Democrats are abandoning the Middle Class

I found this Kevin Drum post, where Drum responds to this American Prospect story by Sean McElwee, on why the American voters vote against their self-interests, and whether the Democrats can use the environment as a centrist issue.  First, the American Prospect story:

For decades, thinkers on the left have wondered why the working class regularly votes against its own interests, upending what Marx believed would be an inevitable march from democracy to socialism. In his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, Thomas Frank argued that social issues obscure economic motives, and indeed the most salient non-economic one has always been race, at least in this country. In America, conservative politicians have exploited racism to their own benefit, first to disempower blacks with Jim Crow, then to undermine the union movement, and more recently to undercut support for welfare programs, as Ian Haney Lopez recently documented in Dog-Whistle Politics. Nixon’s “law and order campaign” played on racial fears, as did Reagan’s denunciation of “welfare queens.” Republicans played at race to win solid majorities for decades while actively working against the interests of the majority of Americans. The left has much to learn about this strategy. It needs to fundamentally re-align Americans around an issue with a deep and latent importance: the environment.

When asked about the most important global issue, 25 percent of Americans cite environmental degradation, while only 10 percent cite the economy. "Everyone studying American politics has been waiting for a new realignment because the last few decades have been marked by political apathy and the rise of a new voting bloc that is not strongly tied to either party,” says Dr. Benjamin Radcliff, professor of politics at Notre Dame and author of The Political Economy of Human Happiness: How Voters' Choices Determine the Quality of Life. “What is needed is some spark, either an event, like the Great Depression—or just a party capable of mobilizing this latent potential."

What I'm especially interested here is that Kevin Drum gets "peevish" at McElwee's story:

 Why is it that the working class often votes against its own economic interests? Well, let's compare the sales pitches of the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to pocketbook issues:

• Republicans: We will lower your taxes.
• Democrats: We, um, support policies that encourage a fairer distribution of growth and....and....working man....party of FDR....um....

There are two problems with the Democratic approach. First, it's too abstract to appeal to anyone. Second, it's not true anyway. Democrats simply don't consistently support concrete policies that help the middle class. Half of them voted for the bankruptcy bill of 2005. They've done virtually nothing to stem the growth of monopolies and next to nothing to improve consumer protection in visible ways. They don't do anything for labor. They're soft on protecting Social Security. They bailed out the banks but refused to bail out underwater homeowners. Hell, they can't even agree to kill the carried interest loophole, a populist favorite if ever there was one. 

(....). 

And then Democrats will wonder yet again why a big chunk of the working class votes for Republicans. It's a stumper all right.

Apologies for being peevish. But honestly, Democrats have done virtually nothing for the middle class for three decades now. They're nearly as reliant on the business community for campaign funding as Republicans. Can we all stop pretending that there's some deep mystery about why lots of working and middle class voters figure there are no real economic differences between the parties, so they might as well vote on social issues instead?

If you want to know why the Democrats can't seem to win elections like the Republicans, this is it.  The Democratic Party no longer believes in policies to help the Middle Class, and barely advocates policies to help the poor and working class--Cat Food Commission anyone?  The Democrats will not "support concrete policies" in a no-compromising way that Republicans have done for three decades.  Instead, the Democrats cave and compromise to Republican demands on everything.  The Republicans know it, so they push their demands even further rightward into Crazyland, with the Democrats continuing to cave and shift rightward away from their core values.  Democratic congress critters are never primaried for compromising on their values the way that Tea Party voters primary their Republican congress critters.  And finally, both political parties have been purchased by corporations, Wall Street, and the ubber-rich.  Middle class policies and values will always be rejected for the interests of those who purchased their Democratic congressmen.

You can't expect voters to continue voting for you, if you don't give them something in return.  So far, the Democrats are not giving the Middle Class any policies to help them--not helping them with the lost jobs, improving education, bankruptcy, housing, crushing student debt, TBTF Banks, protecting Social Security, spiraling health care costs and single-payer insurance.  Social issues don't matter worth a damn--Not if people can't keep a roof over their heads and place food on their table.   And the "Vote-For-Us-We're-Not-As-Bad-As-The-Other-Guy" can only go so far--if you keep caving in and not standing for anything, then you're actually worst than "The Other Guy."  While I may know that the Republican policies are bad for the country, I also know that the Republicans are pretty consistent with their policies.  The Democrats?  They have no consistency. 

That is what's wrong with the Democratic Party.  I doubt that the Democratic Party can ever change--not with the way things are now.

House passes health care reform, Obama to sign.

I've been busy with a number of things, but I've been watching the events taking place on the health care debate. After the Senate passed the health care reform bill in December, the bill went into a torturous reconciliation process, where a number of House Democrats did not like the Senate version of the bill. There was a lot of back-and-forth going on between the two chambers, topped with Republican congress-critters tossing threats and temper tantrums at the Democrats for trying to reconcile the two bills. Even President Barack Obama canceled his East Asian trip to perform some last-minute arm twisting on House Democrats to vote for the health reform package.

So today was the big day for the House to debate and approve the Senate version of the health care reform bill.

The House approved the Senate's health care reform bill 219-212. From ABC News:

The House of Representatives passed the sweeping health care bill with a narrow margin, securing a significant victory for President Obama, who lobbied hard this week for the controversial legislation.

The vote was certain after the House Democratic leadership finalized a deal this afternoon with anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health care bill in exchange for an executive order from Obama affirming no federal funding for abortion.

The House today voted on two separate pieces of legislation. One, the Senate health care bill and second, the amendments to that bill made by House members and Obama.

The bill now goes to the president's desk to sign, after which it will become law. The White House has not yet decided where or when Obama will sign the Senate health care bill, which he needs to do before the "fixes" to that bill begin to be debated in the Senate, though White House officials say it will not be this evening.

As the last speaker before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that by passing the bill, Congress would be taking a historic step.

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans," Pelosi said.

The bill still has to go back to the Senate for approval of reconciliation "fixes" that House Democrats have proposed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid assured the House, Saturday, that he has the 51 majority vote needed to pass the fixes, with the Senate expected to pick up the bill on Tuesday. Health care reform will be law.

Watching this debate unfold, what really interested me here is a couple of factors. The big factor has been the Republican response to the entire health care debate. The GOP never wanted any such health care reform passed--be it a Democratic health care reform or a Republican health care reform. In fact, I don't think the Republicans had a health care reform package they could sell to the American public. They never bothered taking up the mantle of health care reform, at least since President Richard Nixon looked at reforming a national health insurance plan for Americans. The GOP and the health insurance industry completely shot down President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1994. Even when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress under George W. Bush, they never bothered looking at health care, with the exception of passing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. But the prescription drug act is not passing a comprehensive health care bill for all Americans, but rather overhauling Medicare to provide prescription drugs to its recipients. But when you get Blue Cross raising health insurance premiums to its customers by 39 percent this month, and around 45 million Americans are uninsured, the Republicans have turned a blind eye to this growing problem. For the past two years, the GOP refused to join the Democrats in a bipartisan attempt to reform health care, using obstructionism, threats, lies, and deceit as a means to kill health care reform--Death panels anyone? The Republicans thought that by playing the obstructionist game, then Americans would suffer so much under a crushing health care system, job losses, a recessionary economy, and all sorts of other problems, that they would vote the Democrats out of Congress, and bring the Republicans back into the majority. Then the Republicans could play even more obstructionism against President Obama until 2012, when Sarah Palin will be elected into the Oval Office? So the Republicans were united in opposing health care reform. The vote even shows such opposition, since not one Republican House member voted for the health reform bill tonight.

That has all changed. Republican obstructionism failed. It brings me to a second factor in that the passage of this health care bill was a victory that President Obama really needed to re-energize his presidential agenda. Health care reform was a major Obama campaign promise during the 2008 presidential election. When President Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he tried to fulfill his promise of health care reform, but made some serious mistakes. The first mistake Obama made was that he never took the bully pulpit and tell Congress, "This is what I want from health care reform. Here are my proposals, now let us work together in creating real reform." I got the impression that Obama administration took a hands off approach to health care reform, instead saying, "Okay Congress, pass some health care legislation so I can sign it." Talk about a near recipe for disaster. Both congressional houses passed their own versions of health care reform bill which neither house liked the other chamber's bill. I am actually amazed at how close the bill passed tonight. The second mistake the Obama administration made in health care was really allowing the Republicans to control the message on health care for the past couple of years. Think about it--what do you remember of the message on health care reform? I remember death panels, Obamacare killing grandma, Obamacare reducing your Medicare benefits, Obamacare raising taxes, and Obamacare. I remember Tea Party protests, town hall disruptions organized by conservative groups, and even health insurance industry urging their employees to attend protest groups against health care reform. Looking back at the debate in 2009, it seemed like the message pounded into the American public was that health care reform was a terrible bill--look at all these Americans who are afraid of the evils of health care reform. Health care reform should be stopped. That was the message, brought to you by the Republican Party. I never heard much from the Obama administration to counter the Republican spin on health care. And yet, I look at the polls on the health care debate, Americans are split on whether they approve or disapprove of health care reform--it actually depends on how the question is phrased to shift Americans' opinions for either approval or disapproval on the issue. So President Obama lost the message on health care reform to the Republicans. That should have been enough to kill the issue, but it didn't.

Health care reform passed. I think in the last three months, President Obama and the Democrats woke up to the possibility that this reform bill will not pass. The turning point may have been when Massachusetts Republican state senator Scott Brown won a huge victory over Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley for the late Ted Kennedy's vacant Senate seat in late January. Republicans thought that this was the American voters' repudiation of President Obama, and the congressional Democrats, agenda. I think it is a voter's anger over incumbents--both Democrat and Republican. Either way, this was a wake-up call for both President Obama and the Democrats. They needed to pass health care soon, and show a major legislative achievement for the Democrats, and a political victory for President Obama. President Obama needed to show the American people that he could deliver a campaign promise--especially during a troubled economic time, where Americans are worried about their jobs, their financial situation, the housing crisis, and the health care crisis.

Not only that, but 2010 is a midterm election year, where the president's party usually loses seats. If the health care reform debate was dragged out into the late summer/early fall, the Republicans would use health care in attack ads against Democrats in conservative-leaning states and districts. Those Democratic lawmakers would be more worried about their jobs, rather than about passing legislation. Health care would never have passed. And if the Republicans did take control of at least one house, we'll say the Senate, then the GOP majority leadership would simply throw the health care reform bill in the trash. Of course, the Republicans will obviously use this passage of health care reform in attack ads against the Democrats, but President Obama can also tell American voters that he fulfilled his campaign promise to deliver health care reform. This is huge. If President Obama failed at passing health care reform, I think it would have emboldened the Republicans, and conservative constituents, into greater attacks against the Democrats, and the president, for control of Congress. Such emboldened conservative constituents may have gone out of their way to vote Republican candidates in. The Democrats failure at passing health care reform would have also angered their liberal constituents. Would liberal Democrats have gone out of their way to vote for Democratic candidates that failed to deliver on health care reform? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal activists that are speculating on whether to replace those Democratic House members that have voted against the health care reform bill.

Finally, there is President Obama. This could have been a huge failure for the President, who was elected into office on a campaign promise of hope and change. Americans wanted change. If President Obama failed to pressure the Democrats into passing health care reform, he would have been seen by Americans as a president who could not deliver on his campaign promise of hope and change. President Obama would certainly have been a lame duck in the final two years of his first term in office--especially if an emboldened GOP gained control of the Senate. But now, the midterm elections have been changed. President Obama can sell his health care campaign promise to the American voters. The Democrats can attack the Republicans as being against providing affordable health care to Americans. The Republicans can still still play obstructionism and use fear attacks against the president and the Democrats on health care, however, I think the fear factor will be greatly diminished against the moderates and independents (the hard-lined conservatives will still believe in Obamacare's death panels).

This midterm election will still be about the issue of health care. But now the focus will shift to what will this new health care law do for the American voter? Instead of fear-mongering, the issue will be on legal specifics of this law. I think that will be more difficult for Republicans to raise with their fear-mongering, which they will still engage in. Finally, this huge hurdle is over for the Democrats and President Obama--they can now concentrate on other issues, such as financial reform, or jobs. President Obama and the congressional Democrats can work on passing more legislation, against Republican obstructionism, that they can also sell to the American voters. With the health care reform bill passed, American voters can now decide if this is the direction that they want to see their country heading towards, and vote accordingly. This is a whole new midterm election.

Burris will not run for Senate in 2010

I guess Roland Burris finally realized just how Blago-radioactive he was for the Democrats in the Senate. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic official says Roland Burris will not run for a full Senate term in 2010.

The source says Burris has begun informing Democratic officials about his decision. The official spoke on condition because Burris had yet to announce his decision.

Burris was appointed by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. His appointment was criticized from the moment it was announced and prompted calls for Burris to resign.

In the Senate, Burris has been treated as something of a pariah because of his ties to Blagojevich, who was arrested in part on allegations he tried to sell the Senate seat.

By not seeking a full term, Burris increases Democrats chances of holding on to the Senate seat in 2010. Republicans had viewed Burris as a potentially easy target if he were to run for a full-term in the Senate.

Burris was treated as something of a pariah. It is not surprising, since the Senate Democrats never liked Burris because of Burris' ethics taint--not only was Burris selected by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was indicted for trying to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat, but Burris may have perjured himself on allegations that Burris "talked to some people" about raising money for Blagojevich. Burris has presented multiple stories about his contacts with Blagojevich, all contradictory. So the Senate Democrats wanted nothing to do with Burris. The Senate Republicans, however, loved Burris. The Republicans would love to see Burris run for re-election, after which the GOP could then drag the entire Blago scandal out during the 2010 election, and smear the Democrats with it. Of course, the Republicans wouldn't give Burris the time of day either. So Burris is sitting in Senate purgatory--damned by both political parties. It is ironic that Burris may have thought that Blago's selecting him to Obama's former Senate seat would have furthered Burris' political ambitions. Instead, I seriously wonder if Burris' political career is now over.

Congressional approval ratings jump from 19 percent to 31 percent

This is from Gallup.com:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's latest congressional job approval rating, from a Feb. 9-12 poll, shows a sharp 12 percentage-point increase from last month, rising from 19% to 31%. While still quite negative on an absolute basis, this is the best rating for Congress in nearly two years.

Congress' approval ratings have been below 30% pretty consistently since October 2005. There have been a few exceptions to this, with ratings as high as 37% in early 2007 after the Democrats took party control of Congress after their victories in the November 2006 midterm elections, but those quickly disappeared. More recently, approval ratings of Congress had been about 20% or lower, including an all-time low rating of 14% in July 2008.

Congressional job approval ratings from 2006 to 2009. From Gallup.

This month's sharp increase largely reflects a more positive Democratic review of Congress. Since the previous measure from early January, Barack Obama has been inaugurated as president, and now Democrats have party control of both the legislative and the executive branches of the federal government.

I'm thinking that Congress' abysmal poll ratings were due to the perception that they were a rubber-stamp for the Bush administration. Back in October, 2005, the Republicans held control of Congress and pretty much rammed down their own ideology, and conservative legislation, down the country's throat. Of course, in 2005, the scandals were coming out against the Bush administration on the intelligence failures on Iraq, Valerie Plame, domestic spying, and torture. The GOP leadership refused to allow any serious congressional investigations into the Bush administration's connection with these scandals. The 109th Congress, at that time, was considered the "Do-Nothing" Congress. Even when the Democrats took control of the 110th Congress, after the 2006 midterm elections, they could not pass much legislation with a closely divided Senate, and both a threatening GOP filibuster in the Senate and a President Bush veto. The 37 percent uptick in 2007 was a positive result due to the Democrats' retaking control of Congress. But the Democratic leadership still could not effectively legislate.

Flash forward to today. We've got a Democrat in the White House, under President Barack Obama, and the Democrats in charge of Congress. With the economic stimulus bill having passed in Congress, and President Obama signing the bill, it is not surprising that the congressional approval ratings have shot up by 12 points. And even though the poll was taken on February 9-12, the American people have been watching the political events taking place during this debate on the stimulus bill, and how the Obama administration has been moving this bill through Congress, attempting to provide bipartisanship with Republican congressmen. And so far, the American people have been approving of both President Obama, and Congress.

But congressional approval only goes so far. The big losers are, again, the Republicans:

Democrats' average approval ratings of Congress more than doubled from January (18%) to February (43%). Independents show a smaller increase, from 17% to 29%, while Republicans are now less likely to approve of Congress than they were in January.

Congressional approval ratings for January and February, 2009, by political party. From Gallup.

Job approval ratings for the Republican Party dropped 4 percentage points between January and February of this year, from 23 percent in January to 19 percent in February. Contrast that to the 25 point percentage increase by the Democrats, between January and February, of this year. You can blame this 4 percent drop in the Republican's job approval ratings due to the GOP's incessant opposition and obstruction against the economic stimulus bill. Even as President Obama attempted to reach out for bipartisanship on the stimulus bill, not a single Republican House member voted for the stimulus bill, and only three Republican senators voted for the bill. This stimulus bill comes at a time when the U.S. is struggling through a severe economic recession, with Americans worried about the employment picture, the financial crisis, the housing crisis, and the plummeting 401K retirement funds. And with the Republicans opposing the stimulus bill at a time when the U.S. is facing such severe economic problems, it is no wonder that the GOP's approval ratings are sinking. It is a high-risk strategy that the GOP is playing, hoping that the worsening economic conditions will turn the American public against the Democrats and President Obama, sending the Republicans back into power in the 2010 and 2012 elections--for both Congress and the White House.

Democrats / Republicans claim bipartisanship isn't working

We're getting into the fun part of the congressional blame game here. From The Politico.com:

Frustrated Senate Democratic leaders dispensed with calls for bipartisanship on the stimulus package Thursday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying that he won't let anyone "hold the president of the United States hostage."

President Barack Obama had once hoped to have the package pass with substantial Republican support. But Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that's now a “distant memory."

"So far," he said, bipartisanship "isn't working. . . . It takes two to tango, but the Republicans aren’t dancing.”

But in an interview with Politico, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that it’s the Democrats – and not the Republicans – who have made a mockery of bipartisanship.

“Senators are in a panic – this bill is stinking up the place,” Graham said – then accused Obama of being “AWOL” in the stimulus discussions.

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other moderate senators are trying to negotiate a compromise that could kill tens of billions from the bill. Reid said the leadership would consider that proposal, "but the question is whether [the plan] would strengthen the bill."

Reid said Obama “instructed” him to work with the bipartisan group of senators, but he rejected calls from some senators to overhaul the bill. “If they think they’re going to rewrite the bill, Barack Obama is going to walk away,” he said.

Reid said he hoped the Senate would approve the bill as soon as Thursday night and send the measure to a House-Senate conference committee that would iron out the final package.

Despite concerns from some centrist Democrats, Reid said his 58-person caucus would be unified in support - and that he could pick up two Republican votes to get to the 60 he'll need.

The Democratic Senate leaders seemed to be taking their lead from Obama, who's been courting Republicans but also taking veiled shots at their party.

Sometimes politics is fun to watch with some buttered popcorn. Harry Reid is blaming the Republicans for holding President Barack Obama hostage, while Senate Republicans are blaming the Democrats for allowing the stimulus bill to stink Capitol Hill up. What you are hearing is the obligatory insults of each party blaming the other for not engaging in a "bipartisan" manner. Of course, if both sides are that pissed off over "bipartisanship," then maybe the compromise and bipartisanship for passing this economic stimulus bill is actually working? Perhaps it may end up passing.

Reid claims Democrats have enough votes to overcome GOP filibuster on stimulus bill

This is from The Hill.com:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Thursday that he has enough votes to pass a more than $900 billion stimulus bill out of the Senate.

Reid said he believes at least two Republicans of "good will" would support the Democratic-crafted package.

"Do we have the votes? We believe we do," said Reid, who expects a final vote on the package will be held on Thursday.

It appears the stimulus would attract only a few GOP votes, however, and Senate Democratic leaders distanced themselves from earlier hopes that the economic recovery could draw more Republican support.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), vice chairman of the Democratic Conference, said the notion of attracting 80 votes for the package in the Senate is a "distant memory."

"We'd rather pass a good bill with 65 votes," said Schumer.

Democratic leaders also cast doubt on an effort negotiated by centrists such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to strip as much as $200 billion from the bill.

Schumer said a price tag of $650 billion, which Collins supports for the package, is inadequate.

"If they think they're going to rewrite this bill, President Obama is going to walk away," said Reid, when asked about efforts by about 20 centrists to lop off $100 billion to $200 billion from the cost of the package.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said such a large cut in the bill’s size would cost Americans hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We will see if Harry Reid is correct very soon. The Senate should be voting on this bill either tonight, or tomorrow.

Mr. President!

President-elect Sen. Barack Obama faces supporters during his election night victory rally in Chicago, November 4, 2008. (Jim Bourg/Reuters)

Talk about an historic election. From MSNBC News:

Barack Obama, a 47-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, shattered more than 200 years of history Tuesday night by winning election as the first African-American president of the United States.

A crowd of 125,000 people jammed Grant Park in Chicago, where Obama addressed the nation for the first time as its president-elect at midnight ET. Hundreds of thousands more — Mayor Richard Daley said he would not be surprised if a million Chicagoans jammed the streets — watched on a large television screen outside the park.

“If there is anyone out there who doubts that America is a place where anything is possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama declared.

“Young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, Americans have sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of red states and blue states,” he said. “We have been and always will be the United States of America.

“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America,” he said to a long roar.

Here is the electoral map showing Obama's unprecedented win:

Map showing electoral vote for 2008 presidential election. From the New York Times.

Some quick comments. Obama won in the Northeast, the West Coast, a good chunk of the Rustbelt, and even the more reliable GOP states of Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada. The GOP, under John McCain was relegated to mainly the West, and the Deep South. I'm seriously wondering if the Republican Party is becoming a marginalized party, mainly the Deep South, considering the amount of hate and fear-mongering the GOP displayed during this election? It is an interesting thought.

The eight-year nightmare of this George W. Bush presidency is now over. Change has come with the first African-American president, and a stronger, Democratically-controlled Congress. Barack Obama showed an incredible brilliance in running such a flawless campaign, even in the face of such huge obstacles of becoming that first, credible, African-American candidate, developing a new fund raising system of small, consistent donations from average Americans, and bringing his message of change and hope against a withering fire of negative attacks and character assassinations from his opponents. I don't think I have ever seen a presidential campaign run the way the Obama campaign has run it, under all aspects of raising money, generating the campaign message, and countering attacks--and this even includes the Reagan, Bush Senior and Junior, and Clinton campaigns. If this man was as brilliant and smart in running his presidential campaign, then Barack Obama may do very well as our president.

Some thoughts on the third presidential debate

I should say something about the final presidential debate between Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain. I found this debate to be far better than the second presidential debate, of which I fell asleep after thirty minutes--the second presidential debate was just that god-awful. It was a combination of a formless town hall debate, without the town hall, and a crappy moderator Tom Brokaw, who refused to tell McCain to "shut up" after his time limit expired, that really ruined the second debate. Of course, there was the condescending McCain calling Obama, "That One," which just shows the pure anger and hatred that McCain has. The political pundits have called Barack Obama the winner of the second debate. Whether you want to call Obama the winner of the second debate, or a tie, Obama still continued his lead over McCain as they stepped into the third debate. And if you wish, you can find the link to the second presidential debate right here.

So let us get into the third presidential debate. You can view the debate here through MSNBC:



I'll say this, I'm rather impressed with John McCain when he started this debate. He came out rather spirited, and very intent on attacking Barack Obama. He was very much more animated in this latest debate, rather than the first debate, or even part of the second debate that I watched. It is almost like McCain knew that this was the last chance for him to make his case to the American people, and to stop his slide down the polls to Obama. McCain had to come out swinging, or he would see his presidential ambitions blow away in the winds of change. I would guess that his advisers also told McCain to go all out swinging as well. McCain certainly had the best line of the night with his "I am not President Bush!"

And yet, even as McCain came out swinging against Obama, Barack Obama was calm, collected, and so frickin' cool that he could drive even Joe Cool completely batty. During the debate, as McCain was presenting his own talking points, and his attacking points against Obama, Obama would look at McCain, and then just smile as McCain kept attacking. Then Obama would present a step-by-step rebuttal, which would demolish McCain's attacks. As the debate continued on, McCain started getting angry and frustrated over his inability to rattle Obama's cage. Barack Obama looked very calm and presidential throughout the debate. McCain looked constipated at times during the debate. And this is just the body language and mannerisms each candidate presented to the debate--I'm not even going into what they said during this debate. Another little irony I found in this debate was that Barack Obama wore a red tie, while John McCain wore a blue tie--reverse red state, blue state?

Watching this debate, I got the impression that John McCain was, again, trying to rally his conservative base. Looking at the transcript of the debate, McCain brought up the attacks that Obama would raise taxes on everyone, that Obama would be a big-spending liberal, that Obama would lose the war in Iraq, and about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and the alleged ACORN voter fraud. All of this was red meat for the conservative base. Even more astounding was McCain's belittling of allowing abortions for a women's "health." That might have scored points for the conservative base, but it also shows how condescending McCain is for a women's life, and reproductive health, in saying that the fetus is more important than a woman's life. If there is one way for McCain to lose the women vote, it is by McCain uttering such a snide remark that shows just how ignorant McCain is on womens' health issues. But again, it is all about appeasing the conservative base here. John McCain went further right in his negative attacks against Obama, in his continued pushing for the hard-right political policies, even as a majority of Americans believe this country is on the wrong track. At the same time, Obama played it safe during the debate, possibly shifting his position towards more of the center, playing for the centrist, moderate, and independent votes. Toss in Obama's coolness verses McCain's angry and frustrating nature, it seems like Obama won the debate simply for being so cool under McCain's angry fire. The conservatives may have loved McCain's performance during the debate, but it is not the conservatives that McCain needs to entice--it was the moderates and independents that McCain needed to win over. And with the anger and frustration emerging within McCain, with his inability to rattle Obama, I don't believe that such emotion will bring the moderates and independents over to the McCain camp--not with around 20 days left to go in the election.

The debates are over. Now we come to the final campaign rallies, political commercials, and the endless McCain campaign smears against Obama. We're heading towards the finish line to this 2008 presidential campaign.

Thoughts on the vice presidential debate

Okay, it is time to talk about the vice presidential debate between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin. I've watched the debate on television last night, watched the MSNBC commentary on the debate, and listened to the debate today via webcast. And I've been thinking and reflecting on the debate since yesterday. Here is the webcast for the vice presidential debate:



And here is the transcript for the vice presidential debate.

My first impressions on the debate was that it was a tie. For the past couple of weeks, I've been hearing how Palin was going to fall on her face during the debate, or how the vice presidential debate was going to be of even lower expectations than previous vice presidential debates--can you say Dan Quayle will mop the floor with Sarah Palin? And then in the hours before the debate, I'm told that Palin is a strong debater, and will beat Joe Biden in the debate. So there was a lot of hype and speculation leading up to this big debate.

So who won in Biden verses Palin? I'm going to say it was a tie. Sarah Palin did not fall on her face during last night's debate. Sarah Palin was poised, collected, and especially charming in her folksy, Alaskan manner. Palin didn't make any serious, flubbing, mistakes during the debate. Palin also showed that she could be an attack dog on taxes, Iraq, and energy policy. In fact, Sarah Palin clearly showed that she could debate on the national scene with the big boys in Washington. This was a big win for Sarah Palin.

Joe Biden also did very well in the debate. Joe Biden was very cool, very knowledgeable, and did a very good job in deconstructing the McCain campaign talking points, consistently linking John McCain to the Bush administration. In fact, Biden's linking of McCain to a Bush third term was almost boring in its consistency. Even more, Joe Biden did not put his foot in his mouth, considering how much of a talker Biden can be. Joe Biden's job in this debate was to link John McCain to the failed Bush presidency, and he performed that job very well for the Obama campaign. This was also a win for Joe Biden.

The real loser in this debate was John McCain. Here is why. Sarah Palin was very good in presenting herself as a strong debater in last night's debate. She stemmed her own bloodletting and questions of whether she could perform well on the national scene. However, the answers that Palin gave to the debate questions were nothing more than canned McCain campaign talking points--John McCain is a maverick, John McCain represents change, John McCain and I will clean up Washington corruption. There were no policy points of substance as to how a McCain / Palin administration will represent change, or what a McCain / Palin administration will do to clean up Washington corruption. Sarah Palin simply regurgitated McCain campaign talking points that you could probably pull out of any stump speech she made since becoming the vice presidential nominee. Sarah Palin could debate on the national scene, and certainly win over the conservative wing of the Republican Party--MSNBC's Pat Buchanan practically exploded in his pants over how Sarah Palin "was sensational" in the debate:



Sarah Palin didn't have to rally the conservative base over to the McCain campaign--they've been rooting for Sarah Palin ever since she stepped up to the RNC convention stage to accept her VP nomination. The problem for the McCain campaign is that Sarah Palin had to entice the moderates and independents over to the McCain campaign. She couldn't do that with the canned McCain campaign talking points she was stating during the debate. It was not enough. Sarah Palin had to present the McCain campaign's policy points on the economy, the financial mess, tax cuts, the war on Iraq, and other important issues, rather than saying that John McCain is a maverick who represents real change and will clean up Washington corruption. It is not enough to say that a McCain / Palin administration will fix the country's problems, but you have to explain the steps on how a McCain / Palin administration will provide such a fix. Sarah Palin refused to provide that information in the debate. She could not do it. Even more, Sarah Palin refused to rebuke Joe Biden's consistent tying of John McCain to George Bush--and the few times that Palin tried to rebuke Biden, she went back to the McCain talking points of attacking Obama, rather than explaining why John McCain is different from George W. Bush. So while Sarah Palin may have won a tactical victory in showing up to debate Joe Biden, and not make a fool of herself, she lost in the overall strategic campaign of bringing moderates and independents into the McCain fold. Consider these two post-debate polls:

Two quick polls indicated that Biden fared better in viewers' minds than Palin in the debate. A CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll found that 46 percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Biden won, with 21 percent siding with Palin. A CNN poll found respondents judging Biden the winner by a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent but calling Palin more likable by 54 percent to Biden's 36 percent.

And here is even more polling information through CNN:

Both candidates exceeded expectations -- 84 percent of the people polled said Palin did a better job than they expected, while 64 percent said Biden also exceeded expectations.

[....]

Respondents thought Biden was better at expressing his views, giving him 52 percent to Palin's 36 percent.

On the question of the candidates' qualifications to assume the presidency, 87 percent of those polled said Biden is qualified and 42 percent said Palin is qualified.

The candidates sparred over which team would be the better agent of change, and Biden came out on top of that debate, with 53 percent of those polled giving the nod to the Delaware senator while 42 percent said Palin was more likely to bring change.

So while Sarah Palin had certainly improved her image with the debate among respondents, Joe Biden showed himself to be a stronger candidate than Palin, polling better in the areas of presidential qualifications, agent of change, and expressing views. Sarah Palin polled better than Biden on expectations, but even here we have to consider how much media speculation there was of Palin crumpling in the spotlight of this national debate. Then there is this CBS News post-debate poll:

Immediately after the vice presidential debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 500 debate watchers, assembled by Knowledge Networks, who were "uncommitted voters" - voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds.

Forty-six percent of these uncommitted viewers said Biden won the debate Thursday night, while 21 percent said Palin won. Thirty-three percent thought it was a tie.

Even a quarter of Republican uncommitted voters thought Biden won the debate.

Among these voters, there was improvement in views of both Palin and Biden. Fifty-five percent of the uncommitted voters said their opinion of Palin had changed for the better as a result of the debate; just 14 percent said they had a lower opinion of her after tonight, and 30 percent said their views of her did not change.

As for Biden, 53 percent of uncommitted viewers said their image of the veteran senator improved, while five percent said their opinion of him got worse. Forty-two percent said their opinion did not change.

Palin's rating improved after the debate on being knowledgeable on important issues - from 43 percent to 66 percent - but Biden still far outpaces her. After the debate, 98 percent thought he was knowledgeable.

Uncommitted voters' views of Palin's preparedness for the job of vice president also improved as a result of her debate performance - from 39 percent to 55 percent. But those numbers are still nowhere near the percentage that thinks Biden is prepared - 97 percent, up from 81 percent before the debate.

These post-debate numbers are just incredible. Joe Biden polls better than Sarah Palin in many areas--less people had a lower opinion of Biden over Palin, Biden's knowledgeable rating improved significantly over Palin, and Biden's preparation for the debate soared over Palin's preparation. Even a quarter of the uncommitted Republicans felt that Biden won the debate over Palin. Sarah Palin had a greater responsibility to bring over the uncommitted, independent, and moderate voters to the McCain camp. She failed. And with the McCain campaign continuing in a downward spiral, with about a month left before the election, it is going to be far more difficult for John McCain and Sarah Palin to turn this campaign around.

This was a huge, lost opportunity for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Thoughts on the first presidential debate

I've been a little busy over the last four days to do blogging. I had a friend come down for the weekend photographing Villa Montalvo. It is a beautiful park and cultural arts center with a number of hiking trails, located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. So I didn't get a chance to watch the first presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

So I am watching the debate now. And I've seen some interesting details to comment on. Here is the debate through C-Span:



First, I've noticed that John McCain will never look at Barack Obama. McCain will look at the podium, McCain will look at the audience, McCain will look at moderator Jim Lehrer. But John McCain would never look at Barack Obama. I found that interesting. What emotions were swirling around McCain's mind during that debate? Was McCain ashamed to look at Obama because of the dishonesty of McCain's campaign? Or did John McCain feel anger, disgust, and contempt against Obama, perhaps for destroying what should have been McCain's divine right of succession to the Oval Office? Or perhaps McCain was suppressing too much of his famous temper, and that one look at Obama would cause McCain's head to turn red, steam hissing out of his ears, before exploding into tiny, vaporized fragments onstage? And if Candidate McCain could not look at Obama during the debate, then how could a President McCain look at a foreign leader of an adversarial country during a negotiation--say, a Hugo Chavez of Venezuala? Or a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran? Or is a President McCain even willing to talk to such leaders of adversarial nations against the United States?

The first question Lehrer posed to both McCain and Obama on the financial bailout reveals a lot about both candidates, and their policy issues. On that first question, Obama presented four points on cleaning up the financial sector--increasing government oversight in the financial markets, making sure the American taxpayer will receive a return on their dollars invested into this bailout, curbing CEO golden parachutes, and finally helping American homeowners in renegotiating their home loans from foreclosures. McCain's answer was that Democrats and Republicans are negotiating in a bipartisan manner, and that John McCain was responsible for bringing the bipartisan negotiations to this financial bailout plan. McCain never presented any plan, or whatever he believes, in resolving the financial crisis on Wall Street.

And that is interesting, because going through the YouTube video, and the transcript, John McCain doesn't present any plan, or legislative agenda, for the economy and the financial crisis. McCain simply attacked Obama on every policy issue--financial bailout, energy, education, earmarks, everything. According to John McCain, Barack Obama is wrong about every issue, and John McCain will ride in, as a knight on a white horse, to save the country. Of course, McCain doesn't present any plan on how a President McCain will save the country--except that President McCain will bring "change" to the country. However Candidate John McCain refuses to tell the American people what President McCain's legislative agenda will be for bringing such change to the country. All we hear from Candidate McCain is to vote for President McCain because Barack Obama is just wrong.

And yet, John McCain refuses to look Barack Obama in the eye and tell Obama that he is wrong.

On foreign policy, the big question still revolves around the U.S. war in Iraq. And again, we have the huge difference of opinion between John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain insists that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, and I get the impression that John McCain will continue this war for another four to eight years, if McCain is elected. And again, McCain refuses to explain his Iraq strategy, except that the U.S. is winning in Iraq, and that Barack Obama will lose the war in Iraq, since Obama will withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq.

Of course, Obama shows just how wrong McCain has been on Iraq:

Obama: Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

LEHRER: Senator Obama...

OBAMA: ... of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.

This is an especially powerful attack against McCain in questioning McCain's judgment on the war in Iraq. John McCain's "new strategy" has always been to continue the U.S. war in Iraq, even when an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war. It is almost like McCain is running on a warmongering platform, while at the same time McCain is avoiding to say that he is pro-war. Obama slams McCain on that.

So who won the debate? I am almost tempted to say that it was a tie, with a slight nod going to Obama. Obama supporters will say that Obama won the debate. McCain supporters will say that McCain won the debate. Both candidates didn't make any serious flubs. McCain appeared more dishonest in the debate because McCain refused to look at Obama during the entire time. Obama had an annoying habit of first agreeing with McCain on this point or that point, before trying to explain why McCain was then wrong on the policy point. McCain never bothered to present his policy agenda, instead consistently attacking Obama on everything, and then claiming that McCain held the mantle of change (even though McCain refused to tell the American people the details of his own policy agenda for change really is). Obama presented his own vision of where to lead the country on the financial crisis, the U.S. war in Iraq, and the future of US-foreign relations. McCain simply used the debate as a 90-minute attack ad against Obama. McCain's vision was "vote for me, because Barack Obama is wrong for the country--Barack Obama would raise taxes, have government intrude on you, surrender to Iraq and the terrorists. In other words, Barack Obama is the bogyman.

So in conclusion, the debate was really about a vision of change, that Barack Obama presented to the American people, verses a vision of fear, that John McCain presented to the American people. Looking at how the McCain campaign has imploded after the Republican convention, at how the McCain campaign has relentlessly attacked Obama with constant lies and negativity, and how the McCain campaign has lied to the American people about everything, I would say that the greater fear and bogyman for this country is John McCain. John McCain claims that he is a candidate of change, but refuses to provide policy details of how he will change the direction of the country. McCain claims that he will clean up Washington, while an army of lobbyists work on his campaign. McCain is a warmonger, who will continue the disastrous U.S. war in Iraq with no resolution. John McCain's legislative agenda is a continuation of a Bush third term, with more tax cuts to the rich, more government deregulation, more domestic drilling for Big Oil, more goodies given away to big corporations. I don't see any change in the country's direction with a President McCain. So I will vote for Barack Obama, not because I believe in Obama's policies over McCain's. I will vote for Barack Obama because I believe that a President McCain will be far worst than George W. Bush. It will not be because a McCain administration will just be another third Bush term, but also because of an issue that was never raised in this debate--an inexperienced Vice President Sarah Palin to succeed McCain in the Oval Office, if McCain does die in his first term in office. A McCain / Palin administration is a scary continuation of this GOP disaster of an executive government that is sending this country down a sheer cliff.

Mr. McCain goes to Washington, and destroys the congressional bailout talks

This is from The Huffington Post:

Inside an intense White House meeting over the financial crisis on Thursday, where nearly every key player came to an agreement on the outlines of the bailout package, Sen. John McCain stuck out. The Republican candidate, according to sources with direct knowledge, sat quiet through most of the meeting, never offered specifics, and spoke only at the end to raise doubts about the rough compromise that the White House and congressional leaders were nearing.

McCain's reluctance to jump on board the bailout agreement could throw the entire week-long negotiation into a tailspin. Sen. Chris Dodd, after leaving the White House, suggested on CNN that the tenuous process could be derailed by what he viewed as McCain's political motives.

"What happened here, basically, if you want an honest appraisal of the thing, we have been spending a lot of time and I am tired. I have spent almost seven straight days at this in trying to come out with a workout plan for our economy a rescue plan," said Dodd. "What this looked like to me was a rescue plan for John McCain for two hours and took us away from the work we are trying to do today. Serious people trying to do serious work to come up with an answer."

According to the source with knowledge of the White House gathering -- which featured both presidential candidates, congressional leaders and the President -- virtually ever key figure in the room, save McCain and GOP Sen. Richard Shelby, were in agreement over a revised version of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's plan.

Towards the end, McCain finally spoke up, mentioning a counter-proposal that had been offered by some conservative House Republicans, which would suspend the capital gains tax for two years and provide tax incentives to encourage firms that buy up bad debt. McCain did not discuss specifics of the plan, though, and was non-committal about supporting it.

I am trying to analyze John McCain's behavior during the Bush photo-op meeting with congressional leaders and Barack Obama. And the only thing I can think of is what the frickin' hell was McCain doing there? Everyone was in agreement with the outline for the bailout--President Bush, Barack Obama, the House and Senate congressional leaders. Everyone except John McCain and GOP Sen. Richard Shelby. McCain sits silently through the entire meeting, never offers any specifics, only to say, at the end of the meeting, that he pretty much opposes the bailout package. McCain then made a counter-proposal:

Towards the end, McCain finally spoke up, mentioning a counter-proposal that had been offered by some conservative House Republicans, which would suspend the capital gains tax for two years and provide tax incentives to encourage firms that buy up bad debt. McCain did not discuss specifics of the plan, though, and was non-committal about supporting it.

Paulson, however, argued directly against the conservative proposal. "He said that he did not think it would work," according to the source. At another point in the meeting, President Bush chimed in, "If money isn't loosened, this sucker could go down" -- and by sucker he meant economy.

CBS News reports that the McCain counter-proposal included more corporate tax breaks and more government deregulation:



So what happened? I think presidential politics went to McCain's head. First I think that McCain opposed the $700 billion Bush/Paulson bailout plan because Barack Obama initially supported the plan. I don't believe McCain could ever support anything with Barack Obama. Second, any Bush bailout plan to be passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress would require some serious concessions. And there were some concessions made on the plan regarding the limiting of CEO compensation, doling out smaller chunks of $200 billion to the Treasury to buy up the bad debt, and then have Congress oversee the success or failure of the program. Also, any such bailout plan would have some regulatory oversight. President Bush and the Congressional Democrats agreed on an outline to such a bailout plan. The Conservative Republicans were balking on such a plan. When John McCain came to Washington, he would not accept any such government regulation, and threw his (non-committal) support for the conservative Republicans in proposing the alternative plan. By opposing the bailout package, McCain had embolden the conservative Republicans into walking out of the negotiations. According to the Washington Post:

As Friday began it was unclear the state of the negotiations on the rescue plan. After a day of apparent negotiating progress a renegade bloc of Republicans moved to reshape the a massive bailout plan, of the U.S. financial system yesterday, surprising and angering Bush administration and congressional leaders who hours earlier announced agreement on the "fundamentals" of a deal.

At a meeting at the White House that included President Bush, top lawmakers and both presidential candidates, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) floated a new plan for addressing the crisis that has hobbled global markets.

Democrats accused Boehner of acting on behalf of GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in trying to disrupt a developing consensus. The new proposal also displeased White House officials, including Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who chased after Democrats leaving the meeting and -- half-jokingly -- dropped to one knee and pleaded with them not to "blow up" the $700 billion deal, according to people present at the meeting.

[....]

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who had attended the meeting on behalf of House Republicans, denied that an agreement had been reached. While progress was made on peripheral issues, Bachus said, House Republicans remained adamantly opposed to the central point of the plan: purchasing bad assets from struggling firms.

"There's not a deal. There's not a deal made. There was progress on the issues," Bachus told reporters. He said House Republicans "would prefer a loan where we fix an interest rate or we would prefer insurance" rather than having the government buy up bad assets.

Bachus said many of those ideas were supported by McCain, who returned to Washington yesterday to participate in the negotiations. Bachus said he spoke to McCain on Wednesday, had breakfast yesterday with two McCain advisers and spoke to McCain again immediately after the morning meeting.

But, Bachus said, "John's not trying to call the shots for the House caucus, I can tell you that. He's just opposed to the plan in its present form."

[Representative Barney] Frank (D-Mass.) reacted angrily to Bachus's remarks, saying lawmakers had been well on their way toward a bill they could put to a vote and accusing McCain of engineering a breakdown. "This is the presidential campaign of John McCain undermining what Hank Paulson tells us is essential for the country," he said.

Despite expectations that a deal was near, Boehner took off in a different direction during the meeting, saying the bailout plan was not gaining traction among rank-and-file House Republicans.

As Obama and Frank peppered Boehner with questions about the new proposal, Bush rejected the idea as a too-broad rewrite of his administration's plan, according to the handwritten notes of one Democrat present.

"Don't start over," Bush said. "Don't start over."

It seems that the House Republicans were following John McCain's "leadership." By refusing to accept the bailout, McCain gave an opening to the House Republicans to offer their own alternative plan--one that was opposed by both President Bush and the Democrats (talk about an alliance here). Had John McCain agreed to the Bush bailout plan, any opposition by the House Republicans would have been stifled, and President Bush may have signed such an agreement by Saturday. So Mr. McCain went to Washington, and completely screwed up the Wall Street bailout negotiations for his presidential ambitions first, country second.

Obama releases two-minute ad on state of economy

Barack Obama has just released this new two-minute campaign ad on his view regarding the state of the U.S. economy, and the current financial crisis taking place this week. From YouTube:



The Associated Press has some interesting details on this latest Obama ad:

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. (AP) — Barack Obama sought to put a personal stamp on his economic policies in troubled times, appearing Wednesday in a two-minute television commercial to outline his plans and caution it won't be easy to fix the nation's worsening financial problems.

The new ad was filmed in Denver on Tuesday and was to be broadcast nationally in the wake of one of the worst days on Wall Street, as the stock market, reeling from the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and the takeover of Merrill Lynch, fell 500 points. The turmoil continued Tuesday when the Federal Reserve forged an extraordinary $85 billion rescue of insurance giant American International Group Inc.

The ad and a hardening of Obama's rhetoric reflected a turning point in the campaign to zero in on the economy as the No. 1 issue for voters.

Salon.com reports that the ad will "air in battleground states and nationally."

It is an interesting ad. Barack Obama talks about the current economic crisis taking place in the country, and provides his policy points for promoting change in the U.S. government and the economy. Obama does not mention his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, in this ad. The tone of the ad appears to be a Barack Obama speaking to grown-up Americans--we've got bad economic problems, and here is my agenda on how to fix these problems. That is refreshing, considering the partisan attacks, mudslinging, and the negative campaigning we've been seeing throughout this presidential campaign--especially on John McCain's part. Will this ad work? I'm not sure. But by presenting this ad, Obama shifts the campaign back to focusing on the economy, where the Obama campaign believes they can win on this issue. And if the current U.S. economic conditions continue to deteriorate, I wonder if Americans will turn to Obama in the hope that a political party change in the White House will provide the necessary change to place the country back on the right track.

And just to point out, John McCain has released his own political campaign ad in the wake of the financial crisis on Wall Street. It is another negative attack against Barack Obama, with McCain claiming that he is the candidate of change, and promises to clean up "the corruption and greed on Wall Street." There is really nothing new in this latest John McCain ad. From YouTube:

Obama campaign ad--Fundamentals

Here is Barack Obama's campaign ad, attacking John McCain for claiming that the "fundamentals" of the American economy are still strong, even as Lehman Brothers was going bankrupt. From YouTube:



This is not a bad 30-second ad to attack McCain on. This is the way you attack John McCain on the economy. You hammer at him with his own words, showing just how clueless John McCain is when confronted with complex economic issues. You also attack McCain's lies and hypocrisy on the issues of deregulation and government oversight. You link McCain with Phil Gramm, and Gramm's own involvement in destroying the wall between banks and investment firms which caused this subprime mortgage mess in the first place. And finally, you always show a picture of McCain with Bush, constantly reinforcing in the American voters' minds that John McCain is running for a third Bush term.

And finally, you keep attacking McCain again and again.

Obama's response to the Wall Street crisis

I do want to say something about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's response to the Wall Street crisis. This is from The New York Times:

Mr. Obama sought Monday to attribute the financial upheaval to lax regulation during the Bush years, and in turn to link Mr. McCain to that approach.

“I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to,” Mr. Obama told several hundred people who gathered for an outdoor rally in Grand Junction, Colo.

Mr. Obama set out his general approach to financial regulation in March, calling for regulating investment banks, mortgage brokers and hedge funds much as commercial banks are. And he would streamline the overlapping regulatory agencies and create a commission to monitor threats to the financial system and report to the White House and Congress.

On Wall Street’s Republican-friendly turf, Mr. Obama has outraised Mr. McCain. He has received $9.9 million from individuals associated with the securities and investment industry, $3 million more than Mr. McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. His advisers include Wall Street heavyweights, including Robert E. Rubin, the former treasury secretary who is now a senior adviser at Citigroup, another firm being buffeted by the financial crisis.

A couple of points here. First, Wall Street is starting to give more to Barack Obama than John McCain. My thinking here is that Wall Street is betting that Obama will be elected president, and the campaign contributions are a means for the Street to ask Obama to go easy on the increased federal regulations. I don't know what a President Obama will do with increasing federal regulations and oversight into the financial markets, but it certainly seems to be a better approach than the disastrous eight years of Bush deregulation, or McCain's call for a "9/11 style" economic commission that will do nothing.

And this financial crisis, caused by the subprime mortgage collapse, is just getting worst. American International Group is now on the verge of collapse. And even though the Federal Reserve is refusing to bail out AIG, and AIG bankruptcy is going to send an even greater shock wave through Wall Street, potentially sending even more banks and investment firms into their own financial crisis, and possibly their bankruptcies. I'm thinking that in 2009, the American taxpayer will be picking up the tab on this financial mess, regardless of who is elected in the White House. So the question now is, do you want the taxpayer to pick up the tab on a financial industry that will continue to remain deregulated, and Wall Street greedy business as usual, under a McCain administration? Or do you want the taxpayer to pick up the tab on a financial industry that will have stronger federal regulations and oversight under an Obama administration?

The choice is yours.

Naked lies

The Obama campaign released a web video revealing just how the McCain/Palin team are no "mavericks." From YouTube:

More commentary on the Democratic convention

I've been watching and reading about the Democratic National Convention, thinking about what I want to say. For the moment, I'm going to list the major speeches that took place at the Democratic National Convention. And I'm going to start with Barack Obama's acceptance speech:



And here is the transcript.

Barack Obama's acceptance speech was just that incredible. Barack Obama had to accomplish three goals with this speech. The first goal was to introduce himself to the American people. Obama had to show the American people that he was not an out-of-touch elitist that the Republicans have been tarring him for the past month, but rather that he understood the problems that ordinary Americans were faced with over the past eight years of the Bush administration. He gave examples of how he saw his grandfather marching in Patton's Army within the faces of young veterans coming back from Iraq, or that he saw his mother's face, raising himself and his sister, while working long hours and going to school, among a young student "who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift...." Obama saw middle-class Americans facing hard economic challenges, and probably believes that he can help Americans overcome those challenges.

The second goal for Obama was to attack John McCain. This is the start of the general election, and it is time for the Obama campaign to launch their own attack against the McCain campaign for the goal of taking the White House. Consider this:

John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

[....]

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

That is about as powerful of an attack that you can launch against John McCain. What Obama has done is to combine the argument that a McCain presidency is not only a third Bush term, but also that a President McCain doesn't have a clue as to the problems that middle-class Americans are facing, nor does McCain have the political policies necessary to promote change for America. The Obama campaign will need to slam McCain over and over again on how John McCain doesn't get it.

The final goal for Barack Obama's speech is a combination of presenting his political policies to America if Obama is elected, and the issue of change. The political policies are a mish-mash of big ticket items, like ending the war in Iraq, or health care reform, and smaller ticket items, such as bankruptcy reform or equal pay for equal work. The political policies are somewhat vague, but then John McCain will present his mish-mash of vague political policies next week at the Republican National Convention.

But the change message is much more important. It has been woven throughout Obama's speech. But the change that Obama is addressing is a combination of what Obama calls "Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility." According to Obama:

[We} must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

This is a powerful message that Obama presents. It is a message that individuals must be responsible for their own actions, but that government will be there to help solve the greater problems that America faces. In a sense, Obama is trying to renew the social compact between the individual's freedoms and responsibilities, and the government's role to protect and assist such individuals when they need help. It is a message that resonated deeply within the 80,000 enthusiastic supporters at Mile High Stadium.

Now let us go with the Democratic Party's vice presidential nominee Joe Biden's speech. You can view Biden's acceptance speech here:



And the transcript is here.


Joe Biden accomplished two goals in this speech. The first goal was to inform Americans that Barack Obama understood the problems and issues that Americans are facing. According to Biden:

Barack Obama gets it. Like many of us, Barack worked his way up. His is a great American story.

You know, I believe the measure of a man isn’t just the road he’s traveled; it’s the choices he’s made along the way. Barack Obama could have done anything after he graduated from college. With all his talent and promise, he could have written his ticket to Wall Street. But that’s not what he chose to do. He chose to go to Chicago. The South Side. There he met men and women who had lost their jobs. Their neighborhood was devastated when the local steel plant closed. Their dreams deferred. Their dignity shattered. Their self-esteem gone.

And he made their lives the work of his life. That’s what you do when you’ve been raised by a single mom, who worked, went to school and raised two kids on her own. That’s how you come to believe, to the very core of your being, that work is more than a paycheck. It’s dignity. It’s respect. It’s about whether you can look your children in the eye and say: we’re going to be ok.

What is especially interesting here is that Biden discovered a profound respect and admiration of Obama as the two fought each other during the Democratic primaries. Biden debated Obama, saw how Obama reacted under pressure, and learned about Obama's mind and intellect. Biden realized just how Obama tapped into the psyche of the American people with his message of change. These are probably the reason why Biden courted Obama to become his running mate.

And Biden then turned around and showed a profound change with his own relationship with John McCain. Going back to Biden's speech:

John McCain is my friend. We’ve known each other for three decades. We’ve traveled the world together. It’s a friendship that goes beyond politics. And the personal courage and heroism John demonstrated still amaze me.

But I profoundly disagree with the direction that John wants to take the country.

This is a powerful pivot that Biden makes. First he shows his admiration and respect for Obama, with who he has gotten to know during the Democratic primaries. Biden supports Obama's message of change. But then Biden pivots and, while acknowledging his friendship with John McCain, and McCain's heroism, completely disagrees with McCain on the direction that McCain will take the country if elected to the White House. Biden then rips McCain in issue after issue, saying that John McCain is wrong and Barack Obama is right. It really shows just how much of an attack dog that Joe Biden will be for the Obama campaign.

Now let us go to Bill Clinton's speech. I will have to admit, I enjoy watching Bill Clinton speak. I've seen him speak twice--once at San Jose State in 1992, when Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, and the second time when Bill Clinton was stumping for Hillary at the California State Democratic Convention back in March. Whether you agree with him, or not, Bill Clinton is just fun to watch. Here is the video:



When Bill Clinton stepped out on stage, he was given a three minute standing ovation from the crowd. You could almost expect Bill Clinton to be accepting the Democratic nomination, considering the enthusiasm that rocked the place. And Bill Clinton was the warm-up act for Joe Biden. Clinton threw his support for Barack Obama with this speech. He even adapted part of his stump speech for supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy to supporting Barack Obama's candidacy--mainly with attacking the Republican economic policies and foreign policies as being "more of the same." But the real interesting detail in Bill Clinton's speech was how Clinton linked his administration's peace and prosperity with a future Barack Obama administration:

My fellow Democrats, sixteen years ago, you gave me the profound honor to lead our party to victory and to lead our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity.

Together, we prevailed in a campaign in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief. Sound familiar? It didn’t work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it won’t work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.

The Big Dog hath spoken.

Finally, I should say a few words about Hillary Clinton's speech. Hillary Clinton had one major goal to achieve in her speech at the Democratic National Convention. And that goal was to unify the party and bring her supporters into the Obama campaign. Here is the video of her speech:



And here is the transcript.

Hillary Clinton received a huge standing ovation when she stepped out on the stage. Clinton told her supporters, who she called, "my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits," that "the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines." Clinton also told her supporters that they "haven’t worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership." That was the theme of Clinton's speech here. Clinton asked her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me?" Or were her supporters in Clinton's campaign for Americans suffering from the problems the country faced under eight years of the Bush administration, and the potential four more years of a McCain administration. As historic as Clinton's campaign was, Clinton argued that it was time to unify the party behind Obama, to remove the Republicans out of the White House--"No way. No how. No McCain."

Hillary Clinton rocked the convention that night.

Will her supporters accept Clinton's argument at the convention? I'm not going to say that every Clinton supporter will go out and vote for Obama. But Hillary Clinton did make a compelling argument to look beyond the Democratic primary squabble, and concentrate on the bigger prize of the White House. One of the most chilling parts of Clinton's speech was this:

This is the story of America. Of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.

How do we give this country back to them?

By following the example of a brave New Yorker , a woman who risked her life to shepherd slaves along the Underground Railroad.

And on that path to freedom, Harriett Tubman had one piece of advice.

If you hear the dogs, keep going.

If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they're shouting after you, keep going.

Don't ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

Even in the darkest of moments, ordinary Americans have found the faith to keep going.

If there was ever an example as to why Democrats should "keep going" in supporting Barack Obama over the continuing nightmare that could be the Bush-McCain administration, Clinton nailed it here. The choice is before Americans as to whether to return our country back to the law, and the liberties and freedoms that Americans have an unalienable right to, or to continue down the dark path of dogs, torches, and angry shouts of this totalitarian presidency of King George The Deciderer, and his aristocratic prince, John McCain.





And you haven’t worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership.

No way. No how. No McCain.

Thoughts on the Democratic convention

I've been watching, and thinking, about the events taking place at the Democratic National Convention for the past couple of days. First, I want to say that there have been some major speeches given by Democratic leaders that will have a profound affect on the party for this election. I want to first go with Michelle Obama's speech introducing her husband, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Michelle Obama had an important job, Monday night, to introduce the American people who Barack Obama really was. It was a speech to humanize, and personalize, Barack Obama to American viewers who have finished watching the non-stop Olympic coverage, and start looking into the general election race for the White House. The problem the Obama campaign has had is that Barack Obama is identified with some serious negative connotations, amplified by the GOP noise machine--Barack Obama is a Muslim! Barack Obama is a terrorist! Barack Obama is an anti-American! Michelle Obama hates America! Yes, the GOP noise machine have even gone after Michelle Obama with their negative attacks. So this was an important prime-time speech that Michelle Obama gave, and she really hit it out of the park. She introduced herself and Obama's lives as that of any middle-class American's lives. Michelle grew up in a blue-collar environment, dealing with the hardship of her father suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. Both parents worked to send Michelle and her brother to college. Michelle talked about meeting Barack, and how Barack was raised by his grandparents, and how they shared common dreams, "that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them." In a sense, Michelle Obama's speech was instrumental in transforming Barack Obama from the anti-American, Muslim-terrorist-politician, as presented by the GOP smear machine, to a "Cliff Huxtable" image of a loving African-American father and family man. You can see Michelle's speech here:



But what really brought out the humanization of Barack Obama was at the end of Michelle's speech, was when the two daughters came out, on stage with their mother, and greeted Barack Obama via satellite connection from Missouri. The kids screamed in delight upon seeing their father, saying "Hi Daddy," and "I love you Daddy," multiple times. It may have been a scripted moment of having Obama beamed through satellite video at the end of Michelle's speech, to greet the convention, however the unscripted moments of the kids' delight was the closing moment in shredding the GOP's character smears on Barack Obama's image. It was the most important job Michelle Obama had to give for that first night of the Democratic convention--introduce America to Barack Obama. And she nailed it.

Next I want to talk about Senator Ted Kennedy's speech at the Democratic National Convention, Monday night. You can view the speech here through YouTube:



Back in May of 2008, Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Doctors estimated that the median survival rate for this tumor, an aggressive glioma, is around 15 months for Kennedy's age of 76. The interesting point here to make is that Ted Kennedy came out to what may be his final Democratic National Convention appearance, and pass Kennedy's "Democratic icon" to a new generation--the generation of Barack Obama. That was the importance of Ted Kennedy's appearance at the DNC, and his endorsement of Barack Obama.