.

[UPDATE: Or maybe the culture wars of the 1860s.]

Woohoo!
Link

The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a federal judge’s order that would have required Ohio election officials to set up new procedures to verify voter registration across the state in the weeks before the Nov. 4 balloting.

The decision by the 6th Circuit could have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters. It's nice to see the Supremes for once - and I'm guessing they wish they could erase their Bush v Gore anti-voter reputation - side with voting instead of the overstated threat of voter fraud.

What's This All About?
Isn't a half-hour prime-time campaign commercial a little perot-esque?

Officials at the Obama campaign and at several television networks said Thursday that Mr. Obama had completed deals to show a half-hour program about his candidacy on CBS and NBC on Wednesday, Oct. 29, less than a week before Election Day. The campaign is also talking to ABC and Fox about similar deals, though the potential of a World Series Game 6 may make that impossible on Fox.

Apparently, they are not discussing the content of the ad. When you're ahead why not just keep doing what you're doing? Not sure what I'm worried about, maybe Obama fatigue?

Finally
Democrats are familiar with this scenario, in which a presidential debater is able to score points by pointing to holes in his opponent's arguments, but at too great a cost: the determination to expose fault pleases the base but the thorough negativity turns off all the undecided voters who, after all, matter most at this point. It's nice to have that going for us for a change: a candidate who seems to have an understanding of the stakes and the audience, and the good sense to not waste time trying to make me happy. I'm on board.

I thought McCain actually raised some decent objections to Obama's answers early on last night. But he overreached - on John Lewis, on Ayers, on ACORN (registering Mickey Mouse to vote threatens the fabric of our democracy?) - and he couldn't pivot back to substance without sounding like he didn't mean it. Plus, his frustration and condescending tone at times made him look and sound out of balance. No doubt, it reflects the frustration of the conservative base who can't seem to understand how Obama has gotten to the doorstep of the White House. So it doesn't seem off base to them; it's a cathartic release to see the exasperation they feel expressed on national TV. But to undecided voters - God bless them, whoever they are - there are arguments for both candidates. They are not frustrated with one side; they are waiting for a moment of confidence. McCain's strategy ignores this reality, while Obama's true self seems tailor made for it. Calm, confident, competence that understands the issues that really matter.

2 moments stuck out for me. One was small but made me smile, when Obama took McCain's praise of Palin's commitment to autism and special-needs children, and reminded that we couldn't increase our spending on that important area if we implement McCain's spending freeze idea. The other was more substantial and I hope we hear more about it: when McCain put women's "health" in air-quotes. That's the "extremist pro-abortion" position, he said, to use the crutch of health of the mother in opposition to anti-abortion legislation. To me, it was a shockingly tone-deaf moment, dismissive of the idea that women might have legitimate health risks worth considering. It's also completely inaccurate. Insistence on provisions for the mother's health is not an extremist position; it's the law of the land, the position of the US Supreme Court.

I can't access sound right now, but TPM seems to have the video of that exchange here, in case you missed it.

Not This Year?
African-Americans in Georgia will not be denied:

Just cast an early vote in Cobb County. Only took one hour, forty-five minutes — exactly three weeks before Election Day.

A long line folded itself three times in a relatively hot October sun, shortly before lunch-time. Perhaps a dozen people couldn’t stick it out — they left before getting to the front of the line.

Every one of those who gave up the effort was white. Once in, not a single African-American walked away while I was there. If voter fatigue becomes a factor over the next three weeks, and on Election Day itself, one has to wonder if Republicans are more likely to lose out than Democrats.

In speculating about voter turnout we can't forget what this election means to African-Americans.

Food
In the Sunday NYTimes Magazine, author Michael Pollan (whose books I've recommended to everyone I can) writes an open letter to the next President of the United States with a series of proposals designed to overhaul our national relationship to food, which he rightly calls en environmental, national security and health care imperative.

I wish I thought a President Obama could/would implement even 1/3 of these ideas. After reading this piece now, if I could ask the candidates just one question, it would be a *really long one* about the concerns Pollan raises. Sadly, it's not a topic that has come up, even peripherally, in any debate.

It is a powerful set of recommendations - some of which you will recognize if you've read his books, but most of which you will not; a long piece, but worth the time.

3 Weeks To Go
Just one poll post a week. That's not too many, right? Last Monday, I surveyed the state of the electoral college race and here's an update (last week's results in parenthesis). If Obama wins every state in which he leads by 3+ points in the pollster.com average, he would have 333 (300) electoral votes, 63 more than he needs to win. If he wins in every state he currently leads, he would have 353 (353). This week, Virginia and Ohio moved into the 3+ pts. category. He holds smaller leads in North Carolina and Nevada.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been listening to, watching, reading?

Book Bleg
Question: Has anyone read the novel Blindness? Recommendation? I know there's a new movie, but heard good things about the book. Just curious. An earlier book from the same author, Jose Saramago, got good reviews from Dad but I never got around to that one.

BookMooch
Got stacks of books lying around? A friend tells me about bookmooch.com - in which you mail books to people around the country who want them, and earn points that entitle you to request books from others. Sounds like a decent idea.

Welcome News
From Sam Stein

On Monday, Obama's communication's shop is expected to go on the offense on issues of voter protection after a week in which Republicans cried foul about registration efforts in various states and painted the community organizing group ACORN as a criminal enterprise.

Obama aides will attack Republicans over efforts to disenfranchise voters in several states, and announce a voter protection campaign involving hundreds of volunteer lawyers around the country.

There's hardly an equivalence between a voter registration effort that turns in bogus applications and a large-scale scheme to suppress the turnout of legitimately registered voters. Republicans are going ape-shit over ACORN - and yes it sounds like there are serious problems in many of the group's registration applications. But those problems are the predictable, ultimately harmless (though, yes, criminal) result of registration pushes that offer incentives to workers for the number of people they sign up. Inevitably, some are going to foolishly seek that reward by filling out lots of applications falsely. That doesn't mean there will be *voter fraud* on election day, as if some cadre of bold liberals with a lineup of disguises will actually use those multiple registrations to re-enter their polling place again and again and hope the poll-watchers who are there all day won't notice.

No, if you want to commit crimes to truly influence elections you do it the Republican way, with a massive purge of registered voters. There are not 10,000 fools in battleground states prepared to vote 3 times each or whatever. But there may be 1 fool at the head of an election office prepared to kick 20,000 voters off the list improperly. That's the kind of fool that most concerns me.

Too Little, Too Late
I think it's swell that McCain is now trying to rein in the most rabid elements of his kkk campaign rallies. Ana Marie Cox reports on yesterday's change starting in a Minnesota event.

He acknowledges the "energy" people have been showing at rallies, and how glad he is that people are excited. But, he says, "I respect Sen. Obama and his accomplishments." People booed at the mention of his name. McCain, visibly angry, stopped them: "I want EVERYONE to be respectful, and lets make sure we are."

The very next questioner tried to push back on this request, noting that he needed to "tell the American the TRUTH about Barack Obama" -- a not very subtle way, I think, to ask John McCain to NOT tell the truth about Barack Obama. McCain told her there's a "difference between record and rhetoric, and I plan to talk about his record, respectfully... I don't mean that has to reduce your ferocity, I just mean it has to be respectful."
...
And then later, again, someone dangled a great big piece of low-hanging fruit in front of McCain: "I'm scared to bring up my child in a world where Barack Obama is president."

McCain replies, "Well, I don't want him to be president, either. I wouldn't be running if I did. But," and he pauses for emphasis, "you don't have to be scared to have him be President of the United States." A round of boos.
...
Indeed, he just snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman who began her question with, "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..."

"No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."

It makes me think: wouldn't it be great if the McCain from 2000 or so could have run this time around? What if we had 2 candidates who both rejected the hatefulness of the Religious Right, like McCain once did? who both denounced the irresponsible Bush tax cuts like the Arizona Senator used to? who both were enemies of Rovian-style character attacks and wedge politics? What if we could have used this election to finally give government-hating, fear-mongering, racist, Christianist, you're-on-your-own, anti-intellectual, nutjob conservatives literally nowhere to go on the national political stage?

Instead, McCain spent the last 8 years flirting with this crowd, earning their trust for the GOP nomination, and finally selling them his soul by selecting their poster girl as his running mate. Now he can't feign surprise when this relationship he so diligently courted reaches full bloom in front of God and everyone.

Palin: Ethics Maverick
The Alaska Legislature investigation found that the Governor "unlawfully abused her authority" by pressuring a state employees to fire a trooper, and by enlisting her husband and other surrogates in the same effort, often at taxpayer expense.

Hopefully the high-profile coverage of that scandal won't overshadow the other that came to light: Governor Palin also often charged Alaskan taxpayers to send her and her family...to church.

One Word Report on Stocks
Down.

Let's just all agree not to look at our retirement and stock accounts for a while and save the stress. Instead of stocks, I recommend focusing on the Sox, who start League Championship play tonight. What would be more fun than a World Series against the Dodgers' Manny Ramirez, Joe Torre, Derek Lowe, and Nomar Garciaparra? I suppose there is that problem of Tampa. But I think experience wins out here. We'll see.

Challenge
Clearly part of the Obama team strategy at this point involves daring McCain to take him on in person about William Ayres. Barack himself challenged him last night to "say it to my face", Biden said it too today, and I've heard surrogates on my teevee all day suggesting McCain didn't have the nerve on Tuesday to bring it up when face-to-face.

This could be like Josh says just an effort to get under McCain's skin and make him crazy and even more error-prone, or they may just suspect that the Republican really doesn't want to bring it up in front of anyone but his rabid base, but I'm hoping they know they have a fabulous response ready for when he does bring it up. Better not challenge him like this and not be fully prepared when he takes you up on it next week. This all feels like a brilliant move, but we won't know for sure until all the cards are played out on this one.

Transition
As is custom, both candidates for President have assembled transition teams to prepare for the possibility that they will be taking over governance of the country. One candidate's team has started with a strong ethics policy and has worked methodically and diligently to identify the policy concerns of each cabinet department, and recommend capable people for high-level appointments. The other has reportedly done nothing of substance, planning to "tackle important aspects of his potential transition in real time."

Can you guess which is which?

My Fellow Prisoners
I'm sure psychologists can offer a perfectly logical and benign explanation for this:

Horrifying
I was really hoping it would not come to this. Check out the picture.

Poll Watch
I've tried to spare myself the embarrassment of sharing my poll obsession the last few months. But it's worth pointing out this milestone. If Obama were to win only the states he currently leads by 3 points or more in the pollster.com average, he would have 300 electoral votes, 30 more than he needs. If he wins in each state he currently leads by any margin, he would have 353. A long way to go, though.

Dangerous and Sick
This is where we're headed. I almost forgot what loathsome losers Republicans can be. In case there was any doubt, the last vestiges of McCain's decency have gone up in smoke.

So we have McCain today getting his crowd riled up asking who Barack Obama is and then apparently giving a wink and a nod when one member of the crowd screams out "terrorist."

This is no Dukakis Campaign
Or Gore, or Kerry, for that matter. Now that McCain says he's going to try to make an issue of William Ayers, Obama shows he's ready and ups the ante.

Uhhh, Parents?
Thanks to Dad for passing this along. What can you say about something like this?

The abandonments began on Sept. 1, when a mother left her 14-year-old son in a police station here.

By Sept. 23, two more boys and one girl, ages 11 to 14, had been abandoned in hospitals in Omaha and Lincoln. Then a 15-year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl were left.

The biggest shock to public officials came last week, when a single father walked into an Omaha hospital and surrendered nine of his 10 children, ages 1 to 17, saying that his wife had died and he could no longer cope with the burden of raising them.

In total last month, 15 older children in Nebraska were dropped off by a beleaguered parent or custodial aunt or grandmother who said the children were unmanageable.

Officials have called the abandonments a misuse of a new law that was mainly intended to prevent so-called Dumpster babies — the abandonment of newborns by young, terrified mothers — but instead has been used to hand off out-of-control teenagers or, in the case of the father of 10, to escape financial and personal despair.

Calm
Maybe the most impressive thing about the Obama campaign has been how calm and steady it's been. The "no drama" mandate has actually worked. I guess we don't know how things would be different if he trailed by 7 points right now, instead of leading by that much. But throughout, he has led the whole campaign to a very even and confident demeanor. What that means, of course, is that he will likely govern the same way, for better or for worse. Bold progress might not be the hallmark of an Obama presidency, so much as steady, determined steps forward. Given the hell the country has been through the last 8 years, that doesn't sound so bad.

Funny, Obama came on the scene with a dynamic address. But he's going to win because of something approaching the opposite: his virtually unexcitable reserve. Not only does he have this gear that Howard Dean, for example, lacked, it would seem to be his true self. Read Joe Klein:

Part of Obama's steadiness is born of necessity: An angry, or flashy, black man isn't going to be elected President. But I've also gotten the sense, in the times I've interviewed and chatted with him, that calm is Obama's natural default position. He is friendly, informal, accessible...and a mystery, hard to get to know. He doesn't give away much, doesn't — unlike Bill Clinton — have that desperate need to make you like him. His brilliant, at times excessive, oratory is an outlier — the only over-the-top, Technicolor quality he has. There has been no grand cathartic moment for him in this campaign, but rather a steady accretion of trust, a growing public sense that he knows what he's talking about and isn't going to get crazy on us. His demeanor has rendered foolish all the rumors about his alleged radicalism. This guy is the furthest thing imaginable from an extremist; McCain, by his own admission, is the bomb-thrower in this race.

Quick, Which Current Supreme Court Decisions Do You Disagree With?
Off the top of my head, 3 come to mind: the Ledbetter decision (but only because it was recently in campaign news and I read about it, regarding equal pay and the timing of discrimination claims), Bush v Gore - obviously, because I will never forget or get over that one, and last year's Hein decision (which I only know about because I write about church-state issues at my other blog). I'm sure there are many more, but no others I would pinpoint just at the moment of thinking of the topic.

What I'm getting at is I don't think it's a big deal that Palin couldn't think of any that she disagrees with, apart from Roe. Hell, for one thing, what big decisions have conservatives lost in recent years? That LA death penalty case, and one of the Guantanamo detainee cases, I think? Even those took me 10 minutes or so to come up with while typing this post.

When the cameras are rolling and someone asks you to name some, I think you get a pass. I mean, you should be able to dismiss the question with a little more poise than she showed in her bumbling vamp, but that's a different problem. I don't think coming up blank in itself makes you an unserious person, or ill equipped to deal with the broad strokes of public policy (we have other evidence that indicts her on those fronts). As much as it pains lawyer types to hear it, those kinds of things just aren't in the front of people's concern, and so it's not in the forefront of concern of the people running to represent them. Economy, security, opportunity, justice, those are the things people care about. Memorizing the canon of Supreme Court precedent really isn't a prerequisite for federal office.

Having said that, I would like my VP to be able to point to specific legislation the opposition Congress passed that she would have rejected, and be able to articulate a sensible, non-slogany philosophy that would drive her selection of judges, should she become President (fingers trembling as I type that) - you know, the kinds of decisions she's actually running to potentially make. I wish Couric had asked Palin that sort of question, or maybe found a way to ascertain her commitment to First Amendment principles, instead of the question she asked.

I know you and I are not running for VP, but seriously, I ask of non-lawyers, if you were in the middle of a televised interview you couldn't escape and somebody asked you that, could you come up with a list on the spot? What would they be? Can somebody explain to me why this is the biggest gaffe ever? I'm certainly willing to be convinced and add this to my list of reasons why she's fundamentally unqualified and unprepared to be President. How many do you think Couric could have named, by the way?

Noted Without Comment [UPDATED]
For fear of jinxing it.

[UPDATE: And another. Can we just vote already?]

Huh?
Democrats are in the majority...so they're revising the rescue package to include some tax cuts designed to get Republican support? What for? Why not revise the plan to entice some Democrats? We only need to add a handful. I don't get it.

New Ad
Obama has a new ad, unusual for being 2 minutes long and featuring him talking to the camera. I like the way he has recently cast our economic woes as a repudiation of longheld Republican policies, and this ad continues that theme. I'm not as optimistic as some who believe the last few days mark the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, but a substantial victory on this argument would be a nice step in that direction.

We're Being Set Up
There's no way Palin is this bad in debates.

[I]n recent days, Gov. Palin flubbed quasi-mock debates in New York City and Philadelphia, some operatives said. Finger-pointing began, and then intensified after her faltering interview with CBS anchorwoman Katie Couric.

She's worked on little else for a few weeks, and she gets to keep her answers brief, so generic platitudes will fit. I think they are leaking all this stuff about her being a disaster so that people will rally to her again if she just so much as manages to muddle through. Yeah the Couric interview was bad, but she didn't have a foil like she will have in Biden on Thursday. I fully expect him to be the more informed of the 2, but for her to "win the debate" by the stupid terms that we evaluate such things.

They Voted it Down
Interrupting this regularly scheduled MEDIA MONDAY to say: God help us all. The Dow is down 500 more than 750 and I can't believe so many in the House picked doing nothing over doing something.

[Deep Thought Update for those Democrats voting Nay: When you find yourself on the same side as Lou Dobbs and my horrible Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, think again.

Late Night Deep Thought Update: I would much prefer seeing some stability in the credit market to seeing Bush's approval ratings hit single digits, but I'm not sure I will get my wish there.]

If You Want to Start Your Week on a Positive Note
Don't read this. As Kevin says, somehow - showing how screwed up we are - it's only page 2 news.

Quote of the Day
The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on the transcript of Governor Palin's nearly unwatchable interview with Katie Couric.

This seems to be a case of incoherence of thought leading to incoherence of syntax. Pronouns wander in search of antecedents like Arctic explorers in a blinding snowstorm.
...
The whole thing reads like something rendered from the Finnish by Google Translate.

Deep Debate, Uh, Thought
Obama will help his debate performance tonight if he can stop himself from saying "uh" so often. He fills his pauses with uhs, like most of us do. But most of us haven't been through nearly 2 years' worth of nationally televised debate prep. It makes him sound unsure, and like a bit of an amateur. Surprised they haven't cleaned that up by now, it's one of the reasons his teleprompter speeches are so much better than the off-the-cuff delivery. But he was doing it even yesterday, so I don't have my hopes up.

[UPDATE: I thought Obama was very strong in delivery - forceful and confident and focused. He missed some opportunities to put McCain on the defensive, but when he did he was direct and clear. I thought McCain was rambly and bitter, maybe won a couple of exchanges but not sure why everyone seems to think it was tied.]

Are They Considering All the Options? [UPDATED]
Something, again, we have to leave to trust: is this basic bailout approach, in which the Treasury Dept. is authorized to purchase and hold on to hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt packages, the best model for intervention? Have other methods been duly considered and rejected? I read the proposal of James Galbraith in the Washington Post, and of course didn't understand it all but it does leave you thinking, geez I hope the reason they're not doing that is that it has some big flaw, and not because they weren't really trying to think of any options beyond their default bailout reaction.

I have never understood why - being the majority - we have to start from the Paulson model, and the Paulson dollar figure, and amend from there. Why not from scratch? Here's hoping the reason is because it really is the best model, most likely to solve problems, and not because old habits die hard.

[UPDATE: Also, read Steven Pearlstein.]

Debate Speculation is Dumb
Of course McCain is going to be there and they will debate. He's not a moron. It's silly for all the news heads to wonder if maybe he won't be there.

Must-See TV
Barbara Boxer says it like it is...from behaving like a baby to the Keating 5:

Country First
I hate when McCain talks about stopping the campaign to put country over partisan politics-- a time to be Americans, he says, not Democrats or Republicans. For some of us, this election has been about saving the country all along. Interesting that McCain has 2 ways of being: in one, he puts the interests of the country ahead of partisan politics, and in the other, he campaigns for President. And never the twain shall meet.

If I believe in Obama beyond my fundamental agreement with his policies, it is because I believe he would never have to "suspend his campaign" to focus on what's right for the country. Focusing on what's right for the country is the rationale for his campaign.

Barney Frank
Along with Chris Dodd, Barney Frank is one of the bailout proponents I most respect. He was on Charlie Rose last night and explained things in a very helpful way for an ignoramus like me I thought. It's about 15 minutes.

Bush Speech Deep Thought
Is he still President? Since he's at 19% approval shouldn't he use reverse psychology and come out against the bailout if he wants it to go forward?

[UPDATE: Some primary documents. Here is the text of Bush's address, a slightly better read than it was a listen. It was about as morosely and incoherently delivered as any presidential address I've ever heard. Remember when he used to annoyingly slow down and enunciate each syllable of some words for emphasis? This speech could have used a little bit of that, and I never thought I'd say that.]

McCain Campaign Suspension Deep Thought
Does this mean the fundamentals of the economy are no longer strong? Can we get some clarification on that?

Framing
Does the public support government intervention to purchase massive amounts of debt? Via Political Wire, it depends on how you ask the question. The Pew Research Center found the Americans largely supportive, by a 57 - 30% margin. This is what they asked:

As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?

An LATimes/Bloomberg poll found 55% opposed to the idea. But of course:

The Times/Bloomberg poll asked respondents whether they believed it was "the government's responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers' dollars." A majority said no.

This debate will probably be obnoxious, because those opposed will call it a bailout of failed Wall Street companies, as if it was the same thing as bailing out a failed restaurant. Supporters will insist its necessary for basic economic stability and avoiding another major depression, though they will not be able to prove that is the case. We're basically stuck just deciding who we trust. The pickings are slim.

Bailout
Obviously, we're not economists here. Frankly, I'm not sure even that expertise offers a clear awareness of the scope of the current financial crisis, much less the judgment and insight to know how to fix it. Still, it puts you several steps ahead of me (and most of the bloggy heads now offering strong opinions). It does occur to me that any institution that, by going under, can bring us - apparently - to the brink of economic collapse is an institution that's entirely too big. But that could just be the ignorance talking.

Where I come down right now is wedged between 2 concerns: I don't like the idea of bailing out risky corporate greed for the failure that we should expect from risk and greed. But, at the same time, if that failure is going to cause a systemic collapse of our economy, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 30s, then the greatest harm will come to those who don't deserve it, and can least afford it. If that threat is real, then something must be done - something bold that addresses structural fault lines that hold us in peril.

And, there's the rub. The Bush Administration has proven itself untrustworthy and incompetent in identifying, measuring and addressing national threats. I can show you a foolish war to prove it. After the WMD fiasco, we collectively wondered: how will the world and the country respond the next time they tell us a serious threat requires immediate and dramatic action? And, here we are. We assumed the test would be an international issue, not an economic one, but here were are anyway. And instead of being able to unite around the common cause of national fiscal stability, we're left skeptical, worried of an overreaching power grab by Republicans, or a pandering cave of principles by Democrats.

There is a trust vacuum right now. And let there be no mistake about who put it there. Political gamesmanship and power-hungry government officials are not a new concern. But, the last 8 years have left us unable to believe in the judgment and good faith of our leaders even in a moment of national crisis. At a time like this, we are left with little choice but to hope that experts - dare I say elites - with the nation's well-being clearly in their sights will drive the discussion, and that national leaders will absorb the truth as best they can, and do what has to be done to avert catastrophe and retain our national principles of fairness and justice. And yet, we don't believe in them. I don't, anyway. That, if you ask me, is the legacy of George W. Bush. Corporate greed runs unchecked, the law is crooked and disinterested, and people are on their own.

[UPDATE: At TPM, Josh Marshall puts it a little more succinctly.]

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, watching, listening to? Anything good? Or terrible?

Yargh
Shiver me timbers, matey! 'Tis the 19th day of the 9th month and all of ya bilge rats have let the scurvy go right to me land lubber brain. Talk Like a Pirate Day nearly set sail without notice. Aye! The sun still has eyes enough to drop anchor with me mates for pirate talk. Avast! Me best wishes for grog and rich booty aplenty yer next 2 days! Then, back to the decks with you!

I'm Confused
Can someone explain why, exactly, McCain's membership in the Keating 5 is somehow off limits this election cycle? I know, it's no sex-with-an-intern, but still a pretty flagrant violation of the public trust that seems fairly instructive into the man's character.

In addition to providing that window into McCain, wouldn't you say the S & L crisis of the 80s bears a fair enough resemblance to the current situation to be supremely relevant?

Over at Washington Monthly, Steve Benen takes a stab at bringing into focus, but I'm really not sure why it's considered a low blow for the Democrats to bring this up directly. He had to apologize for his inappropriate actions, even. It was no small scandal.

Is it just considered too long ago? Or the fact that he may have been the least culpable of the 5? Isn't that kind of a low bar in the presidential character test?

But What About Europe?
This international gaffe-scandal McCain kicked off last night, by clearly not remembering that Zapatero is the President Prime Minister of Spain, is to me not the hugest deal, but still a surprise for somebody that's running on foreign policy experience. I would bet that even President Bush today knows who his counterpart in Spain is. I think too, some of the problem was in McCain not hearing the interview well - what with a translator talking over the mix. (When, flustered, she asks "But what about Europe?" And he says "What about me, what?" thinking she said "what about your... " he's not being dumb so much as just not hearing clearly what she's saying).

Still, there are some points worth making...

1. If Obama had made this mistake, not knowing who Zapatero is and trying to cover it up with generic bluster, the McCain campaign would have made a big deal about it, and the right-wing talk machine would make an entire day about his being an empty suit and not so smart without his teleprompter.

2. Can we get rid of the mythology that McCain is somehow a global affairs guru, at least? I mean, they are running the GOP ticket under the premise that somehow he will take the inexperienced Governor Palin "under his wing" and teach her about foreign affairs. What's she going to learn, that the Soviet Union is our biggest enemy out to get us and Spain is led by Francisco Franco? I really don't care that he doesn't know who Zapatero is - maybe I should care - but I do mind the perpetuation of this nonsense that he is some paragon of wise experience.

For some reason, this line of critique carries no weight in the media because it refutes the standard McCain narrative, rather than reinforcing it. I wish our politics cared as much about debunking myths when direct evidence comes along as it does about repeating repeating them over and over even supported only by the slimmest allegation.

3. Maybe the most important to me. Whether we want to call this a "senior moment" or poor communication or whatever, he's not a good listener. Beyond not knowing the leader of a NATO ally, his response to not knowing is a bit telling. His instinct was to cover up his lack of knowledge with tough talk, pretending to respond to a question that he was in fact trying to deflect out of ignorance. And his defensive attack posture so enveloped him that he was literally unable to hear the questioner's attempt to move the conversation forward with a clarification.

Haven't we had enough of that kind of leadership? The kind that doesn't know how (refuses) to listen? Bill Clinton was great at listening. Obama seems fair at it. But McCain demonstrates Bush-like abilities in this area, as does Palin, which is to say, none at all.

Would it really have been *that* embarrassing to have just stopped the interview and said..."Zapatero...?" and then after she reminds him, say "oh of course...I'm sorry...you had me focused on Latin America so I drew a blank at his name" or something like that? Seriously - is it that much better to just pretend and then deny, deny, deny? Maybe it is better, politically, but it is surely a character flaw. I have it too sometimes I admit - that defensiveness that comes from a fear of looking ignorant. But then I am not asking to be the leader of the free world.

[UPDATE: Gambler that he is, McCain doubles down. Now, he's willing to pretend that, no, he really has Spain on his watch list, and not sure he wants to meet with its leader, rather than admit to even not hearing the Spanish speaking interviewer correctly? Shall we adapt all of our foreign policy to fit with the coverups of McCain's cognitive lapses?]

Mission Accomplished
Consider the Article 19 series of (controversial!) posts complete and, obviously, a success. Really, no need to thank me.

In a sign that John McCain's convention bounce has dissipated, Barack Obama has taken a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over his Republican rival among registered voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.
...
Obama leads McCain 54 percent to 38 percent among all women. He holds a two point edge among white women, a 21 percentage point swing in Obama's direction from one week ago.

Elitism
Funny. Really funny.

The Science of Persuasion: Convince Folks They Need You?
A fascinating, though I guess unsurprising, study via Kevin Drum. Folks on a city bus were asked to participate in a survey and told they would be paid $5, which they could take in either cash or lottery tickets. What they didn't know is that the real study was about which type of payment they would request.

The group made to feel poor was asked to provide its income on a scale that began at "less than $100,000" and went up from there, ensuring that most respondents would be in the lowest income tier. The group made to feel subjectively wealthier was asked to report income on a scale that began with "less than $10,000" and increased in $10,000 increments, leading most respondents to be in a middle tier. The group made to feel poor purchased twice as many lottery tickets (an average of 1.27) than those made to feel relatively wealthier (0.67 tickets, on average).

This is logical for sure. But a little bit scary as to our ability to be so easily and immediately manipulated on an impulse level. What do you notice in lottery advertisements? Are states already selling it by making people feel poor?

For the Record
Here is the chart of Hewlett Packard's stock price from the time current McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina became CEO (July 19, 1999) to the time the Board showed her the door (Feb. 9, 2005). This courtesy of the magic of Yahoo stock charts:

That's a decline of slightly more than 60%. In 5 1/2 years.

Far be it from me to speak up for the qualifications of McCain and Palin, but it annoys me the way many conservatives view government leadership as, apparently, something for mere egotists and entertainers, those who would not be prepared to *do the serious work of the CEO*. Maybe she's right, and they would need more business background to pull off running an actual company. But then again, considering the stock price chart above, maybe she's not the one to ask. No offense.

Equal Pay for Equal Work
Why is the campaign talking about "equal pay for equal work", you ask? Isn't that brand of discrimination already covered by law? I thought so too. Well, it turns out, yes and no. It is indeed a violation of the Civil Rights Act to pay a female employee less just for being female, but the trick is finding out you're a victim and then proving it in court. Unfortunately, the laws governing that procedure have not been helpful, especially as interpreted 5-4 by the Roberts Court last year.

In the Ledbetter decision, Justice Alito determined that under federal statute a claim must be made within 180 days of the employer's initial payment decision. Of course, by the time you find out you've been discriminated against, the decision to pay you less is likely to have been made long ago. So, it was left to Congress to fix this problem. Just change the statute, right? In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg indeed laid the responsibility squarely on Capitol Hill:

This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose. Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.

In fact, led by Speaker Pelosi, the House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 225-199, which would have done just that: undo the basis for the Court's harmful ruling. But the Senate - requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster - fell 4 votes short. Skipping that vote but announcing he was against the bill? John McCain. That is why a commitment to equal pay for equal work is an issue in the campaign. Obama has clearly decided to make it a new focus. He has an ad this week targeting that vote, which you can see below.

By the way, one of the fabulous speeches at the DNC that did not receive TV coverage was made by the plaintiff in that case, Lilly Ledbetter. She closed with this:

We can’t afford more of the same votes that deny women their equal rights. Barack Obama is on our side. He is fighting to fix this terrible ruling, and as president, he has promised to appoint justices who will enforce laws that protect everyday people like me. But this isn’t a Democratic or a Republican issue. It’s a fairness issue. And fortunately, there are some Republicans—and a lot of Democrats—who are on our side.

My case is over. I will never receive the pay I deserve. But there will be a far richer reward if we secure fair pay. For our children and grandchildren, so that no one will ever again experience the discrimination that I did. Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental American principle. We need leaders in this country who will fight for it. With all of us working together, we can have the change we need and the opportunity we all deserve.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, watching, listening to? Is there any time for culture, what with election obsession?

Article 19 Film Recommendation
Over the weekend I saw the new Coen Brothers film, Burn After Reading. It was fun, clever, a bit shocking a time or 3. John Malkovich is hysterical, and Clooney reprises his funny wide-eyed Coen film persona (a la O Brother, Where Art Thou?). It's not as hilarious as Raising Arizona, or as pathos-driven as Fargo, but it has elements of each. A fun night at the movies with some memorable lines and images. As a send-up of Syriana-style spy complexity it really is well-done, from the opening credits.

2 riveting true-story previews stayed with me even after the film was over: Milk (Sean Penn as Harvey Milk) and Frost-Nixon, an account of the famous post-Watergate interviews.

You can watch the Milk trailer at this link. Below is the Frost/Nixon trailer:

Cronyism and Vendetta: Palin Crosses the Personal with the Public
If you have reasonable friends otherwise compelled by Sarah Palin, nothing you could do this weekend might help more than pointing them to today's NYTimes profile of the Alaska Governor's management style, a Bush-Cheney blend of defensive incompetence, harassment of professionals, and brazen cronyism. There is too much to quote all the frightening bits here, but here's a taste (my emph):

[W]hen there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.
...
Throughout her political career, [Palin] has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
...
Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

There's much more, including more context for her inquiry into banning books at the public library, and her various attempts - sometimes successful, sometimes not - to have government officials fired for standing up to her methods.

Sarah Palin is the worst kind of office bully: the kind that has little grasp of, or interest in, the actual policies that should govern her official actions. She has Bush's penchant for surrounding herself with ill-equipped but loyal boobs that might not look too smart next to her, and Cheney's (Nixon's?) belief in the ultimate, blameless, transcendent power of the executive, who should not be questioned or inhibited in any way. Fabulous.

Who are these people that disapprove of Bush/Cheney but support McCain/Palin?