2008 Presidential Election

A rare glimpse of political reality from the corporate media (TIME):

Oh, let's just admit it: John McCain is a long shot. He's got a heroic personal story, and being white has never hurt a presidential candidate, but on paper 2008 just doesn't look like his year. And considering what's happening off paper, it might be time to ask the question the horse-race-loving media are never supposed to ask: Is McCain a no-shot?

Last week, the McCain campaign's case against Barack Obama went something like this: He's irresponsible when it comes to Iraq, naive when it comes to Iran, and a big-government liberal when it comes to the economy. But now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has more or less endorsed Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq, forcing McCain to argue that Maliki didn't really mean it, and even the Bush administration has accepted a "time horizon" for withdrawal, if not a precise "timetable." The Bush administration has also engaged in some diplomatic outreach with Iran, just as Obama has recommended, a severe blow to McCain's efforts to portray Obama's willingness to talk as appeasement. And on the economy, a TIME/Rockefeller Foundation poll found that 82% of the country supports

Read the rest of this entry...

San Francisco Business Times:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain cashes his monthly Social Security checks despite calling the federal program "a disgrace," the Associated Press reports.

"I'm receiving benefits," McCain told campaign reporters, but added, "the system is broken."

In 2007, he received benefits of $23,157 from Social Security, approximately $1,930 a month. The maximum monthly benefit under Social Security is $2,185. [...]

In 2006, McCain's wife Cindy earned $6 million, and has a net worth of approximately $100 million.

Just go read thereisnospoon at Daily Kos.

In come Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — a black man and a woman vying fiercely for the presidency and making history in the process. Obama triumphs. And looming on the GOP's horizon is its worst nightmare: the possibility that a majority of Americans might vote for an African-American for president. And not just vote for one, but get used to one. Americans might become accustomed to the idea of an African-American family living in the White House and being its public face to the world. That in the process, Americans might actually make leaps and bounds forward on the issue of race and thereby remove the most effective wedge in the Republican toolbox for decades.

And then all Republicans would have left is their deeply unpopular drive to abolish the New Deal. It would, in short, spell utter doom for the Republicans outside of the deep South and certain pockets of the Midwest.

BagNewsNotes:

Tom Toles of the Washington Post:

David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The Onion News Network provides some tips for the less politically informed members of our citizenry:

Politico from June 25:

[Deputy campaign manager Steve] Hildebrand's plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama's campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won't necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama's three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign's challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states. [...]

A "new president alone isn't enough," Obama wrote in a message sent to the DSCC's e-mail list. "I've served long enough in the U.S. Senate to know that Washington must change, and I also know that big changes don't happen without big Senate majorities — and right now, Democrats occupy only 49 seats."

You might have heard that a few thousand Obama supporters have created a group on Obama's own campaign website to ask him to vote against the Democrats' latest travesty of a FISA bill (NYTimes):

The group, created on Wednesday [June 25], has more than 8,000 members, and recently passed the group "Women for Obama." (On Monday morning, there were barely 4,000 members of the anti-FISA group.) [...]

The entire episode shows the potential complications of an open site becoming an enabler of criticism from ardent supporters, let alone from opponents in disguise, so-called "concern trolls." But the campaign said it wouldn't have it any other way.

In an e-mail message, Tommy Vietor, an Obama campaign spokesperson, wrote: "This campaign has an extraordinary group of committed supporters, and we greatly appreciate their willingness to share their time and ideas with us. We believe that an open dialogue is an important part of any campaign, and are happy that my.barackobama.com has become a vehicle for that conversation."

The member count for the anti-FISA-bill group is now 11,759. Click here to join the group.

And a follow-up from The Nation:

Even conservative bloggers are impressed that the Obama campaign provides an open platform for supporters to organize against the candidate's position. "Rather than react in accordance with the practices of most campaigns by shutting and muffling dissent," observed the GOP blog The Next Right, "Obama is providing dissidents (many of whom are supporters of his) the opportunity to organize on his campaign web-site." The blog contrasted the approach to top-down campaigns on the right. "Can you imagine a Bush campaign reacting like this? I can't."

Paul Waldman at Huffington Post:

McCain has every right to talk about Vietnam all he wants — it's his story, and no serious person has ever disputed the details. But don't tell us he's reluctant to use it, because he isn't. He talks about it to voters, he talks about it to contributors, he talks about it to reporters, he talks about it with seriousness, he jokes about it, and his campaign makes every attempt it can to remind people of what happened to him in Vietnam.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with that. But what happened with Gen. Clark reveals the McCain Rules, as he and the press would have us understand them. Here's how things are supposed to work: It's fine for the McCain campaign to run ads touting his time as a POW, create web videos touting his time as a POW, have him mention his time as a POW in speeches, and have him bring it up in debates (remember "I was tied up at the time"?). In other words, it's fine to have John McCain's entire presidential run be presented through the filter of his POW experience. Should, however, someone even ask the question of whether the fact that McCain was a POW really qualifies him to be president, that would be a deeply offensive affront to all that is right and good, and must not be tolerated. Talk about having it both ways.

I guess it's an improvement from 2000, when the media couldn't say "Al Gore invented the Internet!" fast enough. However, you have to wonder if reporting on false, politically motivated rumors just helps them spread more (WaPo):

On the television in his living room, [Jim] Peterman has watched enough news and campaign advertisements to hear the truth: Sen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii, is a Christian family man with a track record of public service. But on the Internet, in his grocery store, at his neighbor's house, at his son's auto shop, Peterman has also absorbed another version of the Democratic candidate's background, one that is entirely false: Barack Obama, born in Africa, is a possibly gay Muslim racist who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. [...]

"I think Obama would be a disaster, and there's a lot of reasons," said [Leroy] Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from friends he goes camping with. "I understand he's from Africa, and that the first thing he's going to do if he gets into office is

Read the rest of this entry...

From Politico

The same publisher that distributed the 2004 best-seller that took aim at John Kerry’s Vietnam service is planning a summer release of what’s scheduled to be the first critical book on Barack Obama. Conservative journalist David Freddoso’s “The Case Against Barack Obama” will offer “a comprehensive, factual look at Obama,” according to Regnery Publishing president and publisher Marjory Ross.

Read the rest of this entry...