The weekend after his first presidential debate, Barack Obama delivered a speech in front of 35,000 in Detroit, Michigan

The weekend after his first presidential debate, Barack Obama delivered a speech in front of 35,000 in Detroit, Michigan. He was joined on stage by his wife Michelle, and Joe and Jill Biden.

Jennifer Hudson and Alicia Keys want you to be heard

Jennifer Hudson and Alicia Keys want you to be heard. Even if you think you're registered, visit http://www.VoteForChange.com to check.

Register in Michigan by October 6th 2008

The voter registration deadline is October 6th.

Featuring Senator Barack Obama, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Carl Levin
Sean Astin, George Lopez, Adam Brody, Will.i.am, Tatyana Ali, Congressman John Conyers, Rachael Leigh Cook, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Ishmael Ahmed, Governor Jennifer Granthome, Michael Murphy, Michigan State Senator Mark Schauer, and Former Governor Jim Blanchard

Barack Obama spoke about our economy and how we can't afford to gamble on our future in Westminster CO September 29, 2008.

John McCain: Economic Disaster

John McCain does not have the ability to fix this economic crisis. After declaring the fundamentals of the economy strong, he created a political circus in Washington last week by mucking up bailout negotiations; a deplorable stunt, considering he and his political cronies helped cause the current meltdown.

It was McCain and his economic adviser Phil Gramm who pushed for the deregulation that helped lead to the banking crisis, and it was McCain's crony Rick Davis who had deep lobbyist ties to Freddie Mac. Don't let others be fooled by McCain's economic grandstanding because the reality is his policies and principles will only exacerbate our financial hardships. That's why you must spread this video.

When Madmen Reign

September 30, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

By BOB HERBERT

Madness.

I’m not holding my breath, but I would like to see the self-proclaimed conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealots step up and take responsibility for wrecking the American economy and bringing about the worst financial crisis since the Depression.

Even now, with the house on fire, the most extreme among them won’t pick up the fire hoses and try to put it out.

With the fate of the Bush administration’s desperate $700 billion bailout of the financial industry hanging in the balance, Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, stuck to his political playbook like a man covered in Krazy Glue. He pronounced himself “resolute” in his opposition to the bailout because to be otherwise would amount to a betrayal of party principles.

To deviate from those principles, in Mr. Issa’s view, would be like placing “a coffin on top of Ronald Reagan’s coffin.”

We are in very strange territory here.

George H.W. Bush warned us about “voodoo economics” in 1980, but the ideologues clamped a gag on him and put him on the Gipper’s ticket. For much of the time since then, the madmen of the right have carried the day. They were freed of their remaining few restraints with the ascendance of George W. Bush in 2000.

These were the reckless clowns who led us into the foolish multitrillion-dollar debacle in Iraq and who crafted tax policies that enormously benefited millionaires and billionaires while at the same time ran up staggering amounts of government debt. This is the crowd that contributed mightily to the greatest disparities in wealth in the U.S. since the gilded age.

This was the crowd that cut the cords of corporate and financial regulations and in myriad other ways gleefully hacked away at the best interests of the United States.

Now we’re looking into the abyss.

When President Bush went on television last week to drum up support for the bailout package, he looked almost dazed, like someone who’d just climbed out of an auto wreck.

“Our entire economy is in danger,” he said.

He should have said that he, along with his irresponsible Republican colleagues and their running buddies in the corporate and financial sectors, put the entire economy in danger. John McCain and his economic main man, Phil (“this is a mental recession”) Gramm, were right there running with them.

Credit markets have frozen almost solid, banks are toppling like dominoes and brokerage houses are vanishing like props in a magic act. And who was one of the paramount leaders of the manic anti-regulatory charge that led to this sorry state of affairs? None other than Mr. Gramm himself, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Where is Mr. Gramm now? Would you believe that he’s the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the investment banking arm of the Swiss bank UBS? Of course you would. A New York Times article last spring noted that the “elite private bankers” of UBS “built a lucrative business in recent years by discreetly tending the fortunes of American millionaires and billionaires.”

Toadying to the rich while sabotaging the interests of working people was always Mr. Gramm’s specialty. He was considered a likely choice to be treasury secretary in a McCain administration until he made his impolitic “mental recession” comment. He also said the U.S. was a “nation of whiners.”

The tone-deaf remarks in the midst of severe economic hard times undermined Senator McCain’s convoluted efforts to reinvent himself as some kind of populist. But they were wholly in keeping with the economic worldview of conservative Republicans.

The inescapable disconnect between rhetoric and reality is often stark. Senator McCain has been ranting recently about the excessive pay and “bloated golden parachutes” of failed corporate executives. And yet one of his closest advisers on economic matters is Carly Fiorina, who was forced out as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. Her golden parachute was an estimated $42 million.

Voters have to shoulder a great deal of the blame for the economic mess the country is in. Too many were willing, for whatever reasons, to support politicians who spat in the eye of economic common sense. Now the voodoo that permeated conservative economic policies for so many years has come back to haunt us big-time.

The question voters should be asking John McCain is whether he has stopped serving his party’s economic Kool-Aid, which has taken such a toll on working families, and is ready to change his ways. Is his sudden populist transformation the real thing or just a mirage?

In the gale force winds of a full-fledged economic hurricane, it’s fair to ask Senator McCain whether he still considers himself a conservative, small government, anti-regulation, free-market zealot. Or whether he’s seen the light.

FDR Solves The Mortgage Crisis

FDR Solves The Mortgage Crisis

Sept. 13, 2007

---

(The New Republic) This column was written by Andrew Jakabovics.

---

"Here should be an objective of Government itself, to provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as it is now giving to the large banks and corporations."--Franklin D. Roosevelt, April 7, 1932

The burgeoning home-mortgage crisis of 2007 bears an eerie resemblance to financial conditions 75 years ago, when FDR realized that only the U.S. government could forestall a wave of home foreclosures by directly helping "the little fellow." Today, homeowners can only hope that something akin to Roosevelt's New Deal answer to the home-loan crisis of the 1930s--direct lending to homeowners--is embraced by policymakers once again.

Today's "exotic" home loans have a lot in common with most of the loans available for borrowers in the 1920s, which were short-term, non-amortizing (interest-only) loans with a balloon payment due at the end. Because the loans were non-amortizing, no equity was built up in the home with the monthly payments. Homeowners would only build up equity through rising house prices.

The mortgage structure through the Roaring Twenties was predicated on the expectation that a refinancing into a new loan would be available at the time of the balloon payment; and until October 1929, it was. Those same refinancing expectations in the first years of the 21st century led many borrowers to take out loans they simply could not afford from lenders who convinced them home prices would only go up. Some of today's troubled borrowers never understood what would happen to their loans. Many others simply trusted that their lenders would never steer them into a loan they would ultimately be unable to pay.

In 1931, when the first batches of three-year mortgages issued in 1928 and five-year mortgages from 1926 came due, few banks were able or willing to issue new loans, leading to 1.4 percent of all U.S. homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure in a single year. Through the end of the second quarter of 2007, according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, 1.23 percent of home mortgages newly entered foreclosure, which could mean that by the end of the year, 1.6 percent of all homeowners may well enter foreclosure proceedings.

Those percentages, then and now, may not seem particularly high, but they mask the destruction of wealth in neighborhoods across the country plagued by a proliferation of foreclosure signs. A middle-class house worth $5,000 in 1926 was worth only $3,300 in 1932. As the historian Kenneth T. Jackson noted, "the victims were often middle-class families who were experiencing impoverishment for the first time." Today, homeowners with wealth in their homes and only a few years left to pay on a traditional mortgage suddenly are faced with the prospect of plummeting home values. The culprit is the glut of homes for sale in their neighborhood made available both by lenders selling off foreclosed properties and by neighbors who are facing a rate reset they can't pay. Loans issued between 2004 and 2006 that are resetting this year have an average 42 percent increase in the monthly payment. A $1,500 mortgage payment will jump to over $2,100, and it may go higher with future resets.

History never repeats itself exactly, yet the sudden credit crunch last month and the general tightening of lending standards could well have effects similar to the banking crisis of the Depression. Homeowners counting on the opportunity to refinance suddenly face a payment they can't make. They find themselves on a slippery slope to delinquency and foreclosure as home values shift beneath their feet.

And the historical analogy to the Great Depression's mortgage crisis is apt in more ways than one. Faced with a widespread threat to homeownership, Roosevelt put forth a bold plan, calling for legislation to protect small homeowners from foreclosure and embracing a national policy to preserve homeownership. He learned from President Hoover's ineffectual 1932 Federal Home Loan Bank Act, which created a credit reserve for lenders and yielded only three approved loans out of 41,000 applications, that the solution was not with the creditors, but with direct assistance to homeowners.

FDR's resulting legislation established the Home Owners' Loan Corporation. The HOLC was authorized to issue new loans to replace the existing liens of homeowners in default. Instead of a short-term, interest-only loan, the HOLC loans would be fully amortizing over 15 years, meaning that when the last payment was made, the borrower owed nothing further to the bank and owned the home free of any debt. HOLC was far more patient with borrowers than the banks could have been, and delinquent loans got individualized attention, including debt counseling, family meetings, and budgeting help.

It is important to recognize that HOLC loans were never considered an entitlement program. Of the nearly 1.9 million applications to HOLC between June 1933 and June 1935, half were withdrawn or rejected. HOLC provided widespread assistance, but homeowners had to demonstrate a determination to meet their financial obligations and a history of doing so.

In order for the HOLC to issue a loan, it needed to pay off the existing liens. This potentially posed a serious problem, as HOLC loans were never to exceed 80 percent of the appraised value of a property, which was often below the outstanding loan balance. The HOLC had to convince the existing lenders to accept those losses. The HOLC was able to succeed because it made lenders an offer they couldn't refuse: A government guarantee of four percent interest in the amount of the new loan, which was worth far more (even at a reduced valuation) than the zero percent they were effectively getting from delinquent loans. Add to that the cost of servicing, foreclosure, and disposition, the decision was a no-brainer.

HOLC actively issued loans for only three years, between 1933 and 1936. It was a short-term entity designed to deal specifically with the problem of widespread foreclosures. After 1936, the HOLC existed as a shell of its former self, servicing existing loans and disposing of the properties it acquired through foreclosure. The HOLC was liquidated in 1951 at a small profit. Despite its short active lifespan, its innovations have had a long-lasting impact, from the government-insured loans offered by HOLC's successor, the Federal Housing Administration, to the long-term, fully amortizing "conforming" loans offered to most home buyers.

That's the kind of leadership needed today. The U.S. home mortgage marketplace of the 21st century resembles the 1930s not at all, yet the expectations of President Bush, financial regulators and some congressional leaders that creditors will rescue borrowers are still misplaced. Most banks and other lenders today only briefly keep the mortgages they make before onselling those loans to Wall Street, which repackages them into mortgage-backed securities for sale to institutional investors worldwide. Unfortunately for most Americans facing delinquency and foreclosure (and their neighbors, who are as susceptible to losing their equity in falling markets), the proposals to help homeowners center on reopening the flow of mortgage funds, be it through an expanded role for the Federal Housing Administration or more latitude for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize more and bigger loans.

Expanding the amount of credit available for home loans is not going to be helpful in the short term, as the homeowners who need the most help are unlikely to be deemed creditworthy for refinancing. By directly lending to homeowners, we also circumvent the very real moral hazard of creating incentives for lenders to engage once again in the behaviors that put homeowners at risk. The president and Congress, therefore, must focus on the needs of homeowning neighborhoods and work from there. We have a proud history in this country of directly aiding families at risk of losing their homes through no fault of their own in order to preserve neighborhood wealth created through homeownership; it is time we learned from it.

Economists estimate that each foreclosure within an eighth of a mile corresponds to a 0.9 percent decrease in house value. Neighborhoods with high rates of vacant properties attract violent crime and are more prone to fires, both of which threaten neighborhood stability and significantly drain municipal resources. Given that many of the homes most at risk of foreclosure are concentrated in less expensive neighborhoods, the threat of eroding the wealth of low- and middle-income families is quite real.

Moreover, as the threat of eroding house prices looms larger, a neighborhood's downward spiral can be hastened by panicked homeowners willing to take any offer before their house becomes nearly worthless. By providing direct assistance to homeowners through a government entity modeled on the HOLC but with the ability to negotiate the complexities of the present securitization process, we can eliminate the panic and stabilize neighborhoods in addition to helping individual homeowners.

Most of the time, financial marketplaces efficiently intermediate between home loan borrowers, lenders and investors, but sometimes preserving neighborhood wealth requires an old-fashioned solution. That time may well be at hand.

By Andrew Jakabovics
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion and analysis.

200 former U.S. diplomats endorse Obama

Published: Sept. 28, 2008 at 10:33 PM

CHICAGO, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- More than 200 former U.S. diplomats have signed a statement announcing their support for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The former diplomats and ambassadors signed the statement before the Friday debate between Obama and Republican nominee John McCain.

"We are supporting Senator Barack Obama because of his judgment, experience, and ability to inspire people to come together around a common purpose," the letter said. "Senator Obama's talents offer an historic opportunity; for the sake of America's security and standing in the world, we must seize it."

The letter, signed by officials from both major political parties, said the foreign policies of the Bush administration have diminished America's alliances abroad.

"As former diplomats, we believe it is past time that we had a President with the judgment and confidence -- in himself, our diplomatic corps, and our values -- to talk directly to America's adversaries with due preparation but without preconditions," the letter said.

The signatories include former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, former National Security Adviser Richard Clarke and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/28/200_former_US_diplomats_endorse_Obama/UPI-58941222655586/

Zakaria: McCain's VP decision is 'fundamentally irresponsible'

Editor's note: Fareed Zakaria is a foreign affairs analyst who hosts "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" on CNN at 1 p.m. ET Sundays.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a column appearing in Newsweek, world affairs expert and author Fareed Zakaria said he thinks it would be best for Republican presidential hopeful John McCain if Gov. Sarah Palin bowed out as his vice presidential running mate.

Zakaria says McCain did not put the country first in making his V.P. choice, and he says Palin is not qualified to lead the United States.

CNN spoke to him about his commentary titled, "Palin is ready? Please."

CNN: What did you initially think when Sarah Palin was announced as the Republican vice presidential nominee?

Zakaria: I was a bit surprised -- as I think most people were. But I was willing to give her a chance. And I thought her speech at the convention was clever and funny. But once she began answering questions about economics and foreign policy, it became clear that she has simply never thought about these subjects before and is dangerously ignorant and unprepared for the job of vice president, let alone president. Watch Zakaria slam Sarah Palin »

CNN: You don't think she is qualified?

Zakaria: No. Gov. Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological mantras that she repeats and repeats as long as she can. But if forced off those rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly -- nonsense. Just listen to her response to Katie Couric's question about the bailout. It's gibberish -- an emptying out of catchphrases about economics that have nothing to do with the question or the topic. It's scary to think that this person could be running the country.

Here is their exchange:

Katie Couric: Why isn't it better, Gov. Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

Gov. Sarah Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the -- it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

CNN: But Dan Quayle wasn't very qualified and that didn't seem to matter, did it?

Zakaria: This is way beyond Dan Quayle. Quayle was a lightweight who was prone to scramble his words, or say things that sounded weird, but you almost always knew what he meant. One of his most famous miscues was to the United Negro College Fund when he said, "What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all." Now he was trying to play off a famous ad that the group used to run, "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste." And he screwed it up in a funny way. But read Gov. Palin's answers and it does appear that she doesn't have any understanding about the topic under discussion.

CNN: But she has a lot of supporters.

Zakaria: Look, I'm not saying that she is not a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. It is just we are talking about a person who should be ready to lead the United States at a moment's notice. She has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start.

CNN: Does it make you concerned about Sen. McCain as a president?

Zakaria: Yes, and I say this with sadness because I greatly admire John McCain, a man of intelligence, honor and enormous personal and political courage. However, for him to choose Sara Palin to be his running mate is fundamentally irresponsible. He did not put the country first with this decision. Whether it is appropriate or not, considering Sen. McCain's age most people expected to have a vice presidential candidate who would be ready to step in at a moment's notice. The actuarial odds of that happening are significant, something like a one-in-five chance.

All AboutSarah Palin • John McCain • National Economy

On Bailout, Candidates Were Surely Themselves

September 29, 2008

Political Memo

By PATRICK HEALY

It was classic John McCain and classic Barack Obama who grappled with the $700 billion bailout plan over the last week: Mr. McCain was by turns action-oriented and impulsive as he dive-bombed targets, while Mr. Obama was measured and cerebral and inclined to work the phones behind the scenes.

Mr. McCain, who came of age in a chain-of-command culture, showed once again that he believes that individual leaders can play a catalytic role and should use the bully pulpit to push politicians. Mr. Obama, who came of age as a community organizer, showed once again that he believes several minds are better than one, and that, for all of his oratorical skill, he is wary of too much showmanship.

For Republicans, Mr. McCain’s performance proved mixed, however. His quick call to fire the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, then his decision to suspend his campaign and return to Washington even though he lacked an alternative to the bailout, risked making him look impetuous in a moment of crisis. He comes out of this without an easily definable role or set of obvious results, though his top advisers said he had bought time for House Republicans to raise their own concerns.

On Capitol Hill, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, said that Mr. McCain’s support had been critical to bringing the Republicans into the negotiations. Mr. Boehner said that without him, “They would have run over me like a freight train.”

For Democrats, the episode was one more reminder that Mr. Obama was more analyzer-in-chief than firebrand — though in this case, they gave him high marks for his style. Still, given concerns among Americans about the economy, Mr. Obama risked seeming too cool and slow to exert leadership.

Aides and political allies to both men agreed Sunday that perhaps no episode thus far in the campaign better demonstrated how they would approach managing problems as president. Their instincts, temperaments, and leadership traits were in the spotlight in Washington, as well as their limitations and foibles — characteristics that also showed through stylistically in Friday night’s debate.

Both candidates said on Sunday that they were inclined to vote for the bailout even though they were not completely happy with it. McCain advisers also began making the case that Mr. McCain had emerged as an important ally for House Republicans, while Mr. Obama criticized Mr. McCain for initially showing a “Katrina-like response” to the economic crisis when he said that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong.”

As Mr. McCain appeared as a man in motion last week, Mr. Obama’s cautious side was on clear display. He loathes gambits as too unpredictable, which is why, aides say, he would have never suspended his presidential campaign like Mr. McCain did on Wednesday to join in the bailout negotiations in Washington.

Mr. McCain, meanwhile, thrives in the fray, which accounts for his lead role in the Gang of 14 talks on judicial nominations and in legislative wrangling over campaign finance reform and immigration. Yet Republicans acknowledge that no McCain imprint appears to be on the final bailout package moving through Congress, and some of them were trying Sunday to put the best face on his role by casting him as a man of action.

“By halting his campaign, he magnified just how important this bailout was to the nation, and showed that he would approach a crisis by locking everyone in a room and keeping them there until they had a solution,” said Anthony V. Carbonetti, a Republican political adviser to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York.

“And with Obama, you saw a kind of laissez-faire attitude — ‘you guys know it’s important, deal with it,’ ” Mr. Carbonetti added.

Yet many Democrats — even some who have been critical of Mr. Obama in the past — said they were impressed with his performance over the last week, and described Mr. McCain as substituting theatrics for leadership. Mr. Obama consulted with Bush administration officials and Congressional Democrats, emphasized his priorities for the bailout, and told both sides that he was willing to do whatever would be most helpful to reach a bipartisan bailout agreement.

“Obama’s approach to this has been very Obama — measured, cool and thoughtful, which I hope is what the country wants more than theatrical anger,” said Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who had supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

“The more yelling and screaming you do, you get accused of grandstanding,” Mr. Rendell said. “Personally, I thought McCain looked bizarre when he came out of the box saying he wanted to fire the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

Indeed, Mr. McCain’s early call to replace Christopher Cox, the S.E.C. chairman, drew scathing reviews from some conservatives as brash and wrong-headed. He drew fire on Wednesday from one high-profile friend, David Letterman, for canceling a guest spot on Mr. Letterman’s show that night because he had to rush to Washington — even though Mr. McCain stayed in New York until Thursday for other media and public events.

If Mr. McCain’s moves were attention-grabbing, they also invited mockery: On “Saturday Night Live” this weekend, an actor portraying Mr. McCain proposed to Mr. Obama that they both suspend their campaigns and instead hold a series of pie-eating contests instead of debates.

“It’s what, in my campaign, we call a stunt or a gimmick — something to shake up the race,” the McCain character said.

Yet for Mr. McCain, a theatrical move in the short term has often proved to be the preferable strategy, even if the likely results were far from clear.

He surprised many in August by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — a move that delighted conservatives at the Republican convention the next week but has raised concerns more recently as Ms. Palin has struggled to explain basic foreign policy views. Earlier that month, too, Mr. McCain sent envoys to Georgia to examine that nation’s conflict with Russia — a grand act that appeared to do nothing to affect the military action except to give Mr. McCain a platform on it.

Mr. McCain’s pronouncements on Georgia that week were in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama’s choice to monitor the Georgian-Russian hostilities from his Hawaiian vacation spot. Neither Democrats nor Obama aides expressed concern that Mr. Obama appeared remote from the conflict; they simply said there was little concrete he could do to make a difference.

Likewise, in their debate on Friday night, Mr. Obama chose at several points to express agreement with Mr. McCain on national security threats overseas, instead of counterpunching.

Mr. Obama does not tend to take fiery or partisan swipes just for the sake of them. Yet it is unclear if this more serene style will ultimately excite or win over voters in swing states.

Voters list the economy as a priority, and Mr. Obama’s placid public approach may not mesh with the anger that many of them feel. But Democrats say that in the long run, Mr. Obama’s approach will appear as an appealing alternative to President Bush and his choice as a successor, Mr. McCain.

“After eight years of Bush’s cavalier attitude toward serious and complex problems, people are in the market for a more thoughtful approach,” said Doug Hattaway, a Democratic communications consultant who was a spokesman on Senator Clinton’s campaign. “That’s usually dangerous for a politician trying to get elected in a ‘just do it’ culture. But the time seems to be right for Obama’s more cerebral style.”

McCain's Lost Chance

Obama Holds His Own on Foreign Policy

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, September 29, 2008; A19

September began as John McCain's month and ended as Barack Obama's. McCain's high-risk wagers aimed at shaking up the campaign turned into very bad investments. And Friday's debate eliminated McCain's best chance to deliver a knockout blow to an opponent whose most important asset may be his capacity for self-correction.

McCain is supposed to own the foreign policy issue -- and he should have owned Friday's debate. During their respective primary battles, McCain was a better debater than Obama, who could be hesitant, wordy and thrown off his stride.

But the Obama who showed up at Ole Miss was sharper and more concise than the man who frequently lost debates against his Democratic foes. He was also resolutely calm in standing his ground against McCain, whose condescension became a major talking point after the debate. If Al Gore suffered from his sighs during the 2000 debates, McCain will be remembered for his supercilious repetition of seven variations on "Senator Obama doesn't understand."

This gave special power to Obama's peroration about McCain's "wrong" judgments on going to war in Iraq. McCain's dismissal of Obama brought back memories of how advocates of the war arrogantly dismissed those who insisted (rightly, as it turned out) that the conflict would be far more difficult and costly than its architects suggested.

McCain's derisive approach may help explain why the instant polls gave Obama an edge in a debate that many pundits rated a tie -- and why women seemed especially inclined toward Obama. CNN's survey found that 59 percent of women rated Obama as having done better, with just 31 percent saying that of McCain.

An Obama adviser who was watching a "dial group" -- in which viewers turn a device to express their feelings about a debate's every moment -- said that whenever McCain lectured or attacked Obama, the Republican's ratings would drop, and the fall was especially steep among women.

But if the debate was indeed a tie -- and McCain certainly looked informed and engaged once the discussion moved from economics to foreign affairs -- this would count as a net gain for Obama. A foreign policy discussion afforded McCain his best opportunity to aggravate doubts about his foe. That opportunity is now gone.

As for the first 40 minutes devoted to the economic crisis, Obama was more forceful in addressing public anxieties. He used the occasion to tout his middle-class tax cut that a large share of the electorate doesn't even know he's proposing. Obama's campaign quickly went on the air with an ad noting that McCain did not once mention the words "middle class" during the discussion.

Thus ends a month that began with such promise for McCain. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate at the end of August created a fortnight of excitement among Republican loyalists who were less than enthusiastic about McCain. Some said Palin would also enhance his appeal to female voters and help him recast his candidacy as a maverick's crusade.

But it was a reckless choice. Palin has proved herself to be spectacularly unprepared for a national campaign and embarrassingly inarticulate and unreflective. She is held in protective custody by a campaign that trusts her less and less. A few conservatives have suggested she should be dropped from the ticket.

Then came McCain's abrupt foray into Washington's negotiations over a Wall Street bailout bill. His showy call for postponing Friday's debate was serenely rebuffed by Obama, and McCain was forced to retreat. The candidate with 26 years of congressional experience lost a test of wills to an opponent with just four years on the national stage.

And when McCain intervened in the rescue package discussions, his position on the matter was muddy. This champion of bipartisanship briefly stood up for a House Republican minority that was battling against a bipartisan accord largely accepted by his Senate Republican colleagues, and then he pulled back. The McCain who had once allied with such liberals as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold was suddenly flirting with an approach to the economic rescue that was recommended by Newt Gingrich.

The post-Labor Day period has thus brought the campaign to an unexpected point.

McCain, once the candidate of tested experience, must now battle the perception that he has become the riskier choice, a man too given to rash moves under pressure. Obama, whose very newness promised change but also raised doubts, has emerged as the cool and unruffled candidate who moves calmly but steadily forward. However one judges the first debate, it did nothing to block Obama's progress.

postchat@aol.com

McCain's Lost Chance

Obama Holds His Own on Foreign Policy

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, September 29, 2008; A19

September began as John McCain's month and ended as Barack Obama's. McCain's high-risk wagers aimed at shaking up the campaign turned into very bad investments. And Friday's debate eliminated McCain's best chance to deliver a knockout blow to an opponent whose most important asset may be his capacity for self-correction.

McCain is supposed to own the foreign policy issue -- and he should have owned Friday's debate. During their respective primary battles, McCain was a better debater than Obama, who could be hesitant, wordy and thrown off his stride.

But the Obama who showed up at Ole Miss was sharper and more concise than the man who frequently lost debates against his Democratic foes. He was also resolutely calm in standing his ground against McCain, whose condescension became a major talking point after the debate. If Al Gore suffered from his sighs during the 2000 debates, McCain will be remembered for his supercilious repetition of seven variations on "Senator Obama doesn't understand."

This gave special power to Obama's peroration about McCain's "wrong" judgments on going to war in Iraq. McCain's dismissal of Obama brought back memories of how advocates of the war arrogantly dismissed those who insisted (rightly, as it turned out) that the conflict would be far more difficult and costly than its architects suggested.

McCain's derisive approach may help explain why the instant polls gave Obama an edge in a debate that many pundits rated a tie -- and why women seemed especially inclined toward Obama. CNN's survey found that 59 percent of women rated Obama as having done better, with just 31 percent saying that of McCain.

An Obama adviser who was watching a "dial group" -- in which viewers turn a device to express their feelings about a debate's every moment -- said that whenever McCain lectured or attacked Obama, the Republican's ratings would drop, and the fall was especially steep among women.

But if the debate was indeed a tie -- and McCain certainly looked informed and engaged once the discussion moved from economics to foreign affairs -- this would count as a net gain for Obama. A foreign policy discussion afforded McCain his best opportunity to aggravate doubts about his foe. That opportunity is now gone.

As for the first 40 minutes devoted to the economic crisis, Obama was more forceful in addressing public anxieties. He used the occasion to tout his middle-class tax cut that a large share of the electorate doesn't even know he's proposing. Obama's campaign quickly went on the air with an ad noting that McCain did not once mention the words "middle class" during the discussion.

Thus ends a month that began with such promise for McCain. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate at the end of August created a fortnight of excitement among Republican loyalists who were less than enthusiastic about McCain. Some said Palin would also enhance his appeal to female voters and help him recast his candidacy as a maverick's crusade.

But it was a reckless choice. Palin has proved herself to be spectacularly unprepared for a national campaign and embarrassingly inarticulate and unreflective. She is held in protective custody by a campaign that trusts her less and less. A few conservatives have suggested she should be dropped from the ticket.

Then came McCain's abrupt foray into Washington's negotiations over a Wall Street bailout bill. His showy call for postponing Friday's debate was serenely rebuffed by Obama, and McCain was forced to retreat. The candidate with 26 years of congressional experience lost a test of wills to an opponent with just four years on the national stage.

And when McCain intervened in the rescue package discussions, his position on the matter was muddy. This champion of bipartisanship briefly stood up for a House Republican minority that was battling against a bipartisan accord largely accepted by his Senate Republican colleagues, and then he pulled back. The McCain who had once allied with such liberals as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold was suddenly flirting with an approach to the economic rescue that was recommended by Newt Gingrich.

The post-Labor Day period has thus brought the campaign to an unexpected point.

McCain, once the candidate of tested experience, must now battle the perception that he has become the riskier choice, a man too given to rash moves under pressure. Obama, whose very newness promised change but also raised doubts, has emerged as the cool and unruffled candidate who moves calmly but steadily forward. However one judges the first debate, it did nothing to block Obama's progress.

postchat@aol.com

John McCain's no friend to veterans

BY ROBERT DIAMOND

Friday, September 26th 2008, 4:00 AM

As soon as Thursday night, Barack Obama and John McCain are scheduled to meet for their first presidential debate. They will talk about national security, Iraq, Afghanistan, the strains on our military readiness and, I hope, they will talk about our veterans.

As both an Iraq war veteran and a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, I am intimately familiar with John McCain's valiant and honorable military service. McCain, as far as I am concerned, is a true American hero. Unfortunately, his heroism in the Vietnam War has been allowed to morph into a patently false "record" - ceaselessly touted by his campaign - that McCain is a strong advocate for veterans. That could not be further from the truth.

Earlier this month, McCain delivered his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention - the most important speech of his long political career. In a nearly 50-minute address, with millions of Americans watching, McCain could not find 10 seconds to talk about one of the most important issues facing this country - caring for our returning veterans. He did not mention the word "veteran" once.

In fact, the only time the issue of veterans came up during that speech was when McCain was interrupted by protesters from the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. McCain dismissed them as "ground noise and static."

Yes, that was just the convention - and, you might argue, more about symbolism than substance. But it only gets worse when one looks at McCain's voting record. The nation's largest Iraq veterans organization, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan organization, grades members of Congress on how they vote on legislation that "affect[s] troops, veterans or military families." This includes votes on such issues as expanded health care services for veterans and reservists, military death benefits, traumatic brain injury research and adequate rest for service members between deployments, just to name a few.

Of the 155 votes tracked by IAVA since 9/11, John McCain received a grade of "D." While no senator earned a grade of "A," Barack Obama got a "B ."

A separate veterans group, Disabled American Veterans - with over 1.4 million members - maintains a "Federal Vote Scorecard." DAV is also a nonpartisan organization and says the purpose of its scorecard is "simply to report the facts - how [legislators] voted on issues important to us and our members."

McCain's score in the last Congress? 20%. Obama's? 80%. (In the previous two Congresses, McCain's record goes a little bit higher - to 25% and 33%, respectively; Obama's is 92% for 2006; in 2004 he was not yet elected to the Senate.)

What led to these scores? Among other things, McCain's vote in March of 2006 against increasing veterans' medical services funding by $1.5 billion by closing corporate tax loopholes. Obama voted for it. Another was in April 2006, when McCain was one of only 13 senators to vote against an amendment to add $430 million for the Department of Veteran Affairs for medical services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. Obama voted in favor of it.

But McCain says he has a perfect record on veterans issues. He said so on the campaign trail. FactCheck.org decided to examine this claim. What did it find? "[McCain] said that he had 'a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion.' But we called both of those groups, and they told us they don't even release congressional scorecards. In fact, the American Legion's constitution prohibits it."

My favorite was McCain's opposition to the new GI Bill that President Bush - after originally threatening to veto - signed into law this past June 30. The new GI Bill will cover veterans for the full cost of education at any public school in the country and many private schools (it's capped at the cost of the most expensive public school in the respective state). It provides upfront tuition payments directly to the school, a book/supply stipend of $1,000 per year and a monthly living stipend.

When it came time to vote on this legislation, McCain didn't show up. He stayed in California to attend a fund-raiser.

I would never challenge John McCain's proud record of service to his country. But his voting record has not helped address the shoddy state of our VA system, the lack of preparation to handle today's combat wounded who have returned home with blast-trauma injuries or the failure to provide adequate posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and treatment for all our service members.

It's time for Americans to look past rhetoric and biography. In the past seven years, this country has sent our military to fight in two major wars. John McCain has stood up to defend those wars. He has yet to stand up for veterans once they've returned home.

Diamond, a native New Yorker, is the chairman of New York Veterans for Obama. He served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and is a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.

Obama Is Right: McCain Was Wrong

Credit Crisis Has Given Obama a Distinct Edge

McCain Ready for A Change Of Subject
Credit Crisis Has Given Obama a Distinct Edge

By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 28, 2008; A01

In the two weeks that the Wall Street financial crisis has dominated the political debate, the presidential race has shifted from what had been essentially a dead heat to one in which Sen. Barack Obama has opened up a narrow but perceptible advantage nationally, as well as in a number of battleground states.

The burden now falls on Sen. John McCain to reverse the effects of the focus on the economy, and to keep the contest close enough so that a dominant debate performance, a gaffe by Obama or some outside event can shift the momentum back to him.

Although Friday's debate in Oxford, Miss., produced no outright winner, strategists in both parties said the coming weeks, which will include three more debates -- two between McCain and Obama and the third between vice presidential candidates Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. -- could be decisive in determining whether the election remains on a trajectory favorable to Obama or shifts back toward too-close-to-call status.

McCain advisers are well aware that the past two weeks have brought a shift in the race, but they say that between now and Election Day, there is plenty of time for the fortunes of the two candidates to change again.

"The first lesson of this campaign, going back to 2007, is not to be panicky or reactive to poll numbers," said McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt. "A few weeks back, we had a clear lead, albeit a narrow one, and there were a lot of people on the Democratic side haranguing the Obama campaign in the sense of panic. We always understood not only would that lead dissipate but bounce back the other way and then bounce back again."

For McCain, the danger is that previously undecided voters will become comfortable that Obama is ready to be president. The longer Obama can hold even a small lead, the more difficult it will be for McCain to reverse it, absent something unexpected happening. McCain's best hope, strategists said, is for the crisis atmosphere around Wall Street and the credit markets to lessen, allowing the campaign debate to focus on other questions as much as the economy. The agreement reached early this morning on Capitol Hill about a Wall Street relief package may help with that.

Schmidt said the campaign will press two arguments as forcefully as possible in the coming days. One is that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief and that, in a time of two wars, "his policies will make the world more dangerous and America less secure." Second, he said, McCain will argue that, in a time of economic crisis, Obama will raise taxes and spending and "will make our economy worse."

Obama signaled yesterday that his focus will be on painting McCain as out of touch on the economy. Appearing at a rally in Greensboro, N.C., Obama ripped into his rival's remarks about the economy during the debate -- but more for what McCain didn't say.

"The truth is, through 90 minutes of debating, John McCain had a lot to say about me, but he had nothing to say about you. He didn't even say the words 'middle class.' Didn't say the words 'working people,' " Obama told a cheering crowd of about 20,000 people on a rainy morning. He later appeared in Fredericksburg, Va., and spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner in Washington. [Story, A14.]

The middle-class omission also is the subject of an Obama television ad that the campaign rolled out yesterday, asserting: "McCain doesn't get it. Barack Obama does."

McCain, who returned to Washington immediately after the debate, remained largely out of sight yesterday. Aides said he was working the phones with congressional leaders, monitoring the pace of negotiations over a financial rescue package that officials hope to have ready for a vote by the beginning of the week. They argued that without his input, the package under consideration earlier last week was doomed to fail.

But strategists said McCain will be challenged to reverse current trends, particularly in a year in which voters are gloomy about the state of the country and are looking for a change in direction after eight years of President Bush's policies.

"What begins to happen is that the margin that's been in place begins to solidify more and more," said Matthew Dowd, who was Bush's chief strategist in 2004 and is now an independent analyst. "There's only two ways this can go," he added. "It will either solidify with an Obama four- to five- point lead, or it will loosen and go back to close and go back and forth."

Both campaigns launched a war of ads and news releases yesterday as each side claimed victory in their first general-election showdown, held at the University of Mississippi.

The McCain campaign e-mailed four "volumes" of reviews about his performance, described by various pundits and editorial writers as "emphatic," "assured" and "authoritative."

Obama aides said the Democratic nominee cleared a major hurdle with undecided voters by projecting confidence, giving crisp answers and standing his ground when pressed by McCain on a range of foreign policy issues, including the fate of Iraq and Afghanistan and the challenges posed by Russia and Iran.

Overnight polls suggested Obama had won, although the samples in one case were tilted toward Democrats.

Obama and McCain will not debate again until Oct. 7, but Palin and Biden will meet in St. Louis on Thursday for their only debate. Palin had an immediate and positive effect on the race when she was chosen, but that has dissipated over the past two weeks. She struggled through an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric last week, and polls show rising unfavorable ratings, including among independent female voters. As a result, Palin faces a major test in the debate against the more experienced Biden.

The second presidential debate will have a town hall format, which makes combat between the two candidates more difficult. If the race stands essentially as it does today by the time of the third debate on Oct. 15, strategists predict a fierce and confrontational 90 minutes. By then it will become clear whether McCain made the right decision politically to suspend most campaign activities last week and return to Washington to get involved in the financial package negotiations. Aides hope that, if Congress passes a rescue package, McCain's actions will be seen as having contributed to the deal. More important, they hope an agreement will push the economy story off the front pages for a while.

Their hope is to keep things fluid for the next few weeks.

"You've got to get it over with and start having a normal campaign," one McCain adviser said. "I think you can't make any campaign judgments until this is over.

Murray, traveling with the Obama campaign, reported from North Carolina.

McCain’s Suspension Bridge to Nowhere

September 28, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

By FRANK RICH

WHAT we learned last week is that the man who always puts his “country first” will take the country down with him if that’s what it takes to get to the White House.

For all the focus on Friday night’s deadlocked debate, it still can’t obscure what preceded it: When John McCain gratuitously parachuted into Washington on Thursday, he didn’t care if his grandstanding might precipitate an even deeper economic collapse. All he cared about was whether he might save his campaign. George Bush put more deliberation into invading Iraq than McCain did into his own reckless invasion of the delicate Congressional negotiations on the bailout plan.

By the time he arrived, there already was a bipartisan agreement in principle. It collapsed hours later at the meeting convened by the president in the Cabinet Room. Rather than help try to resuscitate Wall Street’s bloodied bulls, McCain was determined to be the bull in Washington’s legislative china shop, running around town and playing both sides of his divided party against Congress’s middle. Once others eventually forged a path out of the wreckage, he’d inflate, if not outright fictionalize, his own role in cleaning up the mess his mischief helped make. Or so he hoped, until his ignominious retreat.

The question is why would a man who forever advertises his own honor toy so selfishly with our national interest at a time of crisis. I’ll leave any physiological explanations to gerontologists — if they can get hold of his complete medical records — and any armchair psychoanalysis to the sundry McCain press acolytes who have sorrowfully tried to rationalize his erratic behavior this year. The other answers, all putting politics first, can be found by examining the 24 hours before he decided to “suspend” campaigning and swoop down on the Capitol to save America from the Sunnis or the Shia, or whoever perpetrated all those credit-default swaps.

To put these 24 hours in context, you must remember that McCain not only knows little about the economy but that he has not previously expressed any urgency about its meltdown. It was on Sept. 15 — the day after his former idol Alan Greenspan pronounced the current crisis a “once-in-a-century” catastrophe — that McCain reaffirmed for the umpteenth time that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” As recently as Tuesday he had not yet even read the two-and-a-half-page bailout proposal first circulated by Hank Paulson last weekend. “I have not had a chance to see it in writing,” he explained. (Maybe he was waiting for it to arrive by Western Union instead of PDF.)

Then came Black Wednesday — not for the stock market, which was holding steady in anticipation of Washington action, but for McCain. As the widely accepted narrative has it, his come-to-Jesus moment arrived that morning, when he awoke to discover that Barack Obama had surged ahead by nine percentage points in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. The McCain campaign hastily suited up its own pollster to belittle that finding — only to be drowned out by a fusillade of new polls from Fox News, Marist and CNN/Time, each with numbers closer to Post/ABC than not. Obama was rising most everywhere except the moose strongholds of Alaska and Montana.

That was not the only bad news raining down on McCain. His camp knew what Katie Couric had in the can from her interview with Sarah Palin. The first excerpt was to be broadcast by CBS that night, and it had to be upstaged fast.

But even that wasn’t the top political threat McCain faced last week. Bigger still was the mounting evidence of the seamless synergy between his campaign and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage monsters at the heart of the housing bust that set off our current calamity. Most of all, it was the fast-moving events on that front that precipitated his panic to roll out his diversionary, over-the-top theatrics on Wednesday.

What we were learning — through The New York Times, Newsweek and Roll Call — was ugly. Davis Manafort, the lobbying firm owned by McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, had received $15,000 a month from Freddie Mac from late 2005 until last month. This was in addition to the $30,000 a month that Davis was paid from 2000 to 2005 by the so-called Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy organization that he headed and that was financed by Freddie and Fannie to fight regulation.

The McCain campaign tried to pre-emptively deflect such revelations by reviving the old Rove trick of accusing your opponent of your own biggest failings. It ran attack ads about Obama’s own links to the mortgage giants. But neither of the former Freddie-Fannie executives vilified in those ads, Franklin Raines and James Johnson, had worked at those companies lately or are currently associated with the Obama campaign. (Raines never worked for the campaign at all.) By contrast, Davis is the tip of the Freddie-Fannie-McCain iceberg. McCain’s senior adviser, his campaign’s vice chairman, his Congressional liaison and the reported head of his White House transition team all either made fortunes from recent Freddie-Fannie lobbying or were players in firms that did.

By Wednesday, the McCain campaign’s latest tactic for countering this news — attacking the press, especially The Times — was paying diminishing returns. Davis abruptly canceled his scheduled appearance that day at a weekly reporters’ lunch sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor, escaping any further questions by pleading that he had to hit the campaign trail. (He turned up at the “21” Club in New York that night, wining and dining McCain fund-raisers.)

It’s then that Angry Old Ironsides McCain suddenly emerged to bark that our financial distress was “the greatest crisis we’ve faced, clearly, since World War II” — even greater than the Russia-Georgia conflict, which in August he had called the “first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the cold war.” Campaigns, debates and no doubt Bristol Palin’s nuptials had to be suspended immediately so he could ride to the rescue, with Joe Lieberman as his Robin.

Yet even as he huffed and puffed about being a “leader,” McCain took no action and felt no urgency. As his Congressional colleagues worked tirelessly in Washington, he malingered in New York. He checked out the suffering on Main Street (or perhaps High Street) by conferring with Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the Hillary-turned-McCain supporter best known for her fabulous London digs and her diatribes against Obama’s elitism. McCain also found time to have a well-publicized chat with one of those celebrities he so disdains, Bono, and to give a self-promoting public speech at the Clinton Global Initiative.

There was no suspension of his campaign. His surrogates and ads remained on television. Huffington Post bloggers, working the phones, couldn’t find a single McCain campaign office that had gone on hiatus. This “suspension” ruse was an exact replay of McCain’s self-righteous “suspension” of the G.O.P. convention as Hurricane Gustav arrived on Labor Day. “We will put aside our political hats and put on our American hats,” he declared then, solemnly pledging that conventioneers would help those in need. But as anyone in the Twin Cities could see, the assembled put on their party hats instead, piling into the lobbyists’ bacchanals earlier than scheduled, albeit on the down-low.

Much of the press paid lip service to McCain’s new “suspension” as it had to its prototype. In truth, the only campaign activity McCain did drop was a Wednesday evening taping with David Letterman. Don’t mess with Dave. Picking up where the “The View” left off in speaking truth to power, the uncharacteristically furious host hammered the absent McCain on and off for 40 minutes, repeatedly observing that the cancellation “didn’t smell right.”

In a journalistic coup de grâce worthy of “60 Minutes,” Letterman went on to unmask his no-show guest as a liar. McCain had phoned himself that afternoon to say he was “getting on a plane immediately” to deal with the grave situation in Washington, Letterman told the audience. Then he showed video of McCain being touched up by a makeup artist while awaiting an interview by Couric that same evening at another CBS studio in New York.

It’s not hard to guess why McCain had blown off Letterman for Couric at the last minute. The McCain campaign’s high anxiety about the disastrous Couric-Palin sit-down was skyrocketing as advance excerpts flooded the Internet. By offering his own interview to Couric for the same night, McCain hoped (in vain) to dilute Palin’s primacy on the “CBS Evening News.”

Letterman’s most mordant laughs on Wednesday came when he riffed about McCain’s campaign “suspension”: “Do you suspend your campaign? No, because that makes me think maybe there will be other things down the road, like if he’s in the White House, he might just suspend being president. I mean, we’ve got a guy like that now!”

That’s no joke. Bush has so little credibility he can govern only through surrogates (Paulson is the new Petraeus). When he spoke about the economic crisis in prime time earlier that same night, he registered as no more than an irritating speed bump en route to “David Blaine: Dive of Death.”

It’s that utter power vacuum that gave McCain the opening to pull his potentially catastrophic display of economic “leadership” last week. He may be the first presidential candidate in our history to risk wrecking the country even before being voted into the Oval Office.

Obama gaining ground in key states

September 28, 2008

JUST five weeks from election day, Democrat Barack Obama is making ground in battleground states and slowly tilting the US political map in his direction, new polling data shows.

But John McCain is strong in strategic states like Ohio and Pennsylvania that can offer a plausible path to the 270 electoral votes needed for the White House if combined with Republican bastions and a few swing states.

New polls over the last week and electoral projections by news organisations suggest Obama may be accelerating as the financial meltdown bites.

The latest electoral map by independent RealClearPolitics.com has 228 electoral votes solid or leaning towards Obama, with 163 leaning or solid for McCain, with 147 others a toss up.

CNN's latest map awards 240 electoral votes to Obama and 200 to McCain with 98 up for grabs.
But McCain appears to be running strong in Ohio (20 electoral votes), often the bellwether for presidential hopes, and is pressuring Obama in neighboring Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes).

And he seems to have thwarted Obama's hope to put up a fight in some solid Republican ground, as several states like Montana and North Dakota seem now headed solidly into his column.

Battle is being waged as far northeast as New Hampshire (four electoral votes), in the industrial midwest, and Nevada (five votes) and Colorado in the west (nine votes).

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe predicted the Democrat would get a boost in the limited number of key swing states which can go Republican or Democratic by his showing in last Friday night's debate.

"We like where we are in these battleground states,'' he said.

"We think states like Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, to name a few, have really become stronger for us in the last couple of weeks.''

Many experts believe that the election, like it did in 2004, could come down to Ohio.

"I think it will be the state of Ohio that obviously determines who the next president of the United States is,'' McCain said in the state Tuesday.

"The last person who succeeded in becoming president of the United States without the state of Ohio was Jack Kennedy and that has been a long time,'' he said, referring to the 1960 election.

Ohio remains a statistical dead heat -- in a RealClearPolitics average, McCain leads by 1.2 percent, and Rasmussen polling has him also up one percent. But Obama was up by two points in a Marist poll.

McCain is appealing to conservative Democrats not yet sold on Obama for either racial or political reasons. His running mate Sarah Palin could also help among cultural conservatives.

In next-door Pennsylvania, McCain is also pressuring Obama. The Democrat leads by four percent in the RealClearPolitics average, but has gained ground in the last week.

Michigan (17 electoral votes) is also key and it is hard to see how Obama can win the White House if he cedes this normally safe Democratic hold.

The RealClearPolitics average has the Democrat up nearly seven points on an Obama spurt in the last two weeks, after the race came within a couple of points in August, before the economic crisis hit.

Quinnipiac University last week had Obama up by 48 to 44 percent in the state.

One of the most intriguing states is Florida (27 votes) which handed victory to President George W. Bush in the disputed 2000 election.

With a popular Republican governor, many analysts had also chalked Florida up to McCain, but he is now ahead only 1.6 percent in the RealClearPolitics average.

But an NBC/Mason-Dixon poll last week had Obama up by two points, in a state that has been hit hard by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, suggesting resurgent economic fears may be helping the Democrat.

Obama also leads in Colorado (nine electoral votes), according to Quinnipiac, 49-45 percent.
The same firm had him up by two points in midwestern Minnesota (10 electoral votes), a classic swing state both parties are actively targeting.

He led in Wisconsin (10 votes) by seven points in the Quinnipiac poll though his advantage has ebbed lately.

"The Wall Street meltdown while these polls were in the field probably fed the public desire for change and seemed to benefit Senator Obama,'' said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University polling institute.

In Virginia, normally a solid Republican state, Obama now leads by two points in the RealClearPolitics average.

- AFP

Register before it's too late

The last day to register to vote in Washington, DC is Monday, October 6th.

Are you registered? Are your friends and family?

If you only forward one email to your friends, family, and neighbors today -- make it this one.

Visit VoteForChange.com, our one-stop voter registration website, and register before the Washington, DC deadline.

Supporters like you have built the biggest grassroots movement in the history of American politics.

But in just eight days, the time for bringing new voices into the political process will be over.

You need to be certain that you, your friends, and your family are registered by the deadline -- it's a small step that will have a huge impact on our Election Day results.

This election is too important to leave anything to chance. Make sure your voice is heard -- and forward this email to all the people in the District you know.

Thanks,

Barack

Visit: http://DC.BarackObama.com | Email: DC@BarackObama.com

The day after his first presidential debate, Barack Obama addresses over 25,000 in Fredericksburg, VA --

The day after his first presidential debate, Barack Obama addresses over 25,000 in Fredericksburg, VA -- calling for the political and economic reform needed to fix our broken economy.

Palin’s Words Raise Red Flags

September 27, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

By BOB HERBERT

The country is understandably focused on the financial crisis. But there is another serious issue in front of us that is not getting nearly enough attention, and that’s whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be vice president — or, if the situation were to arise, president of the United States.

History has shown again and again that a vice president must be ready to assume command of the ship of state on a moment’s notice. But Ms. Palin has given no indication yet that she is capable of handling the monumental responsibilities of the presidency if she were called upon to do so.

In fact, the opposite is the case. We know that there are some parts of Alaska from which, if the day is clear and your eyesight is good, you can actually see Russia. But the infantile repetition of this bit of trivia as some kind of foreign policy bona fide for a vice presidential candidate should give us pause.

The McCain campaign has done its bizarre best to shield Ms. Palin from any sustained media examination of her readiness for the highest offices in the land, and no wonder. She has been an embarrassment in interviews.

But the idea that the voters of the United States might install someone in the vice president’s office who is too unprepared or too intellectually insecure to appear on, say, “Meet the Press” or “Face the Nation” is mind-boggling.

The alarm bells should be clanging and warning lights flashing. You wouldn’t put an unqualified pilot in the cockpit of a jetliner. The potential for catastrophe is far, far greater with an unqualified president.

The United States has been lucky in terms of the qualifications of the vice presidents who have had to step in over the last several decades for presidents who either died or, in Richard Nixon’s case, were forced to leave office. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson became extraordinary presidents in their own right. Gerald Ford successfully guided the nation through the immediate aftermath of one of the most traumatic political crises in its history.

For those who think Sarah Palin is in that league, there is no problem. But her unscripted public appearances would lead most honest observers to think otherwise. When asked again this week about her puerile linkage of foreign policy proficiency and Alaska’s proximity to Russia, this time by Katie Couric of CBS News, here is what Ms. Palin said she meant:

“That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land — boundary that we have with — Canada.”

She went on, but lost her way midsentence: “It’s funny that a comment like that was kind of made to — cari — I don’t know, you know? Reporters ...”

Ms. Couric said, “Mocked?”

“Yeah, mocked,” said Ms. Palin. “I guess that’s the word. Yeah.”

It is not just painful, but frightening to watch someone who could become the vice president of the United States stumbling around like this in an interview.

Ms. Couric asked Ms. Palin to explain how Alaska’s proximity to Russia “enhances your foreign policy credentials.”

“Well, it certainly does,” Ms. Palin replied, “because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there—”

Gently interrupting, Ms. Couric asked, “Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?”

“We have trade missions back and forth,” said Ms. Palin. “We do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to our state.”

It was surreal, the kind of performance that would generate a hearty laugh if it were part of a Monty Python sketch. But this is real life, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. As Ms. Palin was fumbling her way through the Couric interview, the largest bank failure in the history of the United States, the collapse of Washington Mutual, was occurring.

The press has an obligation to hammer away at Ms. Palin’s qualifications. If it turns out that she has just had a few bad interviews because she was nervous or whatever, additional scrutiny will serve her well.

If, on the other hand, it becomes clear that her performance, so far, is an accurate reflection of her qualifications, it would behoove John McCain and the Republican Party to put the country first — as Mr. McCain loves to say — and find a replacement for Ms. Palin on the ticket.

Message from the debate

I just finished my first debate with John McCain.

Millions of Americans finally got a chance to see us take on the fundamental choice in this election -- the change we need or more of the same.

I will provide tax cuts for the middle class, affordable health care, and a new energy economy that creates millions of jobs. John McCain wants to keep giving huge tax cuts to corporations, and he offered no solutions for the challenges Americans are facing in their daily lives.

I will end the war in Iraq responsibly, focus on defeating al Qaeda and the Taliban, and restore America's standing in the world after eight years of disastrous policies. John McCain wants an unending commitment in Iraq and fails to recognize the resurgent threat in Afghanistan.

Let's be clear: John McCain is offering nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies at home and abroad that he has supported more than 90% of the time in the Senate.

Americans need change now, and I need your help to get the word out about this movement.

In the coming days, it's going to be up to you to organize locally and reach the voters that are going to decide this election.

Now's the time to make your voice heard.

Please make a donation of $5 or more right now to support this campaign for change:

https://donate.barackobama.com/thedebate

Thank you for all that you're doing,

Barack

The results are in - BARACK OBAMA WON LAST NIGHT'S DEBATE!!

My Review from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/27/61841/6831/1015/612238

Partisans preferred their own candidate, but Independents saw Obama as the better choice. Barack's answers seemed more rational, well thought out, and he appeared more presidential overall. And part of the reason is because he didn't ATTACK McCain.

I was watching on CNN, and they had a "reaction" meter. EVERY time there was negativity, that meter went DOWN, no matter who was speaking. People realize we need a bipartisan leader for REAL change.

McCain claims to be a bipartisan leader, but he kept saying "Obama doesn't understand" and "Obama doesn't get it". On the other hand, Obama kept saying "I agree with John, BUT..." and "John is right, BUT..." showing that you don't have to attack your opponent just because you have a different opinion.

I think Obama did a wonderful job of treating McCain with respect, while showing strength and getting his messages across. Obama even let McCain get away with minor attacks while he focused on issues that are more important to all Americans.

Grades: Obama A-, McCain C+

FYI, this debate was critical for McCain. It may be difficult for him to recover.

Poll results and highlights below.

• barindersharma's diary :: ::
• 
  

Who won last night's debate?

Obama McCain
CNN 51% 38%

CBS 39% 25%

MSNBC 52% 33%

AOL 46% 44%

Wall Street Journal 58% 39%

NY Daily News 68% 32%

TIME's Report Card:

Obama McCain
Substance B+ B-
Style A C-
Offense B C+
Defense A- B-
Overall Grade A- B-

Summary - John McCain
McCain was McCain — evocative, intense, and at times emotional, but also vague, elliptical, and atonal. Failed to deliver his "country first versus Obama first" message cleanly, even when offered several opportunities. Surprisingly, did not talk much about "change," virtually ceding the dominant issue of the race.

Summary - Barack Obama
Went for a solid, consistent performance to introduce himself to the country. He did not seem nervous, tentative, or intimidated by the event, and avoided mistakes from his weak debate performances during nomination season (a professorial tone and long winded answers). Standing comfortably on the stage with his rival, he showed he belonged — evocative of Reagan, circa 1980. He was so confident by the end that he reminded his biggest audience yet that his father was from Kenya. Two more performances like that and he will be very tough to beat on Election Day.

Obama: 'You were wrong' about Iraq

Obama: Focus on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda

Obama: Priorities Beyond Iraq War

Just For Fun: Bill Maher & Chris Rock Review the Debate

Poor Sarah

September 25, 2008, 9:30 pm

By Judith Warner

I spent the past week in New York, helping my mother recover from surgery. It was a new role for me, taking care of my mom. It must, I think, have been somewhat destabilizing.

Perhaps when previously untapped wells of care-for-others are accessed, there’s no stopping the flow. Or perhaps it was just that, after five days locked in stare-downs with my mother’s cat, my eyes were playing tricks on me.

This may explain why, on Tuesday afternoon when I went to The Times Web site and saw the photo of Sarah Palin with Henry Kissinger, a funny thing happened. A wave of self-recognition and sympathy washed over me.

That’s right — self-recognition and sympathy. Rising up from a source deep in my subconscious. I saw a woman fully aware that she was out of her league, scared out of her wits, hanging on for dear life. I saw this in the sag of her back in her serious black suit, in the position of her hands, crossed modestly atop her knees, and in that “Mad Men”-era updo, ever unchanging, like a good luck charm.

Governor Palin met with former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. (Photo: Stan Honda/ AFP-Getty Images)

Why, all of a sudden, was I experiencing this upsurge of concern and kinship? I knew, on the one hand, that this new vision of Palin had to be a mirage. Only a few hours earlier, I’d nodded along knowingly as a band of old-school liberals, gathered in my mother’s apartment to cheer her through her convalescence, tore the Alaska governor apart.

“He’s probably the first Jew she’s ever met,” one older gentleman, who himself had grown up as one of the only Jews in pre-World-War-II Lincoln, Neb., said of her meeting with Kissinger.

“No, there was Joe Lieberman,” his wife reminded him, putting me in a mind of the comedian Sara Benincasa’s utterly hilarious Palin parody, as a chorus of “despicable” and “disgusting” filled the room.

My friend Mary has long said that I have a tendency to develop a Stockholm-Syndrome-like empathy for the people I write about. But I don’t think that’s what was going on here.

I think — before I blinked — I had an actual flash of insight. I think I finally stumbled upon a major piece of the puzzle of how it is that so many Republican women can so passionately claim that Sarah Palin is someone they relate to. (It’s worth noting that polls have definitively shown that John McCain’s Palin gambit has not paid off in attracting disgruntled Democratic women voters.)

That the women who agree with Palin would also like her is not surprising. But the whole business of relating? That has remained mysterious for me. What, I’ve wondered, could the kinds of suburban moms I met, for example, at the McCain-Palin rally in Virginia, some of them former professionals with just two children apiece, one a former grad student making links between Palintology and the work of Homi Bhabha, have in common with a moose-killing Alaska frontierswoman with her five kids, five colleges and pastoral protection from witchcraft?

I think I’ve seen it now. In her own folded hands, her hopeful, yet sinking posture, her eager-to-please look. Sarah Palin is their — dare I say our? — inner Elle Woods.

I had thought of Elle Woods, the heroine of the 2001 and 2003 “Legally Blonde” and “Legally Blonde 2” films, a great deal during the week that Palin became McCain’s running mate and made her appearance at the Republican National Convention. The thoughts didn’t actually originate with Palin; my daughter Julia had recently discovered the soundtrack of “Legally Blonde: the Musical” and then the movies that inspired the Broadway show.

Re-watching the movies with Julia, I’d been surprised at how time, and motherhood, had tempered my affection for Elle Woods — a frilly, frothy blonde who charms her way into Harvard Law School and takes the stodgy intellectual elitists there by storm with her Anygirl decency and non-snooty (and not-so-credible) native intelligence.

I’d found the “Legally Blonde” movies fun the first time around. Viewing them in the company of an enraptured 11-year-old, who’d declared Elle her new “role model” after months of dreaming of growing up to be a neuroscientist in a long braid and Birkenstocks, was another story.

“You can’t,” I’d admonished Julia, “accomplish anything worthwhile in life just by being pretty and cute and clever. You have to do the work.”

“It’s just fun, Mom,” she protested.

Right.

You don’t have to be perennially pretty in pink — and ditsy and cutesy and kinda maybe stupid — to have an inner Elle Woods. Many women do. I think of Elle every time I dress up my insecurities in a nice suit. So many of us today — balancing work and family, treading water financially — feel as if we’re in over our heads, getting by on appearances while quaking inside in anticipation of utter failure. Chick lit — think of Bridget Jones, always fumbling, never quite who she should be — and in particular the newer subgenre of mom lit are filled with this kind of sentiment.

You don’t have to be female to suffer from Impostor Syndrome either — I learned the phrase only recently from a male friend, who puts a darned good face forward. But I think that women today — and perhaps in particular those who once thought they could not only do it all but do it perfectly, with virtuosity — are unique in the extent to which they bond over their sense of imposture.

I saw this feeling in Palin — in a flash, on that blue couch, catty-corner to Kissinger, as her eyes pleaded for clemency from the camera. I’ll bet you anything that her admirers — the ones whose hearts really and truly swell with a sense of kinship to her — see or sense it in her, too. They know she can’t possibly do it all — the kids, the special-needs baby, the big job, the big conversations with foreign leaders. And neither could they.

The “Legally Blonde” fairy tales spin around the idea that, because Elle believes in herself, she can do anything. Never mind the steps that she skips. Never mind the fact that — in the rarefied realms of Harvard Law and Washington policymaking — she isn’t the intellectual equal of her peers. Self-confidence conquers all! (“Of course she doesn’t have that,” said Laura Bush of Palin this week when asked if the vice presidential pick had sufficient foreign policy experience. “You know, that’s not been her role. But I think she is a very quick study.”)

Real life is different, of course, from Hollywood fantasy. Incompetence has consequences, political and personal. Glorifying or glamorizing the sense of just not being up to the tasks of life has consequences, too. It means that any woman who exudes competence will necessarily be excluded from the circle of sisterhood. We can’t afford any more of that.

Frankly, I’ve come to think, post-Kissinger, post-Katie-Couric, that Palin’s nomination isn’t just an insult to the women (and men) of America. It’s an act of cruelty toward her as well.