The Prediction

This is what I think the map will look like by this time tomorrow (click to see a larger image)

I do not see a landslide win of 390 electoral votes like Markos (and others are predicting). I think several factors will make this a little closer than most of the polls have shown heading to election day.

I see blue collar states like Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina going for McCain late. We'll see that the GOTV operation in those states for the Republicans was much stronger than anticipated and that in the end, many of the red state's undecided voters swung hard for McCain. Those states will be close, and may take a very long time to call, due to close votes and high turnout, but will narrowly end up in McCain's column.

Sadly, we will see columns written on Wednesday claiming the Bradley Effect isn't quite dead in America.

However, I see Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico needing to come through for Obama in order for him to prevail. Obama wins because of a superb ground game in these states. Latinos will be seen as one of the key reasons why Obama won the race. We will also see columns on Wednesday that will note this importance, and Latinos will be a much talked-about voter block in 2010 and 2012.

I do see Obama capturing 51.5% of the popular vote, but losing closely in many of the early swing states. Virginia and Pennsylvannia come through for him. New Hampshire is also suprisingly close but Obama wins it.

FINAL SCORE: Obama 291, McCain 247

...

Unity FTW

Unity for the win:



This, more than anything, captures why Obama's campaign defied the odds. This message of his, captures why he motivated us more than the Clinton machine, why he could soar above Rovian attacks and why he is energizing a generation of voters, that until now, never seemed interested in politics.

In a wretched economy, in a time where we are mired in two wars that show no tangible progress, as we witness a ballooning deficit that threatens the future of our children, and in an America that seems to have lost some of its prestige these last eight years, ideas like this seem genuinely soothing and inspiring.

Sure it is just words, sure it is just a stump speech, but it sends a message that is connecting to many of us, including, stodgy, cynical independents like me.

We want to unite, and solve our problems, not divide, blame, and antagonize those who don't think like we do, or look like we do.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: if Obama wins, his mandate is not a liberal mandate, it is a bi-partisan mandate. It is a mandate for unity, moderation, dialog and inclusion of all Americans, regardless of religion, creed or political persuasion.

It is when Obama delivers this exact message, that our hearts soar. Put away DailyKOS and Drudge, and instead, find someone who has a different political philosophy than you, and then embrace them as your equal, instead of your adversary.

We all have a stake in this. Stop demonizing those with new and different ideas to your own, instead listen and find the common ground.

Obama's rhetoric might just be rhetoric, but it offers us a tonic that this country so desperately needs.

...

Dowd: Schmidt is the Scapegoat

Maureen Dowd reminds me of that English teacher that would scold you for a dangling participle, and then force you to read Catcher in the Rye. Maureen Dowd doesn’t really editorialize, she muses, and usually in a way that condescends, rather than inform.

While she may difficult to read, (and seems like the kind of woman that would immediately wash her hands after you were formally introduced), she is required reading for anyone interested in US politics. She is required reading, because like it or not, she often sets the agenda for a news cycle.

She and others (such as Matt Drudge), are shepherd crooks in the sheep pastures of American media. They are important, because in this age, our media seeks sparks with which to launch the next 24-hour fire. Dowd, Drudge (and a few others) often provide those sparks.

Maureen’s editorial today is one of several that are already writing the John McCain obituary before the results are even tabulated. It was as usual, quite sardonic, but it did highlight one scapegoat for McCain’s current situation that I’d also like to highlight: Steve Schmidt.

She writes this about him in her latest editorial:

In the end, “The Bullet,” or “Sarge,” as McCain calls his replacement campaign manager Steve Schmidt, was the one who did the shackling, turning the vibrant and respected McCain into a shell of his former self. Schmidt abruptly cut off the oxygen supply to McCain’s brain. No more of the oldest established, permanent floating crap game of press confabs. No more audiences that weren’t vetted for friendliness. No more of McCain’s trademark insouciant mocking the process even as he participated in it.
--Maureen Dowd

If McCain goes down in a ball of flames, (as many are predicting) then Schmidt is indeed scapegoat #1.

I believe the morale of McCain's campaign will be: you can’t run a Karl Rove campaign during a recession. Schmidt failed to see that obvious truth, and may have damaged the Republican brand for years because of that blunder.

One other small note: I think the word "insouciant", is the kind of adjective only a Thesaurus should ever print. :)

...

Mocking Olbermann

Blowhards from the left and the right must be mocked accordingly:



What makes the sketch so perfect is it shows how indignant and self-righteous the left can be.

Nice to see Saturday Night Live get some "teeth" back, embracing political humor again, and throwing punches at both the left and right.

...

Conservative Litmus: George Will

Do you want to know if you're a genuine conservative? If you demand a conservative litmus test, personally, I'd leave the final verdict to George Will.

His verdict on Sarah Palin is not a good one. This editorial from him is outstanding reading.

My two favorite quotes from this are below and my commentary follows:

Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"?
-- George Will

Later in the article George Will attacks the scapegoat tactics, that have demonized Obama's fund raising:

Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.
-- George Will

MY COMMENT: Palin was a farcical pick, a "sugar rush" that provides instant momentum for McCain's campaign, but then crashed and burned when it was obvious that even the most basic question from the press (say a question like "what newspapers do you read?"), had her stumbling for words, and struggling to deliver a single coherent sentence.

On campaign financing, Will makes superb commentary, but missed why McCain is making noise on this issue. While we all agree, public financing of presidential campaigns, need to go the way of the dodo (public financing does far more harm than good), the reason why McCain is raising the issue isn't because he defends public financing, it is because it is setting the stage for the inevitable Republican response to this election.

That response will be: fraud, fraud, fraud.

Obama's campaign financing will receive massive scrutiny in the weeks ahead, and his use of e-Commerce to raise hundreds of millions, will be called into question, and there will be enough odd cases of fraud, that the cry that his entire victory was fraudulent will sadly gain traction in the press.

Still, Will's commentary is laser sharp in the above editorial, and ends on a "delicious" piece of trivia about potato chips. It's worthy reading, from a worthy voice in our political landscape.

...

ACLU & Privacy For All

It’s not often I agree with Michelle Malkin (who has written some of the stupidest things about Japanese internment camps ever).

None the less, civil liberties, are civil liberties and they must be protected for all, yes even political stuntmen like Joe the Plumber. If the claims Malkin documents are valid, then the ACLU needs to act and protect his rights.

Her editorial on this topic can be read here.

If state employees sifted through government records illegally, and then forwarded them to mainstream press in order to discredit Joe the Plumber, then this must be investigated.

I know the left are dismissing this with a shrug, and clearly the ACLU claimed they were appalled but didn’t actually do anything about it. On Bill Maher last night one liberal journalist actually claimed the state *should* violate the law, to sniff for dirt on Joe the Plumber, that this was a righteous act.

This is wrong. If we are to advocate civil rights and privacy rights (as we rightly should) then we must show our dedication to this cause, when it matters most. Civil liberties matter most, when the person you advocate for are not aligned with your own candidate or philosophy.

In short: if Joe’s privacy was violated, and if state employees broke the law for political gain, then we need to act.

I challenge DailyKOS and other leftist blogs to investigate this, and if proven to be right, then to advocate for privacy and civil liberty and criticize this violation of the law.

And yes, this blog just advocated an editorial from Huffington Post, and Michelle Malkin on the exact same day. Such is the glory of independent thought. :)

...

Doonsebury Out of Touch

I've ranted for years about how Doonsebury is now so hopelessly out-of-touch with those of us born after the baby-boom generation. Now I offer this proof that Doonsebury lost its relevance twenty years ago, with this startling news.

What an idiot. For someone apparently so attached to the progressive cause, a headline like this in America's largest newspaper hurts Obama's cause more than helps it. That didn't seem to bother Gary, who clearly values publicity more than actually supporting a presidential candidate.

My disdain for this goes beyond the headline though. My biggest beef with Doonsebury, is the implied message that Gen-Xers (like me) were stupid, shallow and materialistic because we didn’t always fall in line with the cause of liberal baby-boomers. This has been obvious in his work for years, where almost every new character (that were younger than the original characters), were always shallow, vain, confused and seeking advice from the orthodox-liberal characters in the strip.

Don't get me wrong, Doonsebury deserves high marks for breaking barriers in daily cartoons. He also inspired greater cartoonists like Breathed and McGruder. However, in my opinion, Doonsebury stopped being genuinely progressive and open-minded a long time ago. Now of course, headlines like the one above from USA TODAY, (a clear and obvious marketing-stunt), just makes Obama’s cause synonomous with the arrogant and self-righteous leftists of the 60’s and 70’s.

It also makes Obama and his supporters look arrogant, and cocky, and quite frankly, I take exception to that.

Apparently none of us even need to vote, because Doonsebury tells us it is already over. A cartoonist, is counting the votes, before any of us have actually cast them, how can that not be perceived as arrogant, presumptuous and just plain stupid?

...

Hurrah for Grace Stanchfield

We've talked a lot about "generational politics" these past few days.

I think it is important to remind ourselves just how much we owe the generations that came before us.

On that note, I thought the Post-Intelligencer had just a superb article yesterday, about a woman who is about to vote for her 19th president. You can read the full article here.

My favorite quote in the article, is her central advice on how to live such a long and happy life:

"Older people tend to complain," she says. "Don't complain. Take it as it comes. Attitude is the most important thing."

...

Biofuel is Worthy Research

I've had many arguments with friends, about the validity of ethanol and biofuels in general. I concede all the valid criticisms of corn-based ethanol, and that many biofuels don't truly tackle our carbon emissions.

However, I've always argued, that anything is better than oil, and that all research that weens us of oil, is valid and worthy research to explore. Research begets more research, and science can breed new understanding and techniques that can often yield discoveries that become a catalyst to bigger breakthroughs.

I have experience with cancer research for years, and I can tell you, scientific discovery requires an iterative process, and what may seem like an imperfect solution at stage one, can yield far more promising resarch in future stages.

This is why I applaud, articles and research as the one outlined below...

In what could be a major breakthrough for second generation ethanol production, German researchers have developed a new method that easily converts raw wood into sugar using a liquid ionic salt bath at room temperature followed by reaction with a solid acid resin.

I believe we so often get caught up in the issues surrounding corn ethanol and making fuel from food crops that we tend to write off biofuels as a flop. In reality, corn ethanol is a stop gap to help us develop an infrastructure for the second generation of non-food biofuels like cellulosic ethanol.

The full article can be found right here.

...

Generation Gaps & Israel

I criticize HuffingtonPost regularly, as being just a collection of celebrities, who cheerlead for democrats. Also I believe every time Arianna opens her mouth, the cause of progress suffers. :)

None the less, on rare occasion, smart people (rather than famous people) write intelligent things at that highly partisan site. Yesterday, I thought this editorial was quite interesting.

Much of the editorial, is just boiler-plate endorsement of Obama, but contained within that, is this important commentary on how the younger generation views Israel:

Now there is a generation growing up that is more distant from Israel than I should like. Young Jews do not automatically support Israel, and many are rightly troubled by what they learn about the ill treatment of the Palestinians under Israeli occupation. No longer motivated by fear of anti-Semitism, they seek to understand what Israel stands for, not to say "my Israel, right or wrong." Without strong support among the younger generation of American Jews, Israel may lose its vital relationship with the US government.
-- Edgar Bronfman

MY COMMENT: We now have many young Jewish voters, who cannot remember the Suez crisis, and read about the peace treaty between Begin and Sadat in their history books.

The divide between orthodox and secular in Israel must be monumental right now, but I wonder if there is middle-ground between the two, and if the young generation in Israel can help to find that common ground?

I also wonder how demographics Israel's elections. How many Israelis under the age of 30, support the Likud I wonder?

...

Snazel Blog Feedback

We don't get many comments on this blog, but when we do, it almost always provides great feedback.

For example: Culture Vulture commented recently on my thread about generational politics entitled Generation We vs. Generation X vs. Baby-Boomers. The comment is listed below...

As many prominent experts have noted, Obama (and you, born in 1963) is a member of Generation Jones–born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and GenXers.

Here is a column by Clarence Page about GenJones in last week’s Chicago Tribune.

And this new 5 minute GenJones video features many top pundits (including David Brooks, Clarence Page, Dick Morris, Juan Williams, Karen Tumulty, Howard Wolfson, Michael Barone, etc.) specifically talking about Obama (and Palin’s) membership in Generation Jones, as well as the surprisingly big role that GenJones is now playing in this election. Link to the video is here
-- CultureVulture

The next comment comes from Geoff who writes his own fine blog here.

Geoff wrote a couple of comments, but the one I'd like to highlight is the following, he wrote this in response to my rant about how "old school" and "Washington Insider" Obama's tentative cabinet choices look to be. A link to the original thread is here

Geoff's comment is below:

I think Obama is overcompensating for people's concern that he does not have enough experience. With the absurdly inexperienced Gov. Palin on the Republican ticket, Obama is not the one people are worrying about as far as experience goes. Agreed, Obama should reject this list. The old hands have failed us time and time again. He needs to put the power in new hands, starting with his own.
-- Geoff

Thank you both for the comments.

Cabinet List is a Disaster

Politico has apparently come up with a list of possible cabinet members in an Obama administration. The list was compiled from inside information from those close to Obama, and others are purely speculative.

You can read the list here.

MY COMMENT: The list is an utter disaster.

Whoever it is in the Obama camp that is snitching on this issue, needs to be muzzled, punished and kicked out of the campaign. The list presented here, entirely contradicts the “Change” message of the Obama campaign.

This list reads like a “Who’s Who on the Inside of Washington”, a list of bureaucrats, old codgers and inside-track Democrats, that don’t suggest change at all. Rather, they seem to suggest Obama’s administration would quickly descend to “same old Washington”. This list should be dismissed officially by Obama, they need to get in front of it fast, because this is superb fodder for McCain’s campaign.

Also if many of these rumors are true, I am utterly disappointed. When I vote for Obama, I was not endorsing the Clinton administration, and this list looks largely like a sequel to a lot of the ineptitude of the Clinton administration, a presidency which made an utter mess of the Middle East process, and utterly ignored the growing threat of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Thank goodness Janet Reno isn’t on the damn list, or I would seriously be considering changing my vote.

John Kerry as Secretary of State? Are you kidding me? I could write volumes on what an utter disastrous pick this would be. Rahm Emanuel? Can anyone tell me what this rubber-necked, poll-watcher actually believes in, other than protecting his own job and ducking for cover when the tide gets a little rough? Tom Daschle? Who on God’s green Earth, thinks Daschle represents change? The man is a cowardly rat, and represents all that is partisan and dirty in Washington and is knee-deep in lobby influence.

We are not voting for Obama, just so old, liberal hacks, that have failed us for decades, can suddenly get a payday. For the most part, the “progressives” on this list, represent the old liberal dogma that was rejected by voters before and will be rejected again, if it is slammed down our throat. We expect more than just the same old tired bureaucrats of yesterday.

Somebody in the Obama campaign, I beg you, disavow this list, it’s a disaster and makes your campaign look like a complete charade. “Change” does not mean we reward Dean, Daschle, Emanuel, Kerry and half of the Clinton cabinet with cushy new jobs, and major policy influence. Those names don’t represent one iota of change, and most of them were rejected by voters for executive power.

If the list is true, Obama should prepare for a one-term presidency immediately, because this crap won’t fly in this new electorate.

Khalidi "Scandal" is Last Straw

I personally don’t agree with some of Mr. Khalidi’s views, and I confess he argues for the Palestinian cause with great fervor. I also confess he has criticized Israel for failing to work towards a two-state solution. However, this does not make him a terrorist, nor does it link him to the PLO and it certainly does not make him an anti-Semite.

To make matters even more deplorable, John McCain chaired a committee which handed half-a-million dollars to an organization which Khalidi founded, so this campaign pointing any suspicious fingers towards him is utterly hypocritical.

There are several other aspects of this charade that bother me:

1) The idea that anyone with Palestinian heritage is somehow ‘un-American’, anti-Semitic or connected to the PLO is ridiculous.

2) The fact such serious accusations can be leveled by a presidential campaign with no proof, is unacceptable. I blame the media for this, for providing validity to the story, instead of clearly reporting the facts. Mainstream media has to stop merely being an echo chamber for campaign managers (both left and right).

3) Even worse, the insinuation that because Obama appeared at a banquet with Khalidi, means Obama is also in league with the PLO and is working to destroy Israel, is a new low.

4) Why hasn’t McCain criticized “Joe the Plumber” for suggesting, a vote for Obama would mean the “death of Israel”?

There was a time I had great respect for John McCain, but that is no longer the case, after this garbage. I really hope the Republicans get their soul back in future elections, because their current status and desperate tactics are beneath all of us.

Anti-Semitism is a serious charge that should never be reported by the media without definitive proof. The phrase “he will bring the death of Israel” is a phrase that must be substantiated immediately by a campaign, or withdrawn and apologized for profusely.

Goodbye John McCain, good riddance, your biggest failure is you actually made the wing nuts at DailyKOS seem like they were right all along, by running the lowest presidential campaign in history.

If you have any doubt of Khalidi, I invite you to watch the following debate he has with a former Israeli ambassador. And again, while you may not agree with some of his points of view, at least concede he argues his case reasonably, as any American should be permitted to do in a free society...

We vs. X vs. Baby-Boom

Everyone should see this, because even if you don't agree with the message, it should certainly spark a worthy discussion...



I have much to say about this, and while some of my commentary is quite negative, overall I have to say, I applaud this video. It may be a little cheesy, self-righteous and presumptuous, but it has its spirit in the right place, and it also signals the death of political power dominated by the baby-boomer generation, (which personally I cannot wait to see).

Personally, I am just two years younger than Obama, which puts me right at the cusp of "Generation X" and the end of "Baby Boomer". I've always considered myself as "Generation X" because my parents were born in the middle of World War II. I grew up with, recognize, and identify with much of Gen-X culture.

I have to say, I think a new generation finding its own identity and purpose is a good thing. What I especially like about the video above, is how often they suggest that their generation rejects partisanship.

If this is true, how will the cheerleader blogs and media (DailyKOS, Huffington, Rush Limbaugh, NRO) captivate this new generation? If all they do is attack the other side, demonize ideas contrary to their own, how can they expect to capture this new generation of voters?

I wonder how long it will be before JWR, KOS and other sites like it, will be seen to be as anachronistic as Dick Cavett, Donovan and Catcher in the Rye?

Hopefully not too much longer, because the need for true bipartisan and intelligent dialog (rather than pom-poms and rhetoric) is sorely needed. I sincerely hope this "Generation We" brings true bipartisan dialog to the internet.

Rovian Tactics RIP?

It seems that this time around, (if polls are to be believed), that “Rovian” tactics are simply out of date. There have been many editorials of late that discuss “what went wrong”. Putting aside these editorials are jumping the gun a little, I think it is still it’s a worthy discussion.

My favorite editorial on this topic recently can be found here.

My favorite quote in this editorial comes at the end…

Two years ago, I wrote a book imploring the Republican Party not to follow its worst elements off a cliff—not to evolve, in short, into an insular party with little-to-no appeal outside of the rural, the southern, the Evangelical. As the McCain campaign flames out in a ball of Rovian disgrace, scorching the center in an attempt to fire up the base, it's difficult to reach any other conclusion than that the battle for the soul of the Republican Party has been lost.
- Ryan Sager

MY COMMENT: As much as I wish this election to put a stake in the "energize the base" politics of Rove and Kristol, I have a feeling, we haven't seen the last of this gang. They are plotting their triumphant return to power in 2012 already I am sure.

...

Score Another Point for Brooks

For the second day in a row David Brooks scores a worthy quote. I don't always agree with this man, but this quote is precisely how I feel right now:

I have nothing against partisanship, but I do have something against self-deception. In the final months of a campaign large majorities in the country simply shut off all information that doesn’t confirm their own candidates superior virtue and intelligence. I’m amazed at the number of pundits I see who are simply campaign mouthpieces. I’m amazed at the bloggers who have lost all independence and are simply operatives.
-- David Brooks, New York Times

I challenge anyone who reads this to dial up a site that contradicts your established point of view and give it a read. If you are left-wing, dial up Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt or the National Review. If you are right-wing, dial up Markos, Huffington or "The Nation".

For us independents, this is a daily exercise, trying to read both partisan hype-machines, and then attempting to discern the truth amongst the cheerleaders and echo chambers.

It's not easy, but it is what responsible voters do.

...

Swines Compete for the Swill...

The bailout is now the hottest lobbying game in town.
-- MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press

Cunning Realist links to an AP story that is truly frightening.

MY COMMENT: Swines, competing for the swill.

...

No Shame in Science

Christopher Hitchens is the kind of editorialist many people loathe. He is loathed by some, because he is both a conservative and an atheist, he’ll cross any party line when it suits him, and because he can make eccentric arguments with great cunning and reason. Now, I don’t always agree with Hitchens but there are times he writes with great clarity and wisdom, and this is one of thos times.

My favorite quote from his latest editorial is:

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured.
-- Christopher Hitchens

A link to the full article is here

My comment: One of many positive possibilities from this election is that fiscal conservatives who value civil liberties more than religious dogma, might finally get their lungs back in the Republican party.

If Republicans would simply diminish their slander of science and secularism, this would make them a far more attractive political party for many independent voters.

However, if Sarah Palin is dragged out of the Alaska wilderness and is offered to voters again in 2012, the Republicans will officially become a farce. The choice belongs to Republicans and it will be interesting to see which way they turn.

...

David Brooks is Right

David Brooks.

DailyKOS rails against him, and questions his intelligence. Republican cheerleaders have ostracized him, for refusing to tow the party line.

So in other words, he annoys both extremes of the spectrum, which in my eyes, means he's probably doing something right.

Well, he did something right with his Sunday editorial I thought, my favorite quote is below:

...some of us hoped McCain would take sides in the debate now dividing the G.O.P. Some Republicans believe the G.O.P. went astray by abandoning its tax-cutting, anti-government principles. They want a return to Reagan (or at least the Reagan of their imaginations). But others want to modernize and widen the party and adapt it to new challenges. Some of us hoped that by reforming his party, which has grown so unpopular, McCain could prove that he could reform the country. But McCain never took sides in this debate and never articulated a governing philosophy..."
-- David Brooks

The full editorial is here.

Trite "Wardrobe Scandal" Hides More Obvious Truth

It was a stupid and trite distraction to begin with, but the Palin “wardrobe scandal” has now come full-circle.

Recognizing the media went for the item (which first appeared as an item on Politico.Com for 24 hours before picked up by mainstream media), and now trying to distance herself from the damage the story scored, Sarah Palin is now washing her hands of the entire fiasco, with a classic denial story.

Earlier today, Kristol, (ever the Palin-apologist), even insinuated the clothes were purchased without any knowledge of Sarah Palin.

So in short, we’re meant to believe Sarah Palin doesn’t even know where the clothes she wears at public appearances came from; which even it was true, speak volumes on her leadership, naivety and accountability.

There is a much larger truth related to this story though. The real truth is, *all* political campaigns are obscene. They float massive payrolls to political hacks, custom jets, top-tier hotel rooms and 5-star restaurants.

It is laughable, that both parties stood in front of us, and tried to tell us they sympathized with middle-class America, while their personal expenditures and per-diems soared the roof, often to the tunes of millions of dollars a day.

If Obama was any kind of leader, he’d take half of that 150 million he earned this month in donations, and put it in a fund to fight cancer. I personally know of a great colon cancer study he could invigorate for years, with just 1% of the money he earned in a single month.

What do you say Obama? Will you recognize the funding of these campaigns has become obscene, and put some money where it is needed most?

And Sarah, I know the story was just a stupid distraction, from a lazy media, but just how naïve do we think we are? Are you not responsible for your own campaign, or are you trying to show us that real leaders duck, cover, and then blame their own friends and party when things get rough?

...