Up The Mainstream

Please share this with any young people you know. I found it inspiring.

There is something in the air!

We are witnessing a changing of the guard, a new political epoch, a youth movement, and a call to restore the American dream. One only has to look at how the youth have been engaged during this political season to understand that a generational shift is occurring. This is the start of something much larger.

In 2004, 81.6% of registered 18-29 year olds voted in the Presidential elections, yielding at turnout of 49% of age eligible voters, according to US Census data. Only 60% of 18-29 year olds were registered to vote in that election. If more youth were registered to vote, and voted, Kerry would have won the 2004 election, as 18-24 year olds favored Democrats 56 to 43 percent.

If they just had turned out to vote . . .

Well, the message has been received.

According to a USA Today/MTV/Gallup Poll released on October 6, 2008, 75% of eligible 18-29 year olds are registered to vote in the coming Presidential election. That is an increase of 25% since 2004, the largest increase in age group voter registration in the last 50 years! If only 81.6% of these voters turns our next Tuesday, like they did in 2004, then the under 30 vote will be a record 61.2% turnout.

We live in difficult times, with an economy in the tank, decreasing jobs and security for the young, environmental havoc, a seemingly endless war, and dangerous foreign oil dependency. The youth have noticed. They want to repair the American dream.

The sorry state of our affairs and the strong activist sense of the Millennial generation, 95 million Americans born between 1978 and 2000, will drive record youth voter turnout.

The "will they vote?" question is getting trite and boring.

I am making a bold prediction: 0ver 85%, up to 90%, of registered 18-29 year olds will vote on Election Day, meaning that the overall turnout will be a minimum of 65%, a 35% increase in just four years. That is the sound of the world changing. The familiar rhetoric of the young being self-absorbed and not engaged will be put to rest. This election is about the young becoming active participants in our political process and millions of them saying, "Enough".

This video shares the sentiment of the youth, spoken in their voices. It is touching and has a meaningful call to action. It accompanies my recently released book, Generation We: How Millennial Youth Are Taking over America and Changing Our World Forever. Understanding this powerful generation is crucial, so in addition to traditionally publishing the book, we made it available as open source for free download at www.gen-we.org.
_______

Eric Greenberg
http://www.gen-we.org

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There's no doubt, Bill Clinton is all in for Obama. This is a great clip!

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My friend and sometimes colleague Lynton Vandersteen, jib operator par excellence, shared this with me. I share the sentiment so I share with you.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sarah winks, but McCain's chances still stink.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love this guy, but he annoys the heck out of me trying to be so damn cute all the time. I pray to God that he never has me in his sights.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Opie Taylor of "Andy Griffith Show" fame grew up to be the director Ron Howard. This is a very clever and low key endorsement, and entertaining to watch.

Posted by Dan Carter at 06:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With Alaskan Senator Ted Steven's recent conviction on SEVEN counts of corruption, I think it's righteous to illustrate what a great booster Sarah Palin has been for this man who never met an earmark he didn't like and is infamous for championing the, likewise infamous, "Bridge to Nowhere." There's also the matter of some $8,000 dollars that Stevens' PAC has donated to the McCain/Palin campaign. McSame and Flailin' are going to get what's coming to them on November 4th.

Posted by Dan Carter at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Of course it's on last Thursday's "Saturday Night Live" featuring Will, Tina and that guy who plays McCain

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a great example of someone who reflects my view, but not necessarily my lifestyle. Please vote no on 8 and tell your friends too!

Posted by Dan Carter at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Brian Williams poses the question to Sarah Palin...she evades (surprise surprise) with a reference Ayers...sputters and ends with an equivocating non answer. "Blinky" McSame looks on and tries not to make too many funny faces.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Keith Olberman waxes obsessively over Sarah Palin's ignorance of the job I hope she doesn't get:

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Roses are red, cave life is crappy, elect John McCain and make me quite happy" OBL

Will the "Terror Poet" Write an Ode For McCain?
By RJ Eskow
Created Oct 23 2008 - 10:51am

Two stories about Al Qaeda surfaced recently, but only one of them should be surprising. Nobody should be surprised to hear that some Al Qaeda supporters want McCain to win [1], or that they hope for a new terrorist attack that will boost his chances. The surprise came a few weeks ago, when we learned that Bin Laden recites his poetry at "weddings, ceremonies, and ... recruitment events [2]."

He does weddings?

While you wrap your mind around the image of Bin Laden as the entertainment at somebody's nuptials ("Hey, a**hole! Sing 'Feelings'!"), consider the reasons why it might be reasonable to think that Al Qaeda might want a McCain victory on November 4:

The Longer the War in Iraq Goes On, The Better It Is For Recruitment: The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a recruiting windfall for Al Qaeda and other terror organizations. Why wouldn't they support a candidate who says he wants to stay there for "50, 100 years"?
Ignorance and Confusion Help Them: A President who repeatedly confuses "Shi'ite" and "Sunni" is a public insult to Arabic culture. That's a propaganda win. And a President who subscribes to the failed national security policies of the last eight years -- years that have seen a drastic rise in worldwide terrorism -- is a boon.
Obama's Identity Is a Powerful Anti-Terror Tool: Leaving aside the relative merits of the two candidates and their policies, one simple fact remains. The election of an African-American named "Barack Hussein Obama" to the U.S. Presidency would be an enormous propaganda and diplomatic victory for the United States. "America is the Great Satan?" How could Al Qaeda's recruiters continue to make that case in the teeming slums of Karachi or the decimated neighborhoods of Fallujah when a black man with that name leads this country?
Nobody is suggesting that American voters should make their decision just to spite these villains. (My reasons for opposing them with all my heart and soul aren't just political, ideological, or moral, though they are that. They're also personal [3].)

But Americans should decide, in part based on which leader and which party will do a better job fighting terrorism and creating a more secure world. Some of us have been making this argument for some time now: The Republican record on terrorism has been one of disastrous failure -- think Katrina, but worse, on issues that range from security screenings to diplomatic containment to containing loose nukes. The bumbling is epic, the results could be apocalyptic ... and John McCain's gone along for every mile of the ride.

I could have simply satirized Bin Laden's poetry, as I did with al-Zawahiri's [4]a couple of years ago. But the stakes are too high. They could act in the next two weeks. Remember: There was a time when Bin Ladin was inundating the world with videotaped messages (at one point he was putting out more product than Ryan Adams). But he's been silent for a while now, which would give a new tape even greater impact.

Or, God forbid, they could even carry out another attack. I'm sure I wasn't the only one worried about this scenario back in June [5]. Obama's been running a pretty brilliant campaign, and presumably he has a contingency plan. But it would be wise to start addressing the terror issue immediately, by laying out the many ways GOP policies have left us vulnerable to another attack. (Al Qaeda's stronger than ever, and we haven't executed on our own plans to reduce the WMD threat. [6])

Democratic insiders still say that Bin Laden's videotape in 2004 cost Kerry three points, and thus the election (whatever your criticisms of that campaign, three points would have made the difference). As a result of Kerry's loss, the United States failed to execute on the anti-terror strategy he articulated -- a strategy of smart policing, targeted strikes, and most of all wise diplomacy.

Bin Laden may well be free today because of Republican mistakes at Tora Bora (Kerry was also correct, as most experts now agree, when he says we "outsourced" that task). John McCain, despite his undeserved reputation for national security expertise, has endorsed the failed policies that continue to put Americans at risk. It would be ironic, but certainly not unprecedented, if another Republican rode to victory on the fruits of his own failures.

From The Smirking Chinp

Posted by Dan Carter at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Carville kinda gives me the creeps and I don't really know much about Paul Begala, but I got a big kick out of this article.

"Here's the most important thing about finger-pointing: you have to start early. If you're a Republican who wants to avoid blame for the current meltdown, you cannot afford to wait until after the election is over."

James Carville and Paul Begala
Posted October 20, 2008 | 01:59 PM (EST)

Let the Blame Game Begin

As Barack Obama and the Democrats appear poised for an historic sweep, we have a message for our Republican friends: It is time to point fingers.

We are pro-finger-pointing. We disagree strongly with Gov. Sarah Palin who said recently, "Do you notice that our opponents sure have spent a lot of time looking at the past and pointing fingers? You look to the past because that's where you find blame, but we're...looking to the future, because that's where you find solutions." On the contrary, Governor, blame assignment, while much maligned, is essential to determining what went wrong and how to set it right. Besides, it's a hell of a spectator sport. Here's our primer for a little game we like to call Big Losers Always Make Excuses (BLAME):

First -- a couple of ground rules. You can't blame the press or minorities. Sure, media-bashing is part of the conservative catechism, and minority voters are likely to support Barack Obama in record numbers. But finger-pointing is only interesting when you point at someone on your team. Republicans need a civil war -- a steel cage death match -- to sort out what they stand for. Scapegoating outsiders won't purge the party of what's rotting it on the inside.

Here's the most important thing about finger-pointing: you have to start early. If you're a Republican who wants to avoid blame for the current meltdown, you cannot afford to wait until after the election is over.

The smartest people in the conservative movement are already pointing like a bird dog on a South Georgia quail hunt. David Brooks and Bill Kristol are leading the way. Mr. Brooks, representing the intellectual wing of the conservative movement, called Ms. Palin, "a fatal cancer to the Republican Party." Attaboy, Brooksie. Score one for the brainiacs.

Mr. Kristol, on the other hand, blames neither Ms. Palin nor Sen. John McCain, but rather McCain's campaign advisers, writing of the campaign: "Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic." See? That's how you do it. Kristol can't say McCain's problem is that he supported the Iraq war, (which Kristol advocated) or that he chose Sarah Palin (whom Kristol praised). So rather than play defense, Bill went on offense, blaming McCain's Steve Schmidt-led campaign. But we have a feeling this fight will only begin when the Schmidt hits the fan.

But where are the other voices? We need to hear, for example, from Karl Rove. Whom will he blame? We stipulate that Karl is a genius -- albeit a genius whose advice took Pres. Bush from a 91 percent approval rating down to 26. With the House of Bush ablaze, Karl is going to have to do some quick finger-pointing before they change they change his nickname from The Architect to The Arsonist.

How about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio personalities? They never liked McCain much -- but his campaign cratered only when he embraced their wild attacks on Sen. Obama. It was only after Mr. McCain borrowed the Limbaugh-Hannity line on Bill Ayers, only after Gov. Palin accused Mr. Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists," that the bottom fell out for Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin. We're betting the hot air boys will blame the intellectuals. After all, if you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggheads.

The Republican Party is atomizing, and each faction must participate in Project BLAME. The neocons may want to blame the theocons. The economic conservatives will likely blame the big spenders. The conflagration will be so multi-dimensional we'll need a program to sort out the players. They will need to answer fundamental questions: What does it mean to be a Republican? Do Republicans support laissez-faire or nationalized banking? Do Republicans support a balanced budget or half-trillion-dollar deficits? Do Republicans want a "humble foreign policy" like George W. Bush, or preventive war against countries that pose no threat, like, umm, George W. Bush? Are Republicans the party of limited government or a vast Medicare prescription drug benefit? Are they wary of Big Brother or eager to expand warrantless wiretaps? Do they support Christian values or torture? Are they the party that believes that cutting-edge technology can shoot a missile out of the sky or the party that believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth simultaneously?

These questions should define the 2012 GOP presidential primaries. So start blaming, all you would-be candidates. That means you, Ms. Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist. Hurry up. You only have 1,165 days left until the Iowa Caucuses.

James Carville and Paul Begala were senior strategists for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign. They'd like everyone to know it's not their fault.

Posted by Dan Carter at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that Michael Collins has had a bit too much of the conspiracy kool-aid, but I have contended all along that the media...left, right or center, wants this to be at least perceived as being close. They have to keep their viewers, listeners, readers and surfers engaged to maximize and legitimize their function...oops, that sounds like a conspiracy theory too doesn't it?

"The built in bias of the AP poll is obvious when one reviews the internals. 45% of the 800 person likely voter sample described themselves as "born again or evangelical" Christians. The remaining 55% said no."

AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
By Michael Collins
Created Oct 24 2008 - 8:12am

Setup for a Stolen Election?

AP Poll "Tightens" Race to a Point

Michael Collins [1]

The Associated press came out with a remarkable poll Thursday [2]. It claimed that the presidential race had tightened from the consistent leads Obama has shown over the past weeks to become one of those "too close to call" national elections. Their poll, conducted by German polling firm GfK, showed 44% for Obama and 43% for McCain.

How could this be? In the Real Clear Politics [3] average of major national polls, Oct 24, Obama's average lead is 7.5%. The four national polls conducted on the same days as the AP poll show an average 9.2% Obama [4] lead. The polls after the AP "tightening" effort shows an 8.7% Obama [5] lead. Clearly the AP-GfK poll is an exception or outlier, as those are called.

Yet the AP presents this as news, not opinion.

What is AP Up To?

AP acknowledges that its poll is different from the other national polls but claims it's not "alone." It isn't. There is exactly one other poll that agrees with AP out of 16 presented on the Real Clear Politics summary for Oct. 24 [6].

AP ignores the tentative nature of the poll and presents the story as "news." It begins drawing conclusions from the poll at the start of the article with "rumors" from unidentified sources;

"The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord." AP, Oct. 23, 2008 [7]

Reviewing the internal details and questions of the poll analysis by GfK [8], there are no questions about Joe the Plumber. Since this is the opening claim, mentioned again as central to the shift AP is selling us, it's important to look at how the debate was viewed by the public.

CNN and CBS both did national polls the evening of the debate. CNN reported [9] that 58% of those watching the debate thought Obama won, with only 31% favoring McCain. CBS polled uncommitted voters [10] who judged Obama the winner over McCain by 53% to 22%. This was the biggest margin for Obama for the series of three counters. What was going on with the AP sample of voters?

AP's Flawed Poll

The Associated Press is no stranger to polling. It is the lead sponsor for the national exit polls for Presidential and Congressional elections. Their recent effort in 2006 surveyed over 13,000 individual [11]s and produced detailed demographic results on voters that actually contradict their current effort.

The built in bias of the AP poll is obvious when one reviews the internals. 45% of the 800 person likely voter sample described themselves as "born again or evangelical" Christians. The remaining 55% said no (AP-GfK p. 24 [12]). AP should have known that it's 2006 exit poll showed that 36% of respondents were born again, a much lower percentage than included in their McCain friendly poll of yesterday. Also, AP should have known the 2006 exit poll the group had a 60% preference for Republican candidates over Democrats.

The election magic for McCain was complete before the presidential preferences were even sampled. The over representation of Christians and the born agains in the sample guaranteed a preference for McCain.

But there was more. A look at the poll shows that 1,101 registered voters were surveyed. The final poll consisted of 800 "likely voters" taken from that group. The registered voters divided up with 48% for Obama and 38% for McCain. The reduction of Obama support and increase for McCain indicates that McCain's voters are highly motivated to turnout while Obama's are more likely to stay home.

This contradicts the actual evidence available showing major gains in newly registered voters for Obama and huge advantages in primary turnout for Democrats compared Republicans. It's small crowds for McCain and record breaking gatherings for Obama around the country, including 35,000 in Leesburg, Virginia on Thursday Oct. 23.

In polling, the sample determines the outcome of a poll. If you bias the poll sample toward groups that are well known to support one party, then the poll will reflect that sample selection. In this case, AP, GfK did just that. They created a Republican friendly sample which displayed more motivation to vote because it started out Republican friendly.

The AP-GfK "Giveaway"

Within the details of the poll, there's a major clue that something is very wrong.

The likely voter sample was asked questions that are directly related to attacks and negative campaigning. Voters are consistent in decrying what they perceive as unfair attacks.

Note how they perceive each candidate's "attacks" during the campaign:

[13]

(AP-GfK p. 18 [14])

AP wants us to believe that the same sample that made these responses also showed lower than average support for Obama and higher for McCain even. A clear majority describe McCain and Palin as "mostly unfair" in their attacks on Obama. An equally clear majority of the sample say that the Obama and Biden attacks on McCain are "mostly fair."

Are They Preparing Us for a "Surprise?"

On a recent Larry King show, the anchors for the major networks were asked for a prediction on the presidential election. Brian Williams of NBC practically came out of his seat when he encouraged viewers to get up and "run" from anyone who tells you that they know how this election will come out. The other anchors echoed these sentiments.

This is the very worst type of news commentary. How could Williams know that a month or so ago? Why would the others just bob their heads? Are they preparing us for something "special?"

The analysis of the AP, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC "media consortium" final exit poll might provide a clue: Election 2004: The Urban Legend [15].

The past is prolog.

END

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

_______

Michael Collins
www.electionfraudnews.com [16]

Links:
[1] http://electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm
[2] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_presidential_race
[3] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
[4] http://electionfraudnews.com/News/Election/pollingavgs.htm
[5] http://electionfraudnews.com/News/Election/pollingavgs.htm
[6] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
[7] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081023/ap_on_el_pr/ap_poll_presidential_race
[8] http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf
[9] http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.poll/index.html
[10] http://tinyurl.com/53dwez
[11] http://tinyurl.com/yxa6yu
[12] http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf
[13] http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/APpollfairunfair-1.jpg
[14] http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_3_Topline_FINAL.pdf
[15] http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00165.htm
[16] http://www.electionfraudnews.com
[17] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171&title=AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
[18] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171&title=AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
[19] http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171&title=AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
[20] http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171&h=AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
[21] http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171&title=AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
[22] http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171&t=AP Poll - Setup for a Stolen Election?
[23] http://technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/18171

Posted by Dan Carter at 06:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Say what you will about MoveOn.org, but this had me laughing out loud when I saw it.

For the record, I've voted absentee since the 2000 election...it may be counted late, but I'm sure it gets counted.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is one of the most inspirational and motivational pieces of political media that I have ever seen. As we grind through the dog days of this campaign, as we are attacked by the wrongheaded self righteousness of of the Republican hate machine, as we count the hours and minutes until election day, this will lift us up and inspire us as we were inspired early last spring. Yes We Can!

This version has been localized for Chico with shots of Obama's local supporters...standing for change and daring to dream that America can be better and we can make it that way.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John Stewart, real American, or real funny?

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Real Americans all across this great patriotic land, the real America lovers, have no problem with the GOP spending $150,000 on clothes for the lady who can't even correctly describe the job she's hoping to get. Right? She needs a $5,000 jacket to keep the slime that comes out of her mouth from staining her $500 blouse.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Arianna Huffington is even hotter than Sarah Palin. Well, maybe after four beers and a Palin stump speech...

"We are witnessing the end of Rovian politics," Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google told me. And YouTube, which Google bought in 2006 for $1.65 billion, is one of the causes of its demise.

Arianna Huffington
Posted October 20, 2008 | 11:25 PM (EST)

The Internet and the Death of Rovian Politics

Age has finally become an issue for John McCain. But the problem isn't the candidate's 72 years; it's the antediluvian approach of his campaign.

McCain is running a textbook Rovian race: fear-based, smear-based, anything goes. But it isn't working. The glitch in the well-oiled machine? The Internet.

"We are witnessing the end of Rovian politics," Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google told me. And YouTube, which Google bought in 2006 for $1.65 billion, is one of the causes of its demise.

Thanks to YouTube -- and blogging and instant fact-checking and viral emails -- it is getting harder and harder to get away with repeating brazen lies without paying a price, or to run under-the-radar smear campaigns without being exposed.

But the McCain campaign hasn't gotten the message, hence the blizzard of racist, alarmist, xenophobic, innuendo-laden accusations being splattered at Obama.

And it seems that the worse McCain is doing in the polls, the more his team is relying on the same gutter tactics. So over the next 15 days, look for the McCain campaign to become even uglier. That's what happens when following Rovian politics is your only strategy -- and Rovian politics isn't working.

McCain has stockpiled his campaign with Rove henchmen, including not one but three of the people responsible for the political mugging inflicted on him in 2000.

Just last week he brought on Warren Tompkins in an "unofficial" capacity to see how receptive North Carolina would be to some Rovian slime. After all, it's right next door to South Carolina, where in 2000 Tomkins and his buddies in the Bush campaign spread race-baiting rumors about McCain having an illegitimate black daughter (referring to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget).

And those disgraceful robo-calls that McCain is running? They were done with the help of Jeff Larson and his firm FLS-Connect -- the same firm that created the robo-calls smearing McCain in 2000.

At the time, McCain's reaction to the attacks on him was: "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like these."

His reaction now? I have a special place in my campaign for people like these!

So the Karl Rove specials keep coming. Obama and Ayers. Obama the Socialist. Obama and ACORN "destroying the fabric of democracy." Palin (herself the manifestation of Rovian decision-making) delineating which parts of "this great nation of ours" are "pro-American." (Interestingly, the sites of the 9/11 attacks didn't make the list.)

And, did you hear, Obama is also... black! And he wants to give your money to all the poor black people! McCain didn't come right out and say that, but it's surely what he insinuated in his radio address this weekend: "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency." Somewhere, Karl Rove is smiling, Richard Nixon's southern strategy is waxing nostalgic, and John McCain's missing moral compass is getting steamed about John Lewis' evocation of the civil rights struggle.

But there is a diamond amidst all this dung: the lack of traction this Rovian politics is getting. It's as if Rove and his political arsonists keep lighting fires, only to see them doused by the powerful information spray the Internet has made possible.

The Internet has enabled the public to get to know candidates in a much fuller and more intimate way than in the old days (i.e. four years ago), when voters got to know them largely through 30-second campaign ads and quick sound bites chosen by TV news producers.

Compare that to the way over 6 million viewers (on YouTube alone) were able to watch the entirety of Obama's 37-minute speech on race -- or the thousands of other videos posted by the campaign and its supporters.

Back in the Dark Ages of 2004, when YouTube (and HuffPost, for that matter) didn't exist, a campaign could tell a brazen lie, and the media might call them on it. But if they kept repeating the lie again and again and again, the media would eventually let it go (see the Swiftboating of John Kerry). Traditional media like moving on to the next shiny thing. But bloggers love revisiting a story. So when Palin kept repeating her bridge to nowhere lie, bloggers kept calling her on it. Andrew Sullivan, for one, has made a cottage industry of calling Palin on her lies. And eventually, the truth filtered up and cost McCain credibility with his true base: journalists.

The Internet may make it easier to disseminate character smears, but it also makes it much less likely that these smears will stick.

As a result, the McCain campaign's insinuation-laden "Who is Barack Obama?" was rendered more comical than spooky. Who is Barack Obama? The guy we've been watching over and over and over during the last two years. We've seen him. We know him. And we can remind ourselves about him with a quick Google search and a mouse click.

Obama "has shown the same untroubled self-confidence day after day," and "over the past two years, Obama has clearly worn well with voters." Those are the words of David Brooks, who has gotten to know Obama just like the rest of us.

Four years ago, McCain's Rovian race-based appeals to our darker demons might have worked. This year, they are blowing up in McCain's face. And in the face of the entire GOP.

Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama as "a transformational figure" was powerful. But even more powerful was his withering indictment of the state of the Republican Party and the cancer of Rovian politics.

It was similar to the diagnosis of Christopher Buckley following his endorsement of Obama: "To paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan, I haven't left the Republican Party. It left me."

There are many other anti-Rove Republicans abandoning their party. I've had several Republican friends tell me privately what Powell and Buckley told the world publicly: that they're voting for Obama. Most of them not because they like Obama, but because they can't stand what Bush, Rove and now McCain and Palin have done to their party.

Rovian politics may or may not end up destroying the GOP. But, thanks to the Internet, with a bit of luck it will no longer have the power to befoul our democracy.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While McSame tries to make up for being short on ground workers and money with sleaze bag media and robo calls, Obama's well oiled and funded campaign machine appears to bearing the sweetest fruit. The Republicans are going to keep getting ugly, but they're going to wake up to even uglier on November 5th!

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Warning: Uptight folks may find this offensive...everyone else will be laughing hysterically.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I suppose I'd be angry too if someone smarter, younger and better than me was standing between me and my life's ambition. Unfortunately anger is all John McSame seems to have left. No, he isn't George Bush, but he's as close as you can get without smirking.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

...and this guy hits the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.

Jared Bernstein
Posted October 15, 2008 | 10:03 AM (EST)
Huffington Post

Again With the Trickle Down!?!

If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That's what came to mind this AM when I read that John McCain's plan to address the ailing economy includes a big cut in the capital gains tax rate, from 15% to 7.5% for the next two years.

How wrongheaded is this? Let me count the ways.

First, the McCain folks may have missed this, but asset values have been falling, big time. Remember, John?... That whole financial mess that folks have been talking about? When capital assets, like stocks or bonds, lose value, that's a capital loss, and it's already deductible from your taxes.

OK, but there's probably a few folks out there who've realized some capital gains, or will do so at some point in the next couple of years. What's the point of giving them a tax break? What itch does that scratch?

The vast majority of realized capital gains--that's the money you make, for example, when you sell a stock for more than you paid for it--go the richest families, so they're the ones who benefit from this. The good number crunchers at the Tax Policy Center examined who would benefit from the McCain proposal. The middle fifth of families end up with all of 0.2% of the benefits. That's not a typo. The tax break would lower their annual tax bill by $4.00. OK, that is a gallon of gas, but it's not what you'd call a game-changer.

The top 20% end up with 98.3% of the benefits of the cut, and the top 1%, with income above $600,000 get 75% of the gains, for an average benefit of $37,600. The average tax savings for the top 0.1%--income above $3 mil--is $244,000. In other words, this isn't a recipe for helping families hurt by the financial crisis and the recession. It's a recipe for more income inequality.

So why do it...why cut the rate? You guessed it: good old trickle down. It's yet another example of that supply-side fairy dust that worked so well for Bush that McCain and Co. want to see the Bushies and raise them.

If cutting taxes for the wealthiest households boosted job creation, we'd know it. The Bush cuts, originally opposed by John McCain by the way, were sold on this premise. Yet before we began to shed jobs this year, employment growth in the Bush years was the worst on record.

If you want to provide income and job opportunities to people who are hurting, your best bet is to do so directly, through tax cuts targeted at them, and through infrastructure investment designed to create new, quality jobs. That's what Obama aims for in his recently announced package.

Finally, and this is important, does anyone really believe that this allegedly temporary cut will really sunset in two years? Like Dr. Phil says, "this ain't my first rodeo!" That's the tripwire in the Bush cuts. They end in 2011, but anyone who wants to let them do so is accused of supporting the "largest tax increase in history."

If we're foolish enough to sign onto this cut in the capital gains tax rate based on our understanding that the rate will reset in two years...well, as Bush himself put it, "fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again." In fact, here's a quote from a straight-talking Republican Senator back in 2003 when he opposed Bush's capital gain and dividend tax cuts based on these illusory sunsets: "...the problem with that is it's gimmickry. It makes a mockery out of the whole budgetary process..." Listen to yourself, Senator McCain.

So we are yet again left with John McCain getting it wrong on economic policy. There is absolutely a need to help struggling families right now, but if this is the best he can come up with, we'd all be much better off if he put the hammer back in the tool shed and left the policy construction to others.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm sure there are more that two black people in Alaska. After you look at this you won't wonder why they're probably not Palin supporters.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What an awesome job of editing together sound bites out of context...but still the conservative punditaratti look like they're turning on McSame like rabid wolves over a moose carcass.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"How's that again? Bush and McCain endorsed a convicted felon who once advocated bombing Washington buildings and urged using Teamsters like Gestapo thugs to beat up anti-war demonstrators? How can McCain forgive Charles Colson and praise his later commendable works when he will not do the same for Ayers?"

On Ayers, Colson, and G. Gordon Liddy
By Sherwood Ross
Created Oct 9 2008 - 10:51am

The desperation of the McCain camp over its sagging fortunes is nowhere better revealed than in its ridiculous attacks on Barack Obama for sitting on the same board of a Chicago philanthropy with William Ayers, a onetime bad boy in the Weather Underground.

Apparently, it means nothing to McCain and Palin that over the past forty years Ayers has rehabilitated himself from a bomb-thrower to valued member of society. No matter that Ayers has worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to upgrade the city's schools. Or that Ayers in 1995 co-authored a grant proposal that won $49 million to boost Chicago's schoolchildren. Or that Ayers today is a Distinguished Professor of education, widely regarded in his field.

McCain's Alaskan attack wolf Sarah Palin has dredged up Ayers' past in order to smear Obama by association, pure and simple. Palin doesn't utter a civil word about what Ayers has made of himself. Once a pariah, always a pariah, right?

For Palin, supposedly a candidate wedded to Christian virtues, there is no spark of compassion for Ayers. Isn't it a centerpiece of Christian theology that when the prodigal son returns to the hearth it is an occasion for celebration? Indeed, the story of the prodigal son is one of the most compelling parables attributed to Jesus Christ. According to the gospel of Luke, the father tells the good son "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine" but we celebrate because "thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."

There is zero indication Palin has read the passages in the Bible where Jesus broke bread with tax collectors and prostitutes, whose repentance he welcomed. At least in Biblical times, if you made a mistake, Jesus gave you a second shot. Not so Palin toward Ayers.

Palin's gutter campaign raises the issue of whether John McCain might not be guilty himself of associating with former criminals. Obama seemingly has too much integrity to travel this low road. If he wanted to respond in kind, Obama could point to McCain's approval of convicted Watergate crook Charles Colson, now the eminent Christian conservative. According to a Slate article by David Plotz, during the Nixon era "Colson sought to hire Teamsters thugs to beat up anti-war demonstrators, and plotted to raid or firebomb the Brookings Institution," for which Colson did seven months in prison.

"John McCain and George W. Bush, who agree about virtually nothing, agree about Charles Colson," Plotz wrote. In a speech, McCain "singled out Colson for praise, complimenting the Watergate felon for his prison ministry. Bush, meanwhile, has given Colson a Texas prison wing to run on Christian principles," Plotz wrote.

How's that again? Bush and McCain endorsed a convicted felon who once advocated bombing Washington buildings and urged using Teamsters like Gestapo thugs to beat up anti-war demonstrators? How can McCain forgive Charles Colson and praise his later commendable works when he will not do the same for Ayers?

McCain has also lauded ("I'm proud of you!") right-wing broadcaster G. Gordon Liddy, a man convicted for his mastermind role in the burglary of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate, and for which he served four years in prison. According to Huffington Post, Liddy hosted a fund-raiser for McCain and chipped in a few thousand bucks of his own.

If the McCain camp tends to be a little short on forgiveness and long on hatred, we need to ask which religion it is they happen to be practicing. Christian forgiveness, by their lights, seemingly only pertains to Republicans---especially those guilty of espionage against Democrats. Somebody explain it to me. Isn't it the zenith of hypocrisy for McCain to boast of his associations with Colson and Liddy while his running mate damns Obama for associating with Ayers?
_______
About author
Sherwood Ross is an American reporter who has worked for major American newspapers and magazines as well as international wire services. To comment on this article or arrange for speaking engagements: sherwoodr1@yahoo.com [1]

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday I said that we should be very afraid...today I'm thinking that Sarah and McSame should be very embarrassed. Do they care that they are inciting such reactions from these denizens of the shallow end of the gene pool?

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The difference between Republicans and Democrats: Republicans try to scare you with lies, Democrats try to scare you with the truth. When it comes to John McCain, be afraid, be very afraid.

Posted by Dan Carter at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

More evidence that McCain is McSame!

"McCain's transition would also be less drastic than Obama's since, in all likelihood, there will not be as vast an ideological and staff shift."

Please read this very interesting article:

Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC
Obama, McCain Transition Efforts Are Worlds Apart

October 8, 2008 10:46 PM

As the 2008 campaign nears its conclusion, the presidential transition efforts of the two major candidates have become a study in contrasts: Sen. Barack Obama has organized an elaborate well-staffed network to prepare for his possible ascension to the White House, while Sen. John McCain has all but put off such work until after the election.

The Democratic nominee has enlisted the assistance of dozens of individuals -- divided into working groups for particular federal agencies -- to produce policy agendas and lists of recommended appointees. As evidence of their advanced preparations, officials provided a copy of the strict ethics guidelines that individuals working on the transition effort are required to sign.

John McCain, by contrast, has done little. Campaign spokespersons did not respond to requests for elaboration. But one official with direct knowledge, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, expressed concern with McCain's approach. The Arizona Senator has instructed his team to not spend time on the transition effort, according to the source, both out of a desire to have complete focus on winning the election as well as a superstitious belief that the campaign shouldn't put the cart before the horse.

Virtually every modern non-incumbent presidential candidate has organized, during the course of the campaign, a transition effort to prepare for the early months of a potential administration. These teams help build lists and vet individuals who could serve in key government posts. They hammer out proposals to facilitate policy making from day one. And they work closely with outgoing administration officials to better understand the true lay of the political land.

Governance scholars consider the process invaluable, particularly as the nation struggles with a major economic crisis, two active wars, and a range of domestic security threats. "Our enemies understand how potentially vulnerable we are in the transition from one administration to the next," Clay Johnson III, former Executive Director of the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition, said recently at a forum on transition planning. "This is something we need to be very, very seriously prepared for."

With 100 or so days before the next president takes office, Obama's transition effort has been organized into roughly a dozen teams of six to eight people to plot out the approach for each agency, according to a Democratic official. The ethics code governing the process prohibits staff from working on subjects that could be deemed a financial conflict of interests, either to that member or that member's family.

Under the code - a copy of which can be viewed here - lobbyists will be able to serve on the Obama transition team provided it has been more than a year since he or she lobbied on the subject to which they have been assigned. Current federally registered lobbyists will not be "permitted to serve in a titled role for the Obama Transition Project," nor for that matter will they be allowed to "contribute to or collect contributions for the Obama Transition Project."

There is less known about what the McCain campaign has been doing, partially because there are fewer details to unearth. The GOP nominee has tasked his transition to William Timmons, a well-known Washington hand and long-time lobbyist. According to a source close to the effort, Timmons has held conference calls with campaign officials and is plotting out various aspects to the impending transition. There is not, at this time, an ethics policy in place, the source says.

Story continues below

A call to Timmons went unreturned. "Bill does not talk to the press but I'll tell him you called," said his secretary. "Thank you."

The disparate approach that each campaign has taken to the transition process is in some ways a reflection of the personality of the candidates themselves. Obama's efforts have been criticized as presumptuous by the McCain campaign. But veterans of the process argue that the well-organized plan that Obama is pursuing will help ensure smooth continuity between administrations, not to mention avoid embarrassing political hiccups.

"Government is becoming more complex and the time it is taking to put a leadership team in key departments is taking longer," said P.J. Crowley, who heads the Homeland Security Presidential Transition Initiative at the Center for American Progress. "I think that if a campaign is waiting until November 5 to start the transition process, they are going to be behind. It is not being presumptuous -- it is being prudent to be prepared before the election so that you can at least make the transition process effective as possible and be ready to govern on January 20."

The president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, former White House chief of staff John Podesta, is reportedly heading up Obama's transition team.

McCain, in contrast, appears willing to tackle important aspects of his potential transition in real time. It is a stance that fits the Senator's sometimes ad hoc approach to politics, and one that allows him to focus staff and resources on the pending election. McCain's transition would also be less drastic than Obama's since, in all likelihood, there will not be as vast an ideological and staff shift.

But this approach could create significant obstacles down the road. For example, as Crowley notes, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had only a fraction of his leadership team in place on 9/11 - roughly eight months after his President Bush took office.

"It is irresponsible not to have a well organized, thoughtful vigorous transition, right now," said Mickey Kantor, a Clinton administration official who was there for the 1992 transition and who has consulted with the Obama campaign about its efforts. "I am surprised that John McCain would take that position. This government is very complicated. And I don't care how many years you have spent on it you don't truly understand it until you get to the middle of it."

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This should be good for a laugh.

Posted by Dan Carter at 06:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The McCain/Palin mudslide continues...

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

October 8, 2008
New York Times Editorial
Politics of Attack

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

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

Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate. It was hard to keep track of the number of times he referred to his audience as “my friends.” But apart from promising to buy up troubled mortgages as president, he offered no real answers for how he plans to solve the country’s deep economic crisis. He is unable or unwilling to admit that the Republican assault on regulation was to blame.

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

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.

That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

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

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

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

And the tactic of guilt by association is perplexing, since Mr. McCain has his own list of political associates he would rather forget. We were disappointed to see the Obama campaign air an ad (held for just this occasion) reminding voters of Mr. McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five savings-and-loan debacle, for which he was reprimanded by the Senate. That episode at least bears on Mr. McCain’s claims to be the morally pure candidate and his argument that he alone is capable of doing away with greed, fraud and abuse.

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

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

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From courage Campaign:

A new poll just released by KPIX, San Francisco's CBS television affiliate, reveals a shocking shift in support for Proposition 8. According to the poll, likely California voters now favor passage of Prop 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent, following a recent blitz of advertising by supporters of the initiative. Meanwhile, an internal poll just released by the "No on 8" campaign confirms the KPIX poll numbers, showing Prop 8 winning 47%-43%.

I have one big issue with Prop 8. NO ONE, Government OR religion should be able to abridge anyone's rights, including their right to marry whom they choose. Everything after that including the Bible and prejudiced views of GLBT folks is just a bunch of claptrap. Vote no on 8...and while you're paying attention vote no on 4 too. Check out this No on 8 ad...it's farcical and funny.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While McCain whiffs on the economy, his character attacks on Obama are taken seriously by his rabble...will McSame rein in the rhetoric or throw fuel on the murderous flames?

As the McCain/Palin campaign craters in the national polls, mr "straight talk" needs to figure out that he's running the risk of doing even more damage to the country than when he "sang" to the Viet Cong.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As the McCain/Palin campaign appears to be warming up for a rousing mud slinging last month of low life campaigning, the Republican Band can be heard in the distance warming up their best "El Deguello" (no quarter). In the meantime, Sarah can't seem to get anything straight:

From Ed Naha
"This week, look for more McCain nonsense, from ads claiming that Obama is an alien to Ol' John gnawing through TV cables. Also, look for some more fine musings from Pert Palin. Over the weekend, she actually declared: ""I'm reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, ok? The quote of the day... It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State (the crowd boos) and UN ambassador. ... Now she said it, I didn't. She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"

When the audience cheered, Palin grinned: "Okay, now, thank you so much for receiving that well. I didn't know how that was gonna go over. And now, California, let's see what a comment like I just made, how that is turned into whatever it'll be turned into tomorrow with the newspaper."

Well, the problem lies either with Starbucks or Palin's goo-goo eyes. The actual quote is "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't HELP other women."

Albright told "The Huffington Post," "Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics. This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women. The truth is, if you care about the status of women in our society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden.""

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A drinking game...now why didn't I think of that?

Posted by Dan Carter at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)
Couric Interview Bombshell: Palin Unable To Name All Her Children's Names
By Steve Young

as transcribed by Steve Young

In what may be the most damaging of the slow but sure dissemination of the CBS News Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee was unable to name all of her kids' names.

Transcript follows:

Katie Couric: And when it comes to establishing your family view, I was curious: what are the names you use when you want to speak to your children?

Sarah Palin: I've spoke with most of them, again with a great appreciation for my children, my family, for the younger people who live with me.

KC: But, like, what ones specifically? I'm curious.

SP: All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years.

KC: Can you name a few?

SP: I have a vast variety of children and of course, they all have names. My family isn't a foreigner's family, where, it's kind of suggested and it seems like, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of what children in Washington, D.C. may be named when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, my Alaskan family is like a microcosm of most American's families. Did I mention, Katie, that I can see many of my children from my house.

In other VP debate news, Dem VP nominee, Joe Biden, offers kinescope evidence of President Franklin Roosevelt calming American's fears at the start of the depression.

TV Heads Up: Before the debate, watch tonight as World Champion Limbo dancer, Ben Dover, attempts to get under the bar set for Palin.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a great look at McCain's major position changing on regulation. How can he keep a straight face when he talks about solutions, when he has been such a stalwart of the party and administration that has been the cause of the problem?

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Word is, our lockstep Congressman voted "yes" on the Wall Street Bailout bill. How surprising is that? By the way, Jeff Morris, the fellow running against Wally this fall opposes the bailout. Check out what that "nut job" Dennis Kucinich has to say about it:

"The globalization of the debt puts the United States in the position that in order to repay the money that we borrow from the banks (for the banks) we could be forced to accept International Monetary Fund dictates which involve cutting health, social security benefits and all other social spending in addition to reducing wages and exploiting our natural resources. This inevitably leads to a loss of economic, social and political freedom."

Beyond being wrong in principle and a taxpayer rip-off, Kucinich's quote is some real food for thought. No wonder there was so much of a public outcry and revolt from both the left and the right. It stinks.

Posted by Dan Carter at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)