ELECTION 2008-RANDOM THOUGHTS AND TAKEAWAYS

“The child is father of the man.” William Wordsworth

Something for Everyone

After last night, even the most intractable, militant—and now horrified—Obama opponents have no choice: they must stop and reflect. (That’s all we ever asked of them.)

If their mental satellite dishes are plugged in and able to receive signals in this radically altered atmosphere, they may locate a few encouraging pings.

The American Dream

Obama’s win is a quintessential American success story. He’s the human embodiment of the melting pot. He’s transformed self-esteem (yes, ego and ambition play a part) and determination into self-determination. His extended family, his organization, and his voters mirror that.

For those who still experience visceral recoil at this idea, that’s the straight, not-at-all-new, deal. Wrought in direct descent from the Founding Fathers’ clearly articulated, idealized—albeit selective—vision.

Our tent, always intended in words (if not deeds) to be expandable and welcoming, has by God proven to be just so.

African-Americans

For us, this election represents some tough-love messages for African-Americans. Messages that conservatives can cozy up to.

Jesse Jackson, weeping last night at the import of the moment, has tried for years, but the messages got lost in the packaging (all rhyme, no climb):

• No more excuses. Yes, it’s harder to be black in America, but not as hard as it was before yesterday.
• Particularly for the disenchanted and disconnected African American male adult, time to challenge the understandable but deathly bankrupt definitions of courage and manliness. Time to man up.
• The path to success in America is through hard work, education, and assimilation. Honor your own ethnic identity, but work the system, beat them at their own game. And for that, you will be—perhaps grudgingly, perhaps warmly, but in any case inevitably—respected and embraced. “Talking white” and “acting white” viewed as not so much an insult as a success model.

Dare we hope, perhaps, for the beginning of the end for the hip-hop “culture”?

The GOP

Time to rethink and reinvent.

You guys had this election all wrong from the beginning, and got a well-deserved spanking.

This election took place in a different world than 2000. You guys missed the point. You marched in place, the world kept on going. While you fixated on and fiddled with the crusty allure of your own ideology infested navels, the balance of global wealth and power shifted and moved the cheese.

You showed your arthritic hand at the convention, when Giuliani literally scoffed at Obama’s experience as a community organizer. Then Rudy and the rest of you got to watch flat-footed as Obama assembled and organized a nationwide community of the modest that ran rings around you all-knowing, seasoned pros.

He’s using e-mail, you’re using hate mail.

You now have the opportunity to get fixed and get right.

McCain Never Had a Chance

McCain never had a chance. His task was impossible: to somehow distance himself from, and at the same time tie himself to, the disgraced GOP junta, embrace those he’d once maverick-ishly offended, and still follow the “tried and true” Bush/Karl Rove/GOP election roadmap: tired tag lines, appeals to fear, unconscionable tricks, and nut jobs to the far right. Folks who could support bombing an abortion clinic, executing a convict, poisoning the environment, taking health care away from children, and then argue pro-life.

• McCain sought to skewer Obama on his questionable associations, but in order to get elected, willingly (even if not gladly) shared his table with shameless cheaters and unconscious haters.
• He spoke against elitists and wasteful “pork,” but his staff flew around the country spending $150,000 on clothes for Palin that would never be worn.
• He made experience a central campaign issue up until 6:00 PM EST yesterday, but picked a running mate who, as attractive and intriguing as she may be, is better qualified to host a talk show (we’ve got a title: “Just Plain Palin”) than run for national office. Palin didn’t go rogue, she went rouge.
• Intending to praise Obama as a decent family man, he slurred Muslims.

McCain, in his last-chance lust for the prize, sold out. He was compelled to do what he condemned in others, and then try to rename it as something else. This was nothing like the change he promised: it was classic GOP.

But McCain really did have few options; he had to try to put lipstick on this pig.

McCain and Cheney – The Final Nail?

At the eleventh hour, Dick Cheney endorsed McCain. Read that again, slowly.

There is but one reasonable explanation for both the endorsement and its timing, since it could only further wound McCain’s glimmering chances: Cheney must dislike McCain very intensely. He’d skulked in the weeds, salivating at the chance to pay McCain back—for something.

McCain cannot have welcomed the endorsement, but was apparently powerless to do anything to muzzle it. If he could, wouldn’t he have told Cheney “thanks, but keep it under your hat”?

After all, Dick Cheney’s indelible legacy is as the sneering poster curmudgeon for arrogant, insensitive, unintelligent, unwise, feckless, out-of-touch conservative power liberally misapplied in service of misguided ideology. There is blood on Cheney’s hands (insert hunting joke here). McCain could not have willingly let Cheney wipe some off onto him.

Cheney shot down, with finality, McCain’s lathered and laborious flight away from George Bush.

For McCain, Tragedy and Irony

We feel sorrow for John McCain. He wanted this so badly, he broke faith with his hard-earned reputation. The real John McCain—the one we liked and admired and would have voted for—didn’t emerge until last night’s concession speech.

It’s extraordinary, admirable that he survived a North Vietnamese prison camp, but this is not a job qualification (really, what had he run)? The enduring tragedy (chronicled in several previous HCO posts)—and for those who practice schadenfreude, the enduring irony—is that McCain may find himself a tortured prisoner of this election, his own poorly conceived and miserably executed war.

We hope he doesn’t and his resilience wins out. We need him.

Jesse Jackson

Jesse Jackson stood in Grant Park, weeping. Not stage center, but one face in a galvanized rainbow gathering.

Like him or hate him (we're not fans), we are nevertheless in his debt. He helped to shoulder the door open; he was the first to motivate credible people to put the words “African-American” and “President” into the same sentence.

If thoughts and words are the progenitors of deeds, Obama stands on his shoulders.

Lenses and Lessons

• To those who continue to rail and would resist the new reality: look at the electoral map. This election did not resemble 2000 when Bush beat Gore (by the width of a boar’s hair, if at all); Obama’s support did not depend solely on the overpopulated slivers hugging the coasts. This election was more tectonic than episodic, a national referendum on an obsolete mindset. Eight years ago, we looked at the map and concluded that WE were out of touch, out of the main stream. Your turn.
• Karl Rove (and disciples) had as much effect on this election as Karl Marx.
• As Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does.” This election was a triumph of sense over nonsense, the articulate over the stupefied: you can’t sell something you don’t believe in yourself.
• Genuine leadership requires intelligence, cognitive and emotional. Peripheral vision, knowing what you don’t know, surrounding yourself with sages rather than sycophants.
• When anyone claims to “know” something or “know” everything, suspect the opposite.

What We’d Like to See

Obama borrowing from Lincoln, and hiring his opponents. How about McCain as Secretary of Defense? Powell or Rice as Secretary of State? Hillary Clinton as something?

Parting Words

William Wordsworth, a romantic poet, wrote, “The child is father of the man.” Here’s the whole poem:

My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my
life began,
So is it now I am a man,
So be it when I shall grow old
Or let me die!
The child is father of the man:
And I could wish my
days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

Our children, who we teach right from wrong, have taught us. They’ve grown up in a more diverse world, have over time begun to drop many of the artificial barriers that divide, and held us to our own words.

They helped us fight our own flawed programming to chide the arrogant and the ignorant, and relegate them to bitter sniping from the back bench over their ruined regime.

Last night in Grant Park, Obama stood. Subdued, not elated. Humbled by the accomplishment, processing the implications.

Like the Wordsworth poem, he’d spoken of idealized, romantic aspirations, he’d inspired and motivated, and then at the very moment when he might have been justified to revel, to gloat, he remained constant, tethered to reality.

Later on, we may discover that Obama was neither Mr. Right nor Mr. Right Now. But he is clearly Mr. Right for Right Now.

IMPORTANT LAST MINUTE MINDSET REMINDERS

On several postings here over the last several weeks, we've compared the pronounced differences in style, tone, and messaging between the GOP and the Democrats. We've also talked, more pointedly, about the virtually deranged fringe clusters that McCain must welcome into the tent in order to cobble together a coalition that could get him elected.

We've pointed out how he's tragically sold out his reputation. And, in chapter and verse, how the fringe clusters he's had to embrace—just like GOP candidates before him, tracing back to the "moral majority"—have wrapped themselves moral and religious rectitude, yet managed to spin the core ideals of America 180 degrees backwards into messages of exclusion and even hate. (FUNDAMENTALS BAFFLE FUNDAMENTALISTS; http://hypercriticalobserver.blogspot.com/2008/10/fundamentals-baffle-fundamentalists.html)

We've pointed out the unbroken legacy of dirty political tricks from the GOP and its supporters, directly and indirectly, from Nixon's Watergate-era CREEP to convicted felon Allan Raymond (who's now hawking his book How to Rig an Election (SMELL FAMILIAR? The Toilet Paper on the GOP Shoe; http://hypercriticalobserver.blogspot.com/2008/10/smell-familiar.html)

After trying hard to give the McCain and the GOP a fair hearing, and despite our hesitation and doubt, their unremitting dishonor has led us to the only sensible conclusion that we must vote in favor of a new mindset—a new lens. We most vote for Obama.

Sometimes, when we see McCain's ads, our resolve wavers…hidden in the reprehensible accusations are legitimate questions about what an Obama presidency might look like. It is plausible that our foreign enemies will cook up a test of his spine as Commander in Chief—will he be ready?

But just when McCain shows us he can be a great sport on SNL, and we can allow ourselves to speculate that a McCain victory wouldn't be so bad after all—he's kind of the devil we know, right?—we get a nice cold water slap in the face to bring us back to level consciousness.

This morning, the Associated Press posted this article: Onslaught of dirty tricks as election day nears-In the final hours of the campaign, bogus fliers, e-mails and calls increase http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27508967/.

The telling point of the AP article is this: all of the horrid, dirty tricks cited for the presidential election are being perpetrated on behalf of the GOP.

He’s John McCain, and he’s approved these messages.

So, here’s the lasting, decisive lesson: this odious stuff has CREEPed into the GOP DNA—this is how they roll.

True patriots would want them gone.

THE IMBALANCE IN “FAIR AND BALANCED”

O'REALLY? OR:
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE RIDICULED, DON'T ACT RIDICULOUS.

We were more than ready to shut up about the election, but when we made our regular online run through the news, including Fox News—again, we're trying very hard to be fair, and to see what the righties are saying to balance the lefties—we came across this Bill O'Reilly piece: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445548,00.html, Talking Points, Why McCain Continues to Run Behind Obama, Friday, October 31, 2008, by Bill O'Reilly.

After reading it, we now have a punctuation puzzler: do we put the ironic quotation marks around "fair and balanced" or around "journalism"? It looks strange to write "fair and balanced" "journalism".

O'Reilly asserts that Obama is ahead for two reasons: he's raised more money and the media is biased. Let's go all hypercritical up in here, shall we?

O'REILLY: OBAMA IS LEADING BECAUSE OF MONEY AND MEDIA BIAS

Money Talks, the Other Stuff Walks

First, let's talk about the money. O'Reilly did not offer any insight or analysis about this in the body of his piece.

What might his silence suggest, beyond space/word limitations (which should not be a factor for the Factor in cyberspace)? Here's a possibility: O'Reilly can't attack Obama on the money issue, because Obama's amassed a stunning reservoir of cash from an unprecedented groundswell of small donors. O'Reilly has nothing to offer in response; he's tacitly acknowledged that regular people have practiced democracy in the most fundamental way—they've voted with their dollars.

The Biased Media Favors Obama

The particular problem with this O'Reilly piece—wrapped in the Fox "fair and balanced" flag—is his "proof" that media bias is skewing the election in favor of Obama. O'Reilly writes: "In addition to the money, it's now certain that the American media has given Barack Obama an enormous advantage. According to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, John McCain's getting hosed big time." [HCO: More about O'Reilly's choice of the word "given" later.]

HCO hungers for fair, thirsts for balance. So, we looked up the study. Although O'Reilly doesn't specify the study he refers to, there are actually two of them, which we found at journalism.org: The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism (http://journalism.org/node/13436; The Color of News, October 29, 2008, How Different Media Have Covered the General Election), and its predecessor, Winning the Media Campaign, Barack Obama, October 22, 2008 at http://journalism.org/node/13308.

The more recent study, as O'Reilly suggests, notes that "In cable,…there now really is an ideological divide between two of the three channels, at least in their coverage of the campaign." However, Mr. O'Reilly's presentation and interpretation of these studies—offered in his piece as facts—is in many important ways at odds with what they actually said.

Here's a table laying it all out:

WHAT O'REILLY SAID	WHAT THE STUDIES ACTUALLY SAID	HCO COMMENT
Zzzz…	10.29.08: When it comes to coverage of the campaign for president 2008, where one goes for news makes a difference.	One person's "fair and balanced" = another person's bias.
In all of the media studied, 57 percent of the stories on McCain were negative, 29 percent negative for Obama.	10.22.08 Much of the increased attention for McCain derived from actions by the senator himself, actions that, in the end, generated mostly negative assessments. [Emphasis ours.] ...For McCain, coverage began positively, but turned sharply negative with McCain's reaction to the crisis in the financial markets. As he took increasingly bolder steps to try and reverse the direction of the polls, the coverage only worsened. Attempts to turn the dialogue away from the economy through attacks on Obama's character did hurt Obama's media coverage, but McCain's was even more negative.	Pokes holes in the "inherent bias" cause-and-effect argument.
Newspapers are very unfair: 69 percent of the reporting on McCain negative, as opposed to 28 percent negative for Obama.	10.29.08: …on the front pages of newspapers, which often have the day-after story, things look tougher for John McCain than they tend to in the media overall.
NBC News is the most biased news agency by far…. On the broadcast side -- that's primarily Brian Williams and "The Today Show" -- 54 percent of the stories about McCain were negative, 21 percent of Obama stories were negative.	10.29.08: On the evening newscasts of the three traditional networks, in contrast, there is no such ideological split. Indeed, on the nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS and NBC, coverage tends to be more neutral and generally less negative than elsewhere. …And on NBC News programs, there was no reflection of the tendency of its cable sibling MSNBC toward more favorable coverage of Democrats and more negative of Republicans than the norm. …The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News. Even though it has correspondents appear on their cable shows and even anchor some programs on there, the broadcast channel showed no such ideological tilt. Indeed, NBC's coverage of Palin was the most positive of any TV organization studied, including Fox News. [Emphasis ours.] …At night, the newscasts of the three traditional broadcast networks stood out for being more neutral—and also less negative—than most other news outlets. The morning shows of the networks, by contrast, more closely resembled the media generally in tone….Overall, 44% of the morning show stories were clearly negative, compared with 34% on the nightly news and 42% in the press overall.	He's got it right on the morning show side. On the broadcast side, looks like an oopsie on O'Reilly.
On MSNBC, it's an absolute scandal: 73 percent of the stories on McCain negative, 14 percent negative toward Obama.	10.29.08: correct on the facts.	MSNBC effectively discredited as a trustworthy source of unbiased political news.
Thus a huge American corporation, General Electric, which owns NBC, is using its money and power to benefit a presidential candidate. That is a gross violation of the spirit of the constitutional powers given to a free press.	NA	Pot versus Kettle. In light of the unmistakable and historical GOP big-business alignment, this comment is—well, silly.
The three men behind this corruption are GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, NBC News boss Jeff Zucker and NBC News chief Steve Capus. These three calculated that by openly supporting Obama…they could lure millions of Obama supporters and make money.	NA	Another conspiracy found festering under the rocks. And Rupert Murdoch's calculus in creating Fox News was…?
Now, much of the other media covers for NBC, unfortunately. The Associated Press article about the press study had this headline: "NBC News doesn't follow MSNBC's left drift." But that's a bit misleading. The article written by committed leftist David Bauder says that the study found no hint that NBC's coverage was worse than the media as a whole. But, as we mentioned, the media as a whole is far more negative toward McCain than Obama.	10.29.08 [repeated from above]: …on NBC News programs, there was no reflection of the tendency of its cable sibling MSNBC toward more favorable coverage of Democrats and more negative of Republicans than the norm. …The distinct tone of MSNBC—more positive toward Democrats and more negative toward Republicans—was not reflected in the coverage of its broadcast sibling, NBC News.	O'Reilly has lost his own "facts" in his stilted rant. Mr. Bauder has, to all appearances, accurately portrayed what the study actually said. O'Reilly, on the one hand, uses the Pew research to make his case that media in general and NBC in particular is biased against McCain, then argues against the Pew research when a liberal uses it. And then he cites it as a case of the other media "covering" for NBC. Bad on O'Reilly, unfortunately.
As for FNC, the study found that 40 percent of our reporting was negative to McCain and 40 percent was negative about Obama. Whoa, sounds fair and balanced to me.	10.29.08: On the Fox News Channel, the coverage of the presidential candidates is something of a mirror image of that seen on MSNBC. On Fox News, in contrast, coverage of Obama was more negative than the norm (40% of stories vs. 29% overall) and less positive (25% of stories vs. 36% generally). For McCain, the news channel was somewhat more positive (22% vs. 14% in the press overall) and substantially less negative (40% vs. 57% in the press overall). Yet even here, his negative stories outweighed positive ones by almost 2 to 1. [Emphasis ours.]	Whoa yourself! The findings align but O'Reilly's conclusion is a non sequitur. (See our conclusion below.)
Zzzzzz…	10.22.08: One question likely to be posed is whether these findings provide evidence that the news media are pro-Obama. Is there some element in these numbers that reflects a rooting by journalists for Obama and against McCain, unconscious or otherwise? …Obama's coverage was negative in tone when he was dropping in the polls, and became positive when he began to rise, and it was just so for McCain as well. Nor are these numbers different than what we have seen before. Obama's numbers are similar to what we saw for John Kerry four years ago as he began rising in the polls, and McCain's numbers are almost identical to what we saw eight years ago for Democrat Al Gore. What the findings also reveal is the reinforcing—rather than press-generated—effects of media. We see a repeating pattern here in which the press first offers a stenographic account of candidate rhetoric and behavior, while also on the watch for misstatements and gaffes. Then, in a secondary reaction, it measures the political impact of what it has reported. …Throughout the race, critics have contended that the media were besotted with Barack Obama's candidacy…. [But] the evidence suggests something more complicated than that. Coverage of Obama since the conventions has been more positive than negative, but it has also been almost as neutral or mixed. In all, 36% of stories about Obama have been positive, vs. 35% that have been neutral. And 29% have been negative. …The last week of the study (Oct. 12-16), which included the final presidential debate, coverage of Obama became more positive again (50% positive, vs. 19% negative and 31% neutral). …The rare instances where Obama was seen to have misspoken on the stump also hurt. …In short, the financial crisis and particularly Obama's steadier reaction to it in relation to McCain's were clearly a turning point in the media coverage. That more positive coverage was then reflected in the polls, which in turn were reinforced in the horse race coverage that played off those polls. In that sense, the data show, Obama was the beneficiary of the tactical, strategic bias of the press.	Careful when you cherry pick certain facts and ignore the others. The studies show Obama has taken a hit when he deserved to. They also indicated that the media is not so much the aboriginal source of biased coverage—as O'Reilly asserts—but jumping on the bandwagon.

CONCLUSION

We'll accept O'Reilly's premise that overall, the mass media is left of center while the country is right of center. For O'Reilly (and others of a simlar stripe) this disconnect is a disaster, and indicates that something calculated and sinister is going on. But this conclusion is intellectually lazy, superficial, and doesn't follow—for several reasons.

First, even conceding the media's liberal tilt, the heavy disproportion of negative coverage against McCain does not mean that those reports are inherently unfair. The Pew studies suggest a much more complicated picture, and instead indicate that when any of the candidates mess up, the negative reports intensify. (Please note, in this regard, the telling Pew comment that Obama has misspoken only in "rare instances.")

Second, the fact that Fox reported an equal percentage of 40% negative stories for Obama and McCain does not mean Fox is fair or balanced. How does "one for me, one for you" represent responsible journalism? This is not an "equal time" calculation. The Pew studies offer more persuasive insight, based on the finding that Fox and MSNBC are a similarly biased "mirror images": even though a right-biased Fox is trying like hell to ferret out positives for McCain and negatives for Obama, the best Fox can muster is two negative McCain stories for every positive one.

Third, speaking plainly does not equal speaking honestly and bluster is not a suitable substitute for thinking. O'Reilly has cherry picked the Pew studies but ignored their core lessons.

At the end of the day, the Pew studies lead to a very different, more plausible conclusion than O'Reilly's. Here it is: the media hasn't "given" Obama anything that Kerry and Gore didn't have. If McCain loses, his campaign, his choices, and his actions—not a stacked deck—are to blame. He'd have turned the hose on himself "big time" and earned it.

In his piece, O'Reilly writes, "I feel like John McCain." If so, he's earned it.

MR. TOO SOON AND MR. TOO LATE

Joe B. and Sarah P. were sharing a room at the hospital. They came from very far away, from very different places, and were under light sedation awaiting surgery for the same strange habit: it seems they both had a penchant for swallowing their own feet whole. They both wore designer hospital gowns that didn’t quite cover their behinds.

They began to mumble at each other. At first, it sounded friendly enough. But of course, with their feet halfway down their throats, and drowsy as they were, a lot of what they said was unintelligible or sounded plain silly.

Here’s what was pieced together by forensic experts from their recorded conversations:

1. Joe B. and Sarah P. both claimed to have new jobs working for a man named Mr. On Time.

2. Joe B. said this was impossible. He and Sarah P. were total strangers. He’d been in Crazyrotten Town for a long time, and his Mr. On Time just blew in and gave him a job as second in command. His Mr. On Time was going to be the new sheriff of Crazyrotten Town, because he could fix everything that was broken in the entire world just by thinking really hard and speaking magic, hypnotic words.

3. Sarah P. politely but firmly replied that she was second in command to the real Mr. On Time, who’d been in Crazyrotten Town for almost 30 years. Her Mr. On Time was going to be the new sheriff, because he already knew how to fix everything in the entire world by standing up against the wind, scowling, and just scaring the problems away. In fact, her Mr. On Time didn’t have to think at all--it was all second nature to him by now.

4. Joe B. said, joking, that he knew her Mr. On Time well, and she was mistaken. Her boss’s real name was Mr. Too Late: after fighting the wind for 30 years, he was acting pretty old and tired, and should have run for sheriff four years ago.

5. Sarah P. didn’t think the joke was funny, and her grunts became more heated. She said Joe B. didn’t know what he was talking about: her Mr. On Time actually went with the wind at least 90% of the time, so he had plenty of energy left. Then she said that Joe B.’s boss was all talk, and was too new to Crazyrotten Town to really know how to fix anything—his real name was Mr. Too Soon.

6. Joe B. said well, even if her boss did have something new to offer Crazyrotten Town, he was still Mr. Too Late, because most people wanted his Mr. On Time to be sheriff.

7. Sarah P. said Joe B. had it wrong again. Even if more people wanted Joe’s boss at first, now about the same amount of people want her boss to be sheriff. She joked that Joe’s boss was Mr. Too Soon two different ways, because he was an empty suit and also peaked too soon.

8. Joe B. didnt like her jokes either. He become so angry, he nearly spit out his feet.

9. They growled at each other loudly, angrily, incessantly.

10. The hospital staff tried to intervene and restrain them both, but the staff ended up arguing among themselves, taking sides about who was the real Mr. On Time. But after what seemed like forever, they all agreed they couldn’t stand the noise anymore, and didn’t know who to believe. They negotiated with each other right then and there--without preconditions--and came to a peaceful solution: they agreed to postpone the surgery indefinitely, put Sarah P. and Joe B. into a deep sleep, and moved them to separate, soundproof rooms.

P.S. We posted this before we read the latest embarassment from Sarah P., reported at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview:

Palin accuses Obama of ties to second 'radical professor'

Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama has ties to a Columbia University professor who she said is "a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization."

Not "had", "has"--but then she uses the past tense:

"It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.

Here's her "proof" that she's "calling him out on his record":

In April, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a going-away dinner for Khalidi that Obama attended in Chicago, Illinois, in 2003. Khalidi was leaving to become a professor at Columbia. The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.

Oy...by the way, Obama also palled around with the conservatives while at Harvard.

Look, we know both sides are full of it, but everytime we try to look at this thing in some balanced, rational way, and listen to and weigh what the GOP has to say, another burning bag of flaming turd shows up on the front porch.

Like we've said before, he's John McCain and he approved this message.

P.P.S. Comedy Central "stole" our lines again....last night, Steven Colbert used the "flaming turd" reference when talking about the Rebublican campaign.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189700/october-29-2008/the-word---i-endorse-barack-obama

SMELL FAMILIAR?

Toilet Paper on the GOP Shoe

Here's a particularly odious gem from today's Daily Beast:http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-26/why-obama-staffers-are-secretly-worried-and-other-dispatches-from-the-campaign-trail/2/#

In the past several days we've had Joe the Plumber, Wardrobe-gate (and the subsequent back-fill), Bid-rigging Gate (waiting for the back-fill), and now this. This is the direct legacy of Nixon's CREEP and the disquieting aroma of a 2000 election decided by a whisker in a state coincidentally governed by the President's brother. And more recently, the phone jamming anecdote we've heard from convicted felon Allan Raymond's TV interviews to sell How to Rig an Election (haven't read it yet).

These episodes, and this hateful letter, symbolize the toilet paper insolubly stuck to the GOP's shoes.

Politics is dirty, and neither side has a halo, but here we are a week away from the most important election in our lifetimes, and we're still waiting for comparable revelations about the democrats. Liberal media squelching the dish? Where are their convicted election cheaters?

If you told this history to third graders, they'd conclude that these GOP guys don't like to share and don't play nice.

--------

Some Doubt Remains, But Basic Doubt Removed

We've struggled, we've had our doubts--still have 'em. Will Obama, if elected, give us a redux Jimmy Carter? That would be very very bad.

But the more we've learned, the more we're repulsed by the Republicans and propelled toward Obama, we've warmed up to the idea and ideals of a President Obama.

We watched the PBS program last night about McCain and Obama. Extremely illuminating. Two honorable, admirable men, similarly driven by ego and ambition. For each, this election is the last "to do" on a long-held agenda. McCain, undoubtedly more balanced to the center than he must appear to appease potential Republican voters. Obama, surprisingly and demonstrably more conservative than ordinarily portrayed.

For McCain, however, the virtually pre-ordained, paint-by-number tragedy documented here (Monday, October 13, 2008-THE JURY MAY BE OUT, BUT THE EVIDENCE IS IN...), and by way smarter people elsewhere, is nearly complete. A good, forthright man, who was incontrovertibly maverick on many important issues, is gradually strangling himself in the entangled logoed scarves of his morally threadbare coalition.

Obama has by every reasonable measure kept closer faith with his values, and has disassociated from those who, formerly inside the tent, attempted to smuggle dishonor in (for example, Rev. Wright and more recently ACORN, although that still rankles).

So we take the wisdom wherever we find it. And thank the darkness, for without it, we would not be able to distinguish the light.

McCain is hanging (by a thread) in this race because of race. Period. McCain may still win (it reads like a tossup, no matter what the polls say), but by the great preponderance of evidence, his victory would be far from honorable and would promise nothing resembling a new day for America.

Thanks to the GOP and their minions for the recent reminders, and for at least clearing up all doubt as to who must get our votes now.

Time to drain the swamp, and mourn for the fallen Mr. McCain.

FUNDAMENTALS BAFFLE FUNDAMENTALISTS

“Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.” --Barry Goldwater

As the drama and tension builds for the election (can’t we have it tomorrow?), we see a nation under stress. Unremitting stress is dangerous: people tend to fray around the edges. Some unravel. Some act out.

Here are a couple of revealing, unrelated-but-utterly-related, fresh news items:

------------
Christian right intensifies attacks on Obama
Conservative activists escalate 'doom and gloom' rhetoric as Nov. 4 nears
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27369927

…Steve Strang, publisher of Charisma magazine, a Pentecostal publication, titled one of his recent weekly e-mails to readers, "Life As We Know It Will End If Obama is Elected." Strang said gay rights and abortion rights would be strengthened in an Obama administration, taxes would rise and "people who hate Christianity will be emboldened to attack our freedoms." [Emphasis ours.]

Separately, a group called the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission has posted a series of videos on its site and on YouTube called "7 Reasons Barack Obama is not a Christian." The commission accuses Obama of "subtle diabolical deceit" in saying he is Christian, while he believes that people can be saved through other faiths. [Emphasis ours.]

But among the strongest pieces this year is Focus on the Family Action's letter….Signed by "A Christian from 2012," it claims a series of events could logically happen based on the group's interpretation of Obama's record, Democratic Party positions, recent court rulings and other trends.

Among the claims:

·A 6-3 liberal majority Supreme Court that results in rulings like one making gay marriage the law of the land and another forcing the Boy Scouts to "hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys." (In the imagined scenario, The Boy Scouts choose to disband rather than obey).

·A series of domestic and international disasters based on Obama's "reluctance to send troops overseas." That includes terrorist attacks on U.S. soil that kill hundreds, Russia occupying the Baltic states and Eastern European countries including Poland and the Czech Republic,
and al-Qaida overwhelming Iraq.

·Nationalized health care with long lines for surgery and no access to hospitals for people over 80.

The goal was to "articulate the big picture," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Focus on the Family Action. "If it is a doomsday picture, then it's a realistic picture," she said.

-------
Missouri Students Face Punishment for 'Hit a Jew Day'
Saturday, October 25, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444006,00.html

ST. LOUIS — At least four students from a suburban St. Louis middle school face punishment for allegedly hitting Jewish classmates during what they called "Hit a Jew Day."

---------

Compare these tidbits to the following passages:


How the Spanish Inquisition Worked
by Shanna Freeman
http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/spanish-inquisition1.htm

…To maintain its authority, the Church suppressed heretics. The Church had a very specific definition of heresy: A heretic publicly declared his beliefs (based upon what the Church considered inaccurate interpretations of the Bible) and refused to denounce them, even after being corrected by the authority.

…Many prominent citizens were concerned about their country's religious diversity and had bigoted attitudes toward non-Catholics. Jews were subjected to violent attacks known as pogroms and isolated in ghettos. Many were killed…. Many Jews converted to Catholicism. These converts were sometimes called marranos (Spanish for "pig" and a very derogatory term) and accused of secretly continuing to practice Judaism. They became targets of the Inquisition.

… Muslim converts to Catholicism, called Moriscos (Spanish for "Moorish"), were targeted for the same reasons as Jewish converts. In the late 16th century, Protestants, mainly Lutherans, also became the target of the Inquisition.

***

Every Spanish Christian over the age of twelve (for girls) and fourteen (for boys) was accountable to the Inquisition. Those who had converted from Judaism or Islam but who were suspected of secretly practicing their old rites; as well as others holding or acting on religious views contrary to Catholicism were targeted. Anyone who spoke against the Inquisition could fall under suspicion - as did saints Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. To stem the spread of heresy and anti-Catholicism, Torquemada promoted the burning of non-Catholic literature; especially the Talmud and, after the final defeat of the Moors at Granada in 1492, Arabic books as well. Tomás de Torquemada, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada

------

AND NOW…THE HCO RANT

Handing Over the Keys?

If the United States was handed over to these fundamentalist folks, and we gave them unfettered “freedom”, what might the country look like?

The country could be run under Christian theology…the political and judicial systems could be subservient to the decrees of religious leaders. Everyone could finally be on the same page here…no more noise from those pesky unsaved, un-savable un-Christians, who by definition are going to burn in hell anyway.

This isn’t such a bad idea, right? It’s working...for Iran.

Just like Carrie Gordon Earll, the goal here is to “articulate the big picture…if it’s a doomsday picture, then it's a realistic picture.”

[Picture: Hulton Archive/Getty Images; Circa 1933: British actor Matheson Lang is chained to a cross during the Spanish Inquisition in a scene from the film "The Wandering Jew."]

Now We’re Getting Really Mad

From what unfathomable feculent well of ignorance does this stuff spew? Who is teaching this stuff under the cloak of Christian morality?

Does this stray flock ever ask what Jesus would do? Really, is this what Jesus—arguably the greatest liberal of all time—would do?

These perverted religion-laced messages are indistinguishable from those we decry in the militant Muslim terrorists who have vowed to kill all of us infidels. The “freedom” they pursue, in their extremity, would license them to blindly, wildly swing their fists regardless of where the other guy’s nose happens to end.

Barry Goldwater lost by a landslide.

The Fundamentals Baffle the Fundamentalists

These folks have it tragically backwards. Their messaging is not about freedom, it’s about suppression of freedom.

Oddly, this twisted mindset reinforces the fundamental (if possibly unforeseen) wisdom of our all-white (some slave-owning), Christian Founding Fathers in separating church and state. This fundamental, which apparently baffles and eludes these fundamentalists, separates our own unreasoning, fearful—and often savage and tribal—natures from overwhelming the better selves, the higher plane, that our “real American” ideals point to.

(BTW, let’s not get crazy ourselves. We’re all for menorahs and nativity scenes side-by-side in schools. This is part of learning about others. And we’re okay with “In God We Trust” on the money.)

These guys ever read the plaque on the Statue of Liberty? Perhaps not…it’s in New York Harbor.

Quiz

Which is consistent with the highest aspirations of the “real American” ideal (pick one):

(____) Making room in our spacious tent, room at our abundant tables, embracing and understanding with “mild eyes.”

(____) Burning dissenters at the stake.

THE WOULD-BE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

Hypocrisy is only bad when it is improperly used.—George Bernard Shaw [lifted from an Anna Quindlan article]

This $150,000 designer clothes issue has been gnawing at me since I read about it. There had to be another side to the story, something other than what the liberal mainstream media gleefully reported. Something that would clarify it all for us.

And then it came, via the AP:

Palin denies accepting $150K in designer clothes:Brendan Farrington, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 24, 1:19 am ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081024/ap_on_el_pr/palin_clothing;_ylt=ArHpPXIrYpXdGSzFe2Z1P1dh24cA
Here are some excerpts from the story and the HCO take on it:

Sarah Palin is blaming gender bias for the controversy over $150,000 worth of designer clothes, hairstyling and accessories the Republican Party provided for her, a newspaper reported Thursday.

"I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race," Palin said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune posted on the newspaper's Web site Thursday night. "Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don't talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That's a bit of that double standard."

There is a double standard. In this predominantly sexist civilization, women are often judged on their looks. In crass retail terms, women generally spend (must spend?) more on their clothing than men (or perhaps the men who price the clothes exploit this societal fact by charging more). But Palin misses the point here. The point is that, as far as we know, Hillary spent her own money on her own clothes.

Palin, who is John McCain's vice presidential running mate, said the clothes were not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention.

This makes it better, somehow? That approximately $150,000 was spent (this was not denied by either McCain or Palin), but that they weren't "worth it"? Or that instead of buying a wardrobe that she "needed" for a months-long campaign, they were bought so she could have multiple fashion options for a four-day event? And why did they have to shop for the Alaskan governor in New York City for an event in Minneapolis-St. Paul?

Most of the clothes have never left the campaign plane, she told the newspaper.

Because some clothes were left on the plane, and she didn't use them, that means she didn't "accept" them. The Couture to Nowhere.

"It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported," Palin said. "That whole thing is just, bad!" she said. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are."

In light of the revisionist expense report glitch (Trig on official state business!), the cynics might say she's complaining here that $150,000 was too tight a budget for wardrobe. No, this must mean that that they'll return the stuff that wasn't used…

News of the purchases of designer clothes, largely from upscale Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, contrasts with the image Palin has crafted as a typical "hockey mom."

McCain was asked several questions on Thursday about the shopping spree - and he answered each one more or less the same way: Palin needed clothes and they'll be donated to charity. [HCO: He also said this was the plan all along.]

Dare we ask which ones?

-------

So let’s try to pull this all together into a cogent lesson. First, some perspective:

1. $150,000 buys this cute house in Wasilla:

1. 

2. Let's say I'm running for office, and other people are paying for my wardrobe. I go out and buy high-end, perhaps even custom-made stuff…I'd spend something crazy-over-the-top like this:

$ 5000 Shoes (10 pairs at $500 each)
6000 Ties (20 at $300 each)
45000 Suits (15 at $3000 each)
6000 Shirts (20 at $300 each)
$ 62000 TOTAL

I'm looking rather fly, and with the money I have left, I can buy this (very) modest log cabin in Wasilla:

Here we go now…

• The objections to the spree at Needless Markup are not SEXIST…they're EXCESS-IST. We recognize that Palin can't wear her lit-up reindeer sweater to campaign in…but c'mon! Her governor clothes weren't nice enough?


• This is the party that hammers on the point that they will trim the pork and end the excesses of the elitists. They'll take care of other people's money. (As if it were their own, we suppose.)


• McCain and Palin have taught us that the un-American elitists live in New York (we guess here they mean New York City, not the good real American folks upstate). Booo on the elitists! Boooo on New York City! Except for the shopping part, the Neimans and Sakses and what have you.

And the big finish…

This wardrobe point, overall, seems too trivial to harp on. But it's one shard in a mosaic that's been assembling over the past few months about the Republican side—and it fits the picture.

This episode flows out of the same addled mindset that brought us McCain's superficially charitable remark that Obama isn't an Arab, but a decent family man. And that Ayers was/is--and by extension the secretive Obama might well be--a terrorist, but those who bombed abortion clinics were not.

How else can can you say it? For this team and the organization surrounding them, their actions simply aren't matching their words about who they are, or their core values. (Joe the Plumber's throwing in with these guys?)

At this point, which rings more true: That Palin boarded the Straight Talk Express? Or hopped on the gravy train with the same drunken disregard for common sense--and for the inherent trust that comes with power over other people's money--as the spa-loving execs from AIG?

This campaign isn't just testing character, it's revealing it.