Thank You for Not Reading

One of the battle Cries of the Republican Party at the Republican National Convention was “Drill Baby, Drill” which is an adequate description of one aspect of the republican energy policy. There is no question that the United States cannot sustain the way that the current energy economy is run. At the vice presidential debate Governor Pailin continually returned to her primary area of expertise, oil in Alaska. Governor Pailin expressed the importance of drilling in Alaska in order to combat rising oil prices and dependence on foreign oil. However, Governor Pailin never bothered to discuss the specifics of her plan for drilling and merely presented her plan as an ambiguous cure all for the imbalance of energy production and consumption in the United States. The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”, a document with no political affiliations or biases, displays the operation of Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as not possible until at least ten years in the future, costly, and unable to yield significant amount oil in comparison with American demand.

The United States is the Number one Consumer of petroleum products in the world. In 2006 the United States consumed an average of 20.7 million Barrels of oil a day. An average 15.3 million barrels, of the 20.7 consumed, were crude oil, 4.4 million Barrels were produced in the Lower 48 states, 700,00 barrels were produced in Alaska, and the remaining 10.1 barrels were imported (EIA 10). The remainder of the average 20.7 barrels consume consisted of 1.7, million barrels of natural gas 1.4 million barrels of “other inputs”(EIA 10), and 2.3 million barrels of imported petroleum products (IAE 10). The imported petroleum products, crude included, in 2006 constituted 60% petroleum consumed in the United States and totaled $265 billion dollars of imports (IAE 10). Both parties have outlined plans for the destruction of the United Sates dependency on oil from foreign countries. In the case of the republican ticket there is a great deal of focus on increased production of oil in the United States particularly in the gulf Coast and Alaska. Because of Governor Pailin’s affinity for, and knowledge of the state of Alaska the majority of her arguments were focused around the state and its potential oil production.

The words “drill in Alaska” are in themselves rather vague, Alaska is enormous. The current plan for drilling in Alaska that Governor Pailin supports is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) particularly on the coastal plain. The prospective area, referred to as the 1002 area, is comprised of 1.5 million acres or 8% of the ANWR (EIA 2). Of the 1.5 million acres 74% reside on federal lands and 26% reside on state or native lands, all parties have expressed interest in developing the land for oil production (EIA 2).

In December 2007 Senator Ted Stevens requested that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) produce and analysis the prospect of drilling in the ANWR. Basing their analysis of the assumption that steps to begin drilling would commences in 2008 the produced a time table for the production of oil in Alaska. The EIA timetables in the Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve state that it would take:

· 2 to 3 years to obtain leases, including the development of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing program, which includes approval of an Environmental Impact Statement, the collection and analysis of seismic data, and the auction and award of leases.

· 2 to 3 years to drill a single exploratory well. Exploratory wells are slower to drill because geophysical data are collected during drilling, e.g., rock cores and well logs. Typically, Alaska North Slope exploration wells take two full winter seasons to reach the desired depth.

· 1 to 2 years to develop a production development plan and obtain BLM approval for that plan, if a commercial oil reservoir is discovered. Considerably more time could be required if the discovered oil reservoir is very deep, is filled with heavy oil, or is highly faulted. The petroleum company might have to collect more seismic data or drill delineation wells to confirm that the deposit is commercial.

· 3 to 4 years to construct the feeder pipelines; to fabricate oil separation and treatment plants, and transport them up from the lower-48 States to the North Slope by ocean barge; construct drilling pads; drill to depth; and complete the wells.

(IEA 3)

This clearly indicates that there would be no benefit what so ever from the ANWR until at least the year 2016, more likely 2018 or 2020. While the decision to drill in Alaska could be made this year, or by the incoming administration in the next four years, there is no reason that oil production in the ANWR should be considered a solution to current high fuel prices.

Because of the location of the location of the ANWR the cost of drilling will be significantly increased in comparison with the lower 48 United States. The Joint Association Survey of Drilling Costs (JAS) stated that the cost of drilling a well in the lower 48 states, in 10,000 to 12,499 foot range, was $111 per foot in 2000 and increased 165% to $294 in 2005 (EIA 7). The price of drilling a well of the same depth on the north slopes of Alaska increased 564% from $283 in 2000 to $1880 per foot in 2005 (EIA 7). The massive cost of drilling a well on the north slopes combined with astronomical cost increase between 2000 and 2005 indicate the potential cost of drilling in the next ten years and the consequential price crude oil recovered from the ANWR offing littlie to no decrease in the price of fuel.

While there is a notable amount of oil on the ANWR it should be compared with the amount of oil produced in the lower 48 and the estimated amount of undiscovered oil in the lower 48. The ANWR is believed to contain between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (EIA 1). In comparison with the projected 120 billion barrels of oil that remain undiscovered and technically recoverable in the lower 48 states the amount of recoverable oil in the ANWR seems a minute amount. (IEA 1). In 2006 the Lower-48 states produced 5.1 million barrels of crude oil with a projection 6.3 million barrels a day in 2018 and 5.6 million barrels a day in 2030. Production of oil in the ANWR, if the process of petitioning, surveying, drilling began in 2008, would begin production in 2018 and peak at 510,000 to 1,450,000 barrels some time between 2027 and 2028 producing a total of 1.9 to 4.3 billion barrels of oil between 2018 and 2030 (EIA 8). The amount of oil in the ANWR is a tiny portion of the total oil that is projected to be produced in the United States in after the ANWR begins producing oil. Further more it is not enough oil to produce a noticeable decrease in the united states dependency on foreign oil or reduce the cost of oil drastically as the unites states consumes such a tremendous volume, in the vicinity of 20 million barrels, of oil every day.

The Annual energy Outlook 2008 or AEO2008 predicts that drilling in the ANWR will produce a decrease in the United States dependency on foreign Oil by two to eight percent between 2020 and 2030. In 2020 the AEO2002 predicts that the United States economy will consume 22.0 million barrels of oil per day (IEA 10). With out the addition of the ANWR the United States will produce 6.2 million barrels of crude per day and 1.7 million barrels of natural gas and 3.0 million barrels of other fuel products per day placing the United States at a deficit of 17.4 million barrels of petroleum per day resulting in a 52% dependency on foreign oil and $207 billion (2006 USD) in funds spent on importing petroleum products and crude in 2020 (IEA 10). With the addition of the ANWR, under the Mean success rate model a 1 in 2 success rate, the United States would produce 6.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, an increase of 300,000 barrels per day, no additional natural gas and no additional other petroleum products resulting in a 2% decrease in dependency on foreign petroleum and a trade deficit of $200 billion (2006 USD) (IEA 10). The price of Low sulfur light (LSL) crude would decrease $0.24 barrel from $59.70 to $59.46 (IEA 10). In twenty thirty the United States is predicted to produces 5.6 million barrels of crude, 1.6 million barrels of natural gas, and 3.4 million barrels of other fuel products per day while consuming 22.9 million barrels of petroleum per day with a 17.4 million barrel per day or 54% dependency on foreign oil and a net expenditure of $264 billion (2006 USD) for the year importing crude and other products (IEA 11). The ANWR would increase crude production by 700,000 barrels per day decrease dependency on foreign oil to 54% and reduced net expenditures for importing oil to $241 billion. LSL crude would decrease $0.67 per barrel (IEA 11). This is not a sufficient amount in the increase of American production to free American from foreign oil dependency; it doesn’t even reduce it to beneath 50%. There is also not a sufficient enough decrease in the cost of oil for Americans to “feel it at the pumps” and the small addition, “the organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price difference impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount”(EIA 11). The assertion that drilling in ANWR could even benefit the United States fuel market is a fallacy.

With all of the obvious flaws in and lack of benefits from Governor Pailin’s idea of drilling in Alaska as indicated in the Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge it is surprising that she would even consider the possibility of drilling in the ANWR. However, we as citizens allow our selves to be swindled into believing in plans such as drilling for more oil in areas where there is not enough oil to break American dependency on foreign oil. There have been numerous comments on Governor Pailin’s references to pit bull warring lipstick or the interview where she make a mockery of her self as a public figure, but regardless of a candidates strange and commonly repeated mannerisms and lack of camera presence it is more important for the populace to question the policy of the candidates. The recent accusations that McCain and Pailin are hate mongers pail in comparison to Governor Pailin’s lack of understanding of the potential of oil fields in her own state, and should be considered pathetic particularly when it was a topic that she commonly returned to in the vice presidential debates.

Although Governor pailin’s support for drilling in Alaska is a terrific example of politicians forming policy that offers hope but ignores the actual analysis of the policy and produces illogical ideas this occurrence is not confined to the Republican ticket. Barack Obama’s Windfall Profits Tax is bound to increase the cost of fuel as it is an economic understanding that taxes that a company pays are reflected in the cost of their products. Hence the $1000 that every American would receive will be redistributed to oil companies as fuel prices rise.

The information to combat the idiocy of politicians is readily available to the American public, however as the campaigns and history progress there seems that there is more and more of a detachment between the people in the debates and the fact that they make policy based on analysis, understanding, and intelligence not charisma and photogenic ability, so on behalf of both of the campaigns for the Presidency of the United States of America, thank you America. Thank you for not reading policy or analysis, thank you for looking at policy in terms of binary oppositions, thank you for not informing yourselves before you attempt to make an informed decision, thank you for not questioning the candidate that you support while blindly following them, and thank you most of all for not thinking; blinding you selves with public appearance and rhetoric never bothering to look past the candidate’s opinion, access information, and inform your own opinions and decisions.

Works Cited:

Energy Information Administration (EIA). Office of Analyisis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy. Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Washington D.C.: Office of Analyisis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy 2008. 7 Oct. 2008.

McCain's Health: Should We Be Worried?

There's one thing that keeps worrying me about McCain: we really have no idea about how healthy he is. He still has not released his medical records, despite repeated calls for him to do so. Sure, back in May he let 20 select reporters look at 1,173 pages of his medical history for 3 hours. But he also did not let them make photocopies or calls or use the internet. And somehow, the public has accepted that that's all, case closed. However, I have several problems with that.

1. Since when are reporters qualified to make judgements on someone's health?
2. 1,173 pages is a lot of material. And 3 hours is not a lot of time. I believe the math comes out to approximately 400 pages per person, per hour.
3. Without access to a cell phone or internet, how can the reporters ask questions of the people who should really be there, the doctors?

So we're supposed to believe that McCain has a clean bill of health, based on the word of 20 unqualified people speed-reading his records, without any method of contacting experts? I don't, that's for sure.

But guess what? McCain doesn't have a clean bill of health. 8 years ago, he had a cancerous lesion removed from his temple. Afterwards, there were two conflicting reports issued, one by the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, and one by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, both of which are highly respected medical institutes. The Mayo Clinic simply stated that it was a low stage of melanoma, but the Armed Forces Institute stated that the melanoma was much farther advanced than previously thought. Now, who to believe? McCain seems to want us to believe the Mayo Clinic, but without his records, that's not possible. That's why over 2,300 doctors have signed an online petition to get access to McCain's records. Many of these doctors are oncologists and melanoma experts - the kind of doctors that should have been allowed to examine McCain's records back in May.

It's also true that Obama has not released his records - just a one-page summary, with his doctor's opinion that he is in great health. It's true that he should also release his records to doctors, so that the public can find out for themselves his state of health. But here's the big differences between Obama and McCain, why I'm not worried about Obama's health.

1. Obama has a VP running mate that is competent, intelligent, and experienced. Palin, on the other hand, only knows Alaskan energy issues, has extreme views, and has no experience governing a large population. Should Obama's health fail, whoever-you-believe-in forbid, I would be able to confidently trust Biden to take the reins of the presidency. Should Palin take over, I would panic.
2. Obama is much younger than McCain, a spry 47 compared to McCain's 72. Obama is also athletically active, running and playing basketball.
3. Obama has no history of major illnesses. McCain, however, has a history of melanoma, a type of cancer. And as we all know, cancer is unpredictable and often quite deadly.
   

I think we can all agree that McCain should stop playing this dangerous hiding game with the American public and come out with his records - because he just might be unfit for the presidency. So sign the petition, and spread the word - we want the truth about McCain's health!

Source: The Huffington Post, John McCain's Cancer

Does McCain have anything nice to say?

Here are a couple of links to some web ad's that appeared on McCains website. Its no wonder they didn't make it onto television.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=9a48c156-ad6a-40bd-9381-98ddf66ec77a

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=4b17b901-3db4-4bf7-8f24-0002a156f8e8

The second one I just thin is funny, because Palin talks about raising income taxes being a bad thing, yet McCain is planning on raising taxes for his version of healthcare reform, which is a historical first.

Should Palin step down? Conservatives think so, and so do I

Many conservatives have voiced their opinions that Sarah Palin should remove herself from the ballot, including George Will and Kathleen Parker.

David Brooks, a conservative writer on the New York Times said "Do I think she’s ready to be president or vice president? No, she’s not even close to that."

And, then again, theres always that question of whether or not Sarah Palin actually wants to be an American. She has been present many times at Alaskan Independence Party meetings, and even spoke this year at the AIP opening convention. Her husband was a mamber for a decade.

The Alaskan Independence Party is a group that advocates the secession of Alaska from the United States. And, if they really want to get themselves out of the United States, then Haveing Sarah Palin be the one Alaskan in the publics eye is a great way to do it...hell, if all Alaskans are like that lets just kick them out of the US (apologies to all Alaskans reading this).

But, here's the bottom line: Palin has no experience, and yeah, she gets a lot of bashing from a lot of liberals, but the fact that a lot of strong conservatives are actually speaking out against her placement as VP candidate, well that should say something pretty important about her.

Sarah Palin is not ready to be in this position: conservatives who traditionally side solely with the GOP are comming out against her, then something must be done now to make sure that Sarah Palin is never in a position of extreme power.

Economic woes leads to...more investors?

Right now, the economy is terrible. we're trying to improve it, but as it stands progress is kind of slow.

But somehow, even though America is very nearly in a depression, the dollar is making huge gains on the world exchange market. The Australian dollar, which a week ago stood at 98 cents had a 30% drop, and is remaining in the 60-70 cent range, and the Euro has droped from $1.60 to $1.36. How is it the dollar is doing so well, when the economy is tanking?

Apparently, its because investors around the world are scrambling to get to the US, because most of the other leading markets are doing far worse. Treasury securities are a favorite right now, because they are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States government." And when the Chinese stock exchange dropped by 60%, the Saudi Arabian by 40%, and the Russian by nearly 50%, the US gained a great opportunity to bring in many new investors and to bolster the economy, all because of that gaurantee. America, strange as it seems, is now one of the safest places to invest.

McCain calling Obama a liar?

In a recent rally in Pennsylvania,  McCain explained that Obama does not stick to what he says which also indicates that he is a hypocrite.McCain believes that the reason he would make a better president is because he is a man of his word, and believes that Obama is trying to focus on the idea of change more than he is trying to focus on fixing the problems facing the United States. McCain also questioned who the real Obama is, according to CNN McCain asked "Who is the real Sen.Obama?" He tried to focus more on questioning and criticizing Obama than discussing the economic problem. Biden said of the multiple accusations set to attack Obama as a way to divert the public's attention away from what McCain is trying to avoid talking about.  During the vice presidential debate Sarah Palin also called Obama a hypocrite indirectly by saying that McCain does what he says he is going to do. 

Restrain Yourself

The two presidential debates have been relatively repetitive and predictable. Neither candidate has especially told us anything we haven't heard before.  The substance in these past debates lies solely in the on screen relationship between Obama and McCain.  In this respect Obama has presented himself as the bigger man, contrasting McCain's somewhat immature and pompous demeanor.  McCain seems to never have learned his manners. Or maybe he has and he purposely isn't showing us.

There is a specific reason that Sarah Palin blatantly avoided certain questions in her debate.  She had to stick to what she knew she could talk about, and prevent any embarrassment on her behalf by venturing into unknown waters, as she had done before and badly paid the price.  It is clear that Obama is very comfortable when talking economics, but when it comes to foreign relations, he seems to lose his swagger and hesitates more than he should.  The same can be said about McCain and economic reform.  McCain is very good at pointing out what Obama does wrong instead of describing his own plan.  He is also happens to criticize everything Obama says and has said or done in the past.  To anyone who watches the debate McCain is a rude, condescending, disrespectful old man, compared to Obama who takes on criticism with grace.  Until last night.

Obama has to be very careful, because it is understandable that he would be furious with McCain's obvious disdain, but he has to restrain himself.  He cannot let his emotions get the best of him, which is exactly what he did last night.  For sure, he was right to stand up to a direct attack, but he cannot play into McCain hands.  McCain may be extremely rude and disrespectful, but sadly he is doing it on purpose in order to get Obama to leave his boundaries and make a mistake.  McCain was jumping with glee as Obama forcefully pleaded with mediator Tom Brokaw to expand on the situation of Middle Eastern countries.  Obama wanted to defend himself more than he wanted to explain himself, a big difference.  This time around he didn't give McCain anything to go on, but he must be careful in the future. Just as Palin was likely instructed to keep her mouth shut about topics she would couldn't debate about, by McCain probably, Obama needs to decide whether it is worth it to argue in front of McCain about something that is not his strong subject in order to keep his dignity, or to sit back, take the criticism and come out ahead.

Just when we thought the old dog couldn't learn new tricks, McCain embarked on a mission to destroy Obama from within.  Because at this point, the only one who can stop Obama's momentum is Obama himself.  If McCain succeeds with this tactic, no matter how bad it makes him look, he will have the same pressure applied to Palin by the media onto Obama.  So Senator Obama, a few words of advice: restrain yourself.

Is McCain a terrorist to?

Yeah yeah, we've heard a lot about Obama being a terrorist. It started because of his name, and then the William Ayer connection, etc. Even though McCain also has a connection to Ayer, but whatevs...

No, the new big thing is McCain's possible connection to Iran-Contra: he once served on an advisory board for an international group that was linked to the now famous death squads of Central America.

The council McCain served on was actually a US chapter of the group The World Anti-Communist League, which has ties to Nazi collaborators, and various death squads.

But then again, who really cares. Seriously, is this kind of thing getting old to anyone besides me? Okay, both candidates have ties to some less the reputable characters. I'm pretty sure everyone on the face of the Earth does. So long as our candidates aren't actually terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers, then I'de say we are okay.

Honestly, no matter what connections people bring up about the candidates, is it really going to matter? Yeah, there are a lot of aspects about the American political system that could be deemed corrupt...but come on, even we aren’t that bad.

There are plenty of negative things that can be said about both candidates, so can we keep it reasonable? Okay, McCain had connections…which he separated himself completely from in 1986. Obama new a guy once a long time ago who turned out to be a radical, but that does not mean that Obama is the same kind of person. I mean, I’ve know people who have become porn stars and cocaine dealers. That doesn’t make me either one, so why do both political parties insist on continuously portraying as many bad connections as they can? Connections which get more and more ridiculous with every new release? Seriously, it’s getting old.

Comedy is Paying Off Big Time

With only less than a month to go until Election Day, the media is going to be picking up the pace on its coverage of the election while this is true for the numerous television and radio stations - this is even more prevalent on network late-night shows like Saturday Night Live, the Colbert Report and the Daily Show. This article in the New York Times states that it is allowing these programs to gain a jolt to their ratings.

Ever since SNL's Tina Fey took on the portrayal of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, the audience levels have just exploded. Lorne Michaels, the executive producer for SNL said:

“I think the gods smiled on us with the Palin thing . . . Like if he’d chosen Romney, I think it would be completely different . . . As exciting as a Romney-Biden debate would have been, it just would have been politics as usual . . . There’s never been an election where we’ve been at the center of so much, except possibly Bush-Gore in 2000,” Mr. Michaels said. “It’s great for comedy, and it’s also great for broadcast television because it’s what we do at our best.”

From what I can say, the 2008 Election Cycle is producing an unprecedented amount of attention and because many younger viewers watch these type of shows are perhaps more likely to get politically involved in the election in the form of not only activity for campaigns but actually to leave their homes on Election Day and vote. This might given the new generation of voters like myself, to actually do our civic duty and realize it is our obligation to be a part of this process.

The article states: "Producers at all the shows have noticed that booking the candidates has paid off all year. Even when Senator McCain did not show up for Mr. Letterman’s show two weeks ago, the absence kicked up Mr. Letterman’s rating — and he extended it into a comedy bit, lambasting Mr. McCain almost every night for “pulling a bailout” on him. As we all know, failing to attend bookings on late-night shows with the ability to influence major sections of the population are devastating and will just give the networks more ideas for its shows; in respect kick about the candidates and blast them.

However the question is: do these comedic skits impact the election? I say they are a factor but they are not the primary fact that has jolted this election from its previous level to this new one.

Palin: Helping or Hurting?

Okay, so theres a lot wrong with Sarah Palin. But whose side is she on?

During the VP debate with Joe Biden, Palin lashed out against Bidens past comment that paying higher taxes is patriotic, saying that "“You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America...that’s not patriotic.”

Yet Palin supported troop surges to Iraq and Afghanistan, and is also in favor of the $7oo billion dollar bailout. Where the hell does she think that money is going to come from?

Look, the bottom line is that a governments money comes from the people. If you want to send soldiers to war you need to pay for daily transportation, munitions, raw material, food, armor, guns, technology, electricity, etc. The money for that all comes from the taxpayers. the bailout plan? Yup, a huge chunk of that is going to be from the taxpayers too Gavernor Palin.

So, what side is she really on? Her actions and beliefs make it seem like, in her mind, people who support the troops, and support their country are patriotic (no shit), but the people who pay to give those soldiers medical supplies and food, and who provide, through taxes, a possible relief to the economic crisis, well those people are unpatriotic.

So, where does Palin really stand? Because at the moment it seems like she is for the American people, yet against the American taxpayers.

And, if she really doesnt believe in taxes, maybe somebody should have the IRS check her out. Because having a VP candidate impeached for tax evasion is a lot less embarassing than actually having a person like Sarah Palin in office.

"Is John McCain Supported by Terrorist Supporters?"

From the Swampland blog at Time magazine:

"Is John McCain Supported by Terrorist Supporters? Nah."
By Michael Scherer


This morning John McCain put out a list of 100 former ambassadors who are supporting his campaign. Number two is Leonore Annenberg, the wife of Ambassador William Annenberg, the founder of the Annenberg Institute of Reform, which funded the Annenberg Challenge, which once had two famous board members: former "domestic terrorist" William Ayers and Sen. Barack Obama.

So either we should all be outraged that John McCain is supported by a family who funded a foundation that hired a domestic terrorist, or this whole William Ayers thing is just plain silly. I choose the latter.

That last debate was almost painful...

So, this last debate should have been an epic conflict: it was supposed to be in a town hall format, which would give McCain the upper hand, as he has a great deal more familiarity with the town hall setting than Obama. Obama's campaign manager even stated that they would be going in as underdogs. But, Obama would have a small advantage in this debate as well because, unlike McCain's other town hall debates, this would be moderated. So, even though this debate should have been at least somewhat interesting, what happened?

One of the most boring discussions in televised history.

Let us start with the moderator, Tom Brokaw. A McCain advisor claimed after the debate that "The audience and the American people should feel robbed — that the one opportunity they had to ask questions of the presidential candidates was taken from them by Tom Brokaw.” And in a way, it's true. Brokaw did a less than exceptional job as moderator, and it seemed that he twisted every question that the audience asked, until it became his own inquiry.

Then there McCain. Poor, sad, old, on the path to senility McCain. Personally, my favorite moment was when he referred to Obama's plans as "stapling Jello to a wall". Who thinks of that kind of stuff? Also, in the last debate McCain couldn't look at Obama. In this debate, he couldn;t even say his name. In one priceless moment, when McCain was discussing the energy bill, he asked the question "do you know who voted for it?", and which he answered by pointing across the aisle at Obama and declaring "that one."

One of McCains advisors had this to say: “I don’t think he was trying to be pejorative. I wish he hadn’t done that, but it’s just how it came out. I think he was trying to be funny.”

So, McCains stance in this debate was apparently that he was an old guy who was fond of Jello, and who wanted to be funny.

But thats not even the best part. McCain has started to be viewed as 'hostile' by many Obama supporters, and there was one moment in this debated that firmly secured that belief into the mindsets of many. At the end of the debate, when Obama reached out to shake hands with McCain, McCain nudged his wife forward so Obama ended up shaking hands with Cindy McCain.

This is an intersting fact, but it should be noted that Obama and McCain did shake hands and have a ice little hug at the end of the debate. But it still raises questions of why McCain would avoid shaking hands? Many Obama supporters are claiming that it is because McCain is not comfortable around Obama anymore, and is now intimidated by him. Then again, with the way the polls are going, its not like McCain has the election in a bag.

Hey, McCain - Rein in your Pitbull!

On Monday, McCain announced that he would enter a new stage of attacks on Obama - ones focusing on Obama's character, background, and leadership.  This is not unexpected, with less than a month left until the election and Obama gaining a lead in the polls, due to his perceived superiority in economic matters.  However, the lengths that the McCain camp and supporters have been going to to discredit Obama and create fears and doubts in the minds of voters is simply despicable.  McCain himself, so far, has only ramped up the attacks on Obama's policies and past records in the Illionois and U.S. Senate.  Which, I believe, is appropriate, to a certain extent.  It's a good thing for the voters to see the candidates explain their policies and past decisions, as it can give us insight as to what they truly believe, beyond party platforms, and how they can be expected to act in the Oval Office.  However, what is truly despicable, and, unfortunately true to Republican form, is the effort that Sarah Palin and the Republican surrogates have gone to in order to create an image of Obama that sounds like an un-american, terrorist-favoring, America Hater.  

First, the surrogates:

• During the weekend, Sean Hannity hosted a program on Fox News called "Obama and Friends: The History of Radicalism".  As you can imagine, the program was filled with (completely unsubstantiated) attacks on Obama's character and background.  One of these claims was that Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago was actually "training for a radical overthrow of the government".
• Andy Martin, a conservative writer, accused Obama of secretly of being a Muslim.  He also created a bizarre, twisted connection between William Ayers, the former member of the Weather Underground, and Barack Obama, that went through the Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, to Fidel Castro, back to Hugo Chávez, and finally to Obama.
• Jerome Corsi just published a book that is filled with unsubstantiated accusations about Obama's alleged drug use and connections to Islam.

And then, there's Palin.  She just finished a campaign rally swing through Florida, where all she did was make accusations and smear Obama's good name.  She talked a lot about Obama's relationship to Ayers, making it sound like Obama is sympathetic to a violent overthrow of the government.  And the scariest thing about it?  The audience bought it all, snapped it right up - even yelling things like "kill him" and "terrorist" when she mentioned Obama by name.  

Is this what America has come to in this election?  Use of xenophobia and anger to defeat the opposition?  One man even yelled racial slurs at a black cameraman at the rally.  To me, that is absolutely unnecessary, over the top, and just plain wrong.  This is the 21st century, and America is nothing if not everything.  The America I know is made up of Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Caucasians, and everything in between.  Obama shouldn't have to defend his "American-ness".  HE WAS BORN IN AMERICA!  What more could you want for a definition of an American?  

So please, McCain, Mr. "Maverick", rein in your pitbull.  She's just dividing the country even more, between "us" and "them", at a time when we need to come together more than ever and show that we are a nation, united.  And to the American Voter - please, let's show the Republican Party that we are above fear- and hate-mongering, that those terror tactics have no place in a truly democratic and free America.  Vote Obama into office in November, and usher out this era of smear politics.

Sources: The New York Times

Palin Plays to Conservative Base in Florida Rallies

Obama's Personal Ties are Subject of Program on Fox News Channel

Campaigns Shift to Attack Mode on Eve of Debate

Warm Up for the Last Debate: Thoughts from the First

Thoughts from the first debate or
"Between the idea and the reality ...lies the shadow. " - T.S. Elliot

Just around the point when Obama was fumbling with that mystic talisman that would seemingly prove his righteousness in demanding his form of peace, the bracelet of sergeant Jopek, the Senator from Illinois said "No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they’re carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they’ve provided." It was an odd turn of phrase, perhaps the fault of a man unused to speaking in terms appropriate to military service, but did the Senator mean to suggest that the value of our soldier’s sacrifices was proportional to their fealty to the orders of their ultimate commander? That sort of sentiment seems more at home in an autocracy, where, as a representative of the will of the people or as a reflection of personal over institutional loyalty, soldiers swear their allegiance to their leader rather then to their homeland. American soldiers fight for "their country", for “the republic”, for “freedom”, or more simply, for the "folks back home" or "for the man next to them." They do not fight for the whim, or desires, of their leader, not as the legions fought for Caesar, and not even as the British fight for their Queen. Ours is a republic, our soldiers fight, or are said to fight, for the maintenance of our democratic institutions and our freedom. And the "we" used in the second sentence, does Senator Obama presume to speak as the embodiment of the nation, in the monarchicial plural, as a prince would?
Now, I would have left these phrases alone (one doesn't like to parse, and it should be said that the words of any man can be taken out of context) if they didn't speak to the duality of the Obama phenomenon. On the one hand we have Obama the avatar of change, the light worker, the capsule of hope for a nation that yearns to end division, to bring about righteous change and to be loved, again, among the countries; On the other their is the man, of flesh and blood; the enigma, the sphinx, a community organizer who accomplished nothing, a lecturer who never wrote, and a Senator who never voted. His plans are ever shifting, ephemeral; does anyone soberly imagine that he can bring his health care through? Some of his plans are at best at best cheap bribes, 500 dollars to each taxpayer. But then there is that awesome pride, the fake presidential seal, the acceptance among roman columns looming out over 60,000 eager acolytes, and the already placed transition team. "We are the change we have been waiting for" meaningless, except if "he" is that change. One of the great dangers democracies have always faced is that of the demagogue, whose paltry record, clear voice and deep charisma lacerate the people into believing that they are electing more then simply a politician.
Remember, you may vote for the dream on November 4th but it will be the man who takes office on January 20th.

To Follow Shortly: More sober reflections on the third debate. The second one need not be spoken of.

What's up with Biden?

Okay, so there has been a lot of criticism flying around about Palin, McCain, and Obama lately, but there is a lot to be said about Biden too.

The VP debate would have, undoubtedly, been a complete victory for Biden, had it not been for the fact that Sarah Palin managed to overcome her historically low expectations. In the debate Biden seemed cponfident, knowledgable, and in control. But was he really?

He was deemed a 'master Senator' by the Associated Press, thanks to his ability to talk about foreign policy with ease. The only problem is, Biden didnt really have a good grasp on what he was talking about, he just made it seem that way. A quote from Biden is that the US successfully "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon", and claimed that if NATO forces did not intervene, then Hezbollah would once again gain control. Hezbollah never lost control of Lebanon. They are in fact largely in control of the countries Southern half, and also dominate a portion of the government.

It is possible that Biden switched up a few terms, and actually meant to discuss the removal of Syria from Lebanon, which was the actuall attempt made by the United States. But he would still be incorrect as Syria still has a foothold in Lebanon.

He aslo doesnt seem to understand the technological capabilities causing stress in the Middle East, specifically regarding Israel and Pakistan. Biden claimed that "Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterannean." Sorry to say, but unless we gave Pakistan more weapons (again), then their missiles can not even make it halfway.

So, whats going on with Biden? Is he really the capable, in control, knowledgeable person we'd like him to be, especially since our only other option is a Barbie doll, or is he, in fact, just as clueless as Palin, but better at hiding it?

McCain: A Maverick?

Everyone knows that McCain (and Palin especially) refers to himself as a "maverick", claiming he goes against the grain in Washington, and reaches across the aisle, etc etc we've heard it all before.  However, recently there have been three relationships/actions of his that I think call this "maverick" label into question:

1)  His campaign manager Rick Davis used to work for a lobbying firm pushing for deregulation of the markets.  The lobbying firm was connected to the now-extinct mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

2)  McCain has been proven to be a special friend of the gambling industry, getting them hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks and deregulations.

3)  McCain was one of 5 senators accused of aiding Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loans failure scandal, by pushing deregulation and a looser prosecution.

How's he look now?  Not so "maverick-y", huh?  Seems to me he's just like any other long-term politician: can't keep his hands out of the cookie jar.  Now I'm not saying Obama's perfect, either - he's definitely pushed some to help out the coal industry in Illinois, for example.  But at least he's honest about who he is and what he's done.

Review of Sarah Palin's position during the Vice Presidential Debates

First of all, Sarah Palin used personal experience to support her points in the debate. Some of the things she said were, "Let me tell you what I did as mayor", "You know what I had to do in Alaska with the oil companies," You know what I would have done." Secondly, she indirectly referred to Barack Obama as a hypocrite by saying that unlike her opponent she will do what she says she is going to do and not the "opposite". When asked about McCain's health care plan she only described it as "good" and "detailed." When asked about same sex marriages she said she was tolerant and then referred to her family and gave an example of how diverse her family is. Palin described Obama's plan on meeting with "dangerous dictators" as plain naive. In the end, she avoided answering many of the questions asked so did Biden. Heres a link which will direct you to someone's personal review of the debate. (Youtube) Its quite interesting to see what people thought of the debate. 

"Hang on to your hate": Get ready for the meanest 29 days in American political

Maybe it was a Freudian slip, but typing Sarah Palin's greeting to a crowd at rally in Clearwater, FL yesterday — "hang onto your hats, because from now until Election Day it may get kind of rough" — it just seemed natural to type what she was really saying: Hang onto your hate!

It certainly seems apropos. As John McCain's poll numbers -- both nationally and in state by battleground state -- continue to fall, his surrogates spent Saturday 'leaking' to the MSM that the campaign was about to pivot to a new wave of attack ads.




Hoping to revive the same scandals Hillary Clinton hoped would derail the Obama campaign, McCain is dusting off the tried-and-true strategies of guilt by association and character assassination. In layman's terms, this means we'll be hearing names like William Ayers, Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright a lot in the coming weeks.

This has worked wonders for the Rove-orchestrated presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Indeed, McCain's campaign is now run by the same men who torpedoed his candidacy in 2000 (when he arguably was a Maverick™) by circulating rumors ahead of the South Carolina primary that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually his illegitmate black love-child. It worked wonders when a GOP 527 'swift-boated' John Kerry in 2004.

Maybe the folks in the McCain bunker haven't figured it out yet, but Barack Obama is not Al Gore and he's not John Kerry.



In fact, it seems like Team McCain didn't put much stock in a comment Obama made in Philadelphia in January about exactly how he would deal with Republican efforts to smear him the way they did his two predecessors:

Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. [...] Obama made the comment in the context of warning donors that the general election campaign against McCain could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy....’”

And indeed, this is the message coming from McCain. With nothing left to run on, he's now stuck running against Obama. It's unclear why they thought it would be a good idea to announce the plan to start stabbing at Obama, but Obama seems to have wasted no time loading up the gun. The Obama campaign's first counter-strike was a shot across the bow in the form of this ad, which was released yesterday:



When that didn't work, Obama put away the handgun and pulled out the Howitzer.

While a part of me is relieved to see a Democratic presidential candidate 'fighting back', I have to say, the capacity of some Americans to hate a black man named (say it with me...) Barack Hussein Obama terrifies me.

The easiest way to 'attack' Obama's character is to make him the Other. The easiest way to do this is to use his name and his race to call his patriotism and his Americanness into question. At the rally in Clearwater this weekend, Sarah Palin showed us how it's done.

"I was reading my copy of the New York Times the other day," she said.

"Booooo!" replied the crowd.

"I knew you guys would react that way, okay," she continued. "So I was reading the New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago."

It was time to revive the allegation, made over the weekend, that Obama "pals around" with terrorists, in this case Bill Ayers, late of the Weather Underground. Many independent observers say Palin's allegations are a stretch; Obama served on a Chicago charitable board with Ayers, now an education professor, and has condemned his past activities. [...]

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago." Here, Palin began to connect the dots. "These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes -- remember that's what Joe Biden had said. "And" -- she paused and sighed -- "I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as 'imperfect enough' to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country."

Did you catch it? GOP cheerleaders have been clamoring for McCain to "let Palin be Palin," and 24 hours into it, someone actually screamed "Kill him!" at a political rally. Admittedly, there's a 50-50 chance he was referring to Ayers, but seriously... "kill him!" KILL HIM!

At his rally in Albuquerque, NM today, McCain led off with a question for the audience: "Who is the real Barack Obama?" Listen carefully, and you'll hear the first and loudest voice offer his opinion: "Terrorist!"




For anyone who wonders why race is always an issue in this campaign, the examples above could hardly make it plainer. And things like this have been happening every week for the past few months, they just don't make it into the national spotlight very often.

The same kind of xenophobia was behind the recent attack on a mosque in Daytona, Ohio, where Muslim children were gassed while evening prayers during the holy month of Ramadan. Although local police would not rule the incident a hate crime, one member of the mosque pointed out that Daytona was one of many communities in the battleground state of Ohio that had recently been inundated with a DVD called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West; a group that supports John McCain mailed over 28 million DVDs to voters throughout the midwest.

It happened in Newberg, Oregon two weeks ago. According to public safety records at George Fox University, a Christian university, at 7:23 on September 23, a cardboard effigy of Barack Obama was found hanging from a tree with fishing wire around the cut-out's neck. Lest anyone mistake it for anything other than what it was — an act of racial hatred — the four students who admitted to hanging the effigy taped a sign to the figure's chest that identified Senator Obama as an "Act Six Reject". Act Six is a program similar to the Posse Foundation, in which Wheaton participates, and seeks to make liberal arts education more accessible to non-white and low-income students.

At the end of the day, John McCain and Sarah Palin aren't just "going negative," they're beginning to flirt with inciting violence on a presidential candidate who, at least as of today, seems very likely to become the next President of the United States. But no matter what brand of racial invective they sling, McCain and Palin will remain -- in the eyes of (far too) many Americans -- two All-American Mavericks™. Barack Hussein Obama, meanwhile, well, take it away citizens...

Obama palling around with terrorists?

According to CNN.com, Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of being friendly with terrorists at a fund raiser in Colorado. Palin said, "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would rather target their own country." These comments were fueled by the accusation that Obama was friendly with Bill Ayers, a founding member of the radical group Weather Underground.

These attacks seem to be a last ditch effort by the McCain campaign to slander Obama as his numbers in the poll continue to increase. The McCain campaign is aiming to portray Obama as an outsider and a foreigner, trying to cater to American's xenophobia. Republicans used this fear tactic to make Americans weary of Obama. When McCain says this election is not about race, it is a lie because they have been playing into Obama's minority status as a way to defer voters by threatening that he has been in cahoots with terrorists and that he is perhaps a muslim.

A recent poll from Pollster.com shows Obama with an 8 point lead ahead of McCain. With only 28 days until the election, these numbers portray a grim outlook for the Republican candidate.

McCain: down for the count?

Is McCain's campaign done for? Recently, with the current financial crisis, McCain has been steadily losing ground, while Obama seems to be cleaning up nicely. The distrust in Republicans, whish was lessening, has now returned full force. I mean, you can't really expect that after a nearly a decade of war, and 8 years of Texas moron, that a market crash would make the Republican party a hero, can you?

But did that really spell doom for McCain? All of the ground he recovered is quickly being sucked backed in by Obama. Even with the Republican's skillful decision in announcing Palin as VP, and with the fairly well performed debate on McCain's part, nothing seems to be stopping the slow, but steady flow of support to Obama. It seems that now, more than ever, Obama is beginning a cascade in his favor. And with the pullout from Michigan, it doesnt seem like McCain is going to hold on.

I mean, if even a trump card like Palin couldn't assure the Republicans stability, then what will?

To many states are up for graps-stated that McCain should have solidly in his grasp: states like Florida, North Carolina, Idaho, and even Indiana.

So the question is can McCain survive, or has Obama's victory already been assured?

How did we fall so far?

Sara Palin is, hands down, one of the single greatest disasters to happen to the United States.

Look, its true that the President is a figurehead for the country, and that the balance of power works to make sure that our executive branch can't mess things up to seriously. However, those in charge still wield a huge amount of power, and putting Palin as next-in-line Commander in Chief is like giving a chipmunk a remote detonator for a ballistic missle.

Palin is obviously a serious problem, or at the very least everyone I've talked to seems to believe so. But why do people insist on supporting her? Is it her everyday American appeal, her friendly winks, or her overwhelming knowledge about Russia, and what it looks like from a distance? Is it because, according to one of my neighbors, she's "smokin' hot"?

Unfortunately for us, the answer is apparently that our political system sucks. Its a populariy contest; candidates choose who to support, and who to run with, to draw various constituencies towards their cause. Its not about what the best choice for the country is, its about what the best choice to win is. That is the only reason Palin is even known today-though how a political official of that level of extreme stupidity managed to stay beneath the radar so far, I will never know or understand-is because she 'connects with everyday Americans' (Meacham, Newsweek).

Palin herself commented that people are outspoken against her because she is "a normal Joe Six-Pack" vying for the seat of Vice President. There are two things wrong with that:

1. She's not a 'Joe'. It's not clear what Palin knows about anything, and the fact that she confuses her own sexuality is frightening.

2. Those in charge can not be the average Joe Six-Pack. They can be a person who understands and responds to the average American, yes. But they also need to represent what is best about America, and about its people.

And therein lies the problem with Sarah Palin. She is a representation of America, but only of it's ignorance and stupidity. We need a Vice President who can display a good image about our country, especially amidst the current financial hardships.

And having a Vice President who plays 'peek-a-boo' with Russia does not speak volumes about the intelligence, and the greatness of America.

Vice Presidential Debate

The rollercoaster ride that has followed John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin cannot seem to find its way back up.

It seems now that every time Palin speaks, millions are crowding around and waiting for something to criticize her about. Anything from her daughter, to her family issues, to her lack of experience, to her very awkward and embarrassing statements. Palin was given the vice presidential debate as her last real chance to redeem herself. Many thought the hole she had dug herself was too deep. Some thought she could rebound by giving a mediocre performance simply because her standards had been lowered so much that any outcome that would not be disastrous would be acceptable. Going into the debate, Sarah Palin seemed primed to debate very safely and not exceed her borders. And she did.

Other than a few very awkward statements and the fact that she overplayed her hockey mom narrative, she came out alive. However it become so apparently clear, if it wasn't before, how much of a strategic pick this was that lacked substance. McCain is just going to throw her up there and make sure she reaches out to the specific fan base that he was targeting when he picked her: the middle-aged woman. Palin is a very charismatic woman young enough (Hillary Clinton could not have passed with that wink) that she can be a role model for women, but also catch the eye of men (Joe Biden being one). But the question has always been, is Sarah Palin ready to run?

It is here that I would like to point out the subtle bias that I may have picked up from moderator Gwen Ifill during the debate. Ifill openly chose to point out the general consensus that Palin does not have enough experience, something that surprised me during the debate. While at first glance it may be nothing, the comment seemed out of place and may point to some of her own political views, seeing as she wrote the questions herself. Ifill is author of the book "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama", something that some conservatives have been taking issue with. I had no knowledge of her book until I saw the debate and heard her comment which prompted me to research her. Overall I think she did a fair job of moderating, but to the close eye there was some bias, there a few other minor places. Anyways she raised the issue of Palin's experience, which is very important.

Palin, akin to Obama in this sense, is very easy to like, but is that all a Vice President (or President) should be? Out of the four, (McCain, Obama, Biden, and herself) she seems the most down to earth, everyday person; someone who we all can relate to, strangely the kind of person the other 3 claim to be. Her narrative is becoming less and less suitable for the White House and more for somebody we would want to be friends with. Her narrative is the only thing keeping her hope in this race alive at this point.

So yes, she has reached a low point where everyone is lining up waiting to catch her next blunder. Yes, it is pathetic that a sub-par performance is looked upon as a success because of her past screw-ups. Sarah Palin could be the one true everyday person that everyone is looking to follow. But not our President. Not yet at least.

Palin Misquotes

According to an article in The Huffington Post today, Palin grossly misquoted former Secretary of State (under Clinton) and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright when she quoted her at a rally, saying "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women".  Actually, what Albright said was, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't HELP other women".  One word, but it makes a world of difference.  The way Palin said it, she sounded like she was accusing women that would vote for Obama over her of being evil.  The way Albright said it, she was accusing of women who turn their backs on a woman in need as being evil.  By, say, charging them for the use of rape kits, or by taking a stance that refused to let women get abortions, even in occasions of rape or incest.  Just to clarify, that's my interpretation; Albright didn't say that.  But she did respond, to the misquote, by saying, 

"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 out society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."

I find it pretty disgusting that Palin would resort to "the gender card" - like the race card, but in this case, it's over her sex.  I can only hope that the American Public will see through the ridiculousness of her misquote, and make a decision in November based on real issues - like foreign policy, the economy, energy policy, etc. - and not on race or gender.  Oh, and do you remember when during her debate with Biden, she accused the Mainstream Media of constantly filtering her words, especially after her interview with Couric?  Well, after her misquote, she said, "...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."  Two things: One, did she knowingly and purposefully misquote Albright?  Because when she immediately defended herself, it sounded fishy to me.  Two, what can you expect, when you misquote someone?  The story will invariably be that she misquoted Albright, who supports Obama and Biden.  There's really not a whole lot of wiggle room for the newspapers to "filter" Palin's remark.  The whole thing is just ridiculous. 

McCain's Michigan Cover-up

As I was browsing RealClearPolitics today, I came across an eye-catching story regarding McCain and his staffers in Michigan. According to the article, written by Susan Estrich, McCain removed his campaign from what Estrich describes as "the key state of Michigan". She is quick to point out how in the last four years Michigan has been an increasingly Democratic state, but also emphasizes that Michigan is by no means an "Obama stronghold". In fact, one of the more interesting points she highlights is how in 2000, McCain actually won Michigan.

This is interesting and I completely agree with Estrich's assertion that McCain's removal from Michigan is a sign of weakness. First off, as is pointed out in Estrich's article, this state really wasn't a guarantee for Obama and was a state in which McCain has had success previously. I personally would have expected for Michigan to be a reliable state for McCain due to his win there in 2000. Also, one of Michigan's key issues is its unemployment rate, which stands at 1.9% above the national average with an eye-opening 7.3% unemployed. An unemployment rate of this magnitude is attributable to Michigan's status as a manufacturing state. One would think that these economic factors would lead voters in Michigan to favor McCain's economic plan that aims to reduce corporate taxes so that jobs, including manufacturing jobs, will remain in the United States. This assumption is apparently incorrect.

Even more intriguing is the timing of McCain's withdrawal from Michigan. He chose to secede from the state on the day of the vice presidential debate. This timing seems a little too convenient for McCain. What McCain apparently planned to do was to minimize the damage that would be caused by withdrawing from Michigan by having it coincide with the VP debate. By timing it like this, he was able to remove his staffers while the media had its hands full with Palin and Biden. Its a clever strategy, but it shows his weakness regardless. In fact, it enhances the idea of McCain's weakness because the way he tried to hide his withdrawal just goes to show how he seems to realize that he is in trouble. If he thought everything was just fine, then why would he go through the effort to hide it?

No matter where you stand politically, it would appear that McCain is struggling here and is showing some of his weakness by withdrawing from Michigan. Certainly this will have an effect because there go 17 electoral votes that would have come in handy, but at least he can say he tried to cover it up!

Sources:

http://pollster.com/

http://election.nationaljournal.com/states/mi.htm

Estrich, Susan, RealClearPolitics.com, "McCain Leaving Michigan is a Sign of Weakness", http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/mccain_leaving_michigan_is_a_s.html, October 5, 2008

SNLs VP Debate Video

Watch SNLs version of the Vice Presidential Debate Here:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/37730/saturday-night-live-vp-debate-open-palin--biden 

...hilariousssss 

Palin's Accusation: Obama a Terrorist

McCain has hit an all-time low in campaign tactics. His most recent strategy has been to associate his opponent, Barack Obama, with terrorism, and I don't mean his ability to fight terror. On Saturday, Sarah Palin tried to tie former radical and Weather Underground member Bill Ayers t0 Obama saying, "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world, our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (CNN article) 

This claim is clearly a feeble attempt to hurt Obama, but just makes the McCain campaign look like they're scrambling for any offense now that they have lost momentum from Palin, and their poll numbers are sliding downwards. It shows that Obama is strong enough in policy and character that they now must attack "suspected" associates who may have weaker histories. 

The claim is poorly constructed. In her speech, Palin references a New York Times article regarding the questionable relationship between Obama and Ayers (current university professor). The same article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" Other news sources including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker, and The New Republic have also disproved the idea. CNN's "fact checker" on this claim offered the verdict, "False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are." In fact, the last time they met was over a year ago on a street in the Chicago neighborhood where they both reside. Before that, they worked together on a non-profit Chicago school improvement project raising $50 million grants to aid public education. Ayers was the driving force behind the effort, and Obama was recruited onto the board.  They were later both board members on the Woods Fund, a charitable foundation that raised money various causes including churches and the Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center. 

Obama's campaign is not worried about this claim and reports it will be ineffective. I can't imagine the public will be moved by the hollow accusation considering it's absurdity. If you were to work in a soup kitchen with a former felon, does that make you a felon too? Obviously not! And even if the claim was true, if anything, it could be a positive for Obama. It means that Obama has the upper-hand in quelling radical groups and understanding their position, and it means radical groups won't pull some violent stunt while Obama is in office. 

Either way McCain and Palin need to stop trying to distract the public with pitiful attempts to bring Obama down, and get back to the real issues.