Barack Obama's Moral Cowardice

I shouldn't be amazed, but I can't help it.

The left's extreme reaction to John McCain has gotten to the point of calling him a coward.

For some time, I thought Andrew Sullivan had taken the cake for the most unhinged Obama backer on the left, but frankly, Josh Marshall - now attacking Senator John McCain for "moral cowardice" - has gone so far overboard in the unscrupulous sea of nihilism that authorities are calling off the search:

The image is coming into focus. Even McCain's confidants are now suggesting that it was his anger and frustration with Obama that led him to embrace Steve Schmidt's Willie Horton-on-Steroids campaign for the White House. And whether it's the appearance before the Des Moines Register Editorial board or his tense refusal to make eye contact during the first presidential debate, I don't think many people would deny at this point that McCain's hostility and contempt for Obama -- what even Wolf Blitzer calls his "disdain" -- is palpable.

After the first debate many people wondered aloud whether it was hostility and contempt or fear and intimidation that kept McCain from looking Obama in the face even once. But with two weeks and more evidence to consider, it is clear that it was both: Hostility that is magnified by the person's mortifying inability to face the person who inspires it. That's the kind of unchanneled, clogged up anger that makes you unsteady, that makes you make mistakes.

McCain's moral cowardice has been one of the subtexts of this campaign ever since he wound up the nomination and turned his attention to Barack Obama. But I did not realize it would reveal itself in such a physical dimension.

Notice, first, how genuinely dumb this is: Either McCain disdains Obama (whereby the emotional reflex would be an urge to punch the Chicago socialist) or he's afraid of him.

Marshall can't get his attacks straight: All along McCain's been allegedly contemptuous of Obama (and thus elitist) and now he's morally challenged?

The truth is, Barack Obama's the one suffering from moral cowardice.

Note the most recent example, via Jeff Jacoby: The Illinois Senator made an about-face on genocide and U.S. foreign policy in Tuesday night's debate:

Moderator Tom Brokaw asked the candidates what their "doctrine" would be "in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security," such as "the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998," or Rwanda or Somalia.

In such cases, answered Obama, "we have moral issues at stake." Of course the United States must act to stop genocide, he said. "When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

But that wasn't how Obama sounded last year, when he was competing for the Democratic nomination and was unbending in his demand for an American retreat from Iraq. Back then, he dismissed fears that a US withdrawal would unleash a massive Iraqi bloodbath. "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep US forces there," the AP reported on July 20, 2007 (my italics).

What kind of candidate is it whose moral response to genocide - genocide - can reverse itself 180 degrees in a matter of months? Is that the kind of candidate who ought to be the leader of the free world?

John McCain is truly the last person whom radical leftists want to call a moral coward. Barack Obama - the candidate of appeasement and retreat - has already got the market cornered on that one.

But Andrew Sullivan, Josh Marshall, and untold other extremists of the leftosphere, are steadily building up enough capital for a leveraged buyout of the top Democrat's moral depravity.

The Greatest Challenges of Our Lifetime

Check out this clip from a McCain campaign rally, and I think you'll see how everyday Americans see the stakes before them:

I think it’s so important in today’s country what we’re really missing in what’s going on. When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there going to run this country, we’ve got to have our head examined. It’s time that you two are representing us, and we are mad. So go get them.

Via Alex Koppelman, who disapproves of this message.

Election Gets Down to Basic Human Emotion

As seen in my last two posts - on drunk hillbillies and GOP lynch mobs - election 2008 has finally come down to base human emotions. Partisans on both sides see the stakes as high as any time in their lives, and they're willing to share the most unusual ideological sentiments and personal abominations.

Dana Milbank, at the Washington Post, shares his reaction to a McCain campaign rally, and the rage of the crowd:

Now, it's personal.

John McCain and Sarah Palin were backstage, and Lehigh County GOP Chairman Bill Platt was warming up the crowd of 6,000 at a rally here for the Republican ticket.

"Think about how you'll feel on November 5 if you wake up in the morning and see the news, that Barack Obama -- that Barack Hussein Obama -- is the president-elect of the United States," Platt said. The audience at the Lehigh University arena booed at the thought of it.

"The number one most liberal senator in the United States of America was, you guessed it, the ambassador of change, Barack Hussein Obama," he added. "This election is about preserving America's past and protecting the promise of its future."

The sage Platt had more information to disclose. "Barack Obama refused to wear an American flag on his lapel," he said of the man who, at the presidential debate the night before, was wearing a flag pin on his lapel. The audience booed. "Barack Obama, a man who wants to be president of the United States of America, removed the American flag from his chest because it was a symbol of patriotism. Perhaps Barack Obama doesn't put country first, but he puts fashion first."

The verbal barrage in the hall must have convinced McCain he was running with a rough crowd.

"Across this country, this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners," he said when he took the stage.

And Platt wasn't the only inmate in the arena. Northampton County council member Peg Ferraro, in her turn at the microphone, spoke about Obama's "backgrounds and affiliations," calling these unspecified relationships "questionable" and asking: "Do we know who his friends are?"

The crowd engaged in a chant of "No-bama!"

State Rep. Karen Beyer darkly warned the crowd that "Barack Obama doesn't know anything about you."

Cindy McCain implied that Obama was trying to harm her son. "My son . . . has served on the front lines," she told the crowd, with her husband and Palin standing behind her. "Let me tell you, the day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving . . . sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you. I suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed forces, and, more importantly, serving in harm's way."

Only the polka band, which entertained the crowd before the speeches, seemed unaffected by the pervasive anger in the arena. "Ha, ha, ha, come join my happy song," sang the man with the accordion. "Clap along!" The crowd clapped. "We're going to party tonight," he crooned, "with joy and laughter, that's what we're after."

Andrew Sullivan, who has no compunction against continued Trig Palin smears, calls the religious invocations at the rally (at the link), "the fruits of Christianism."

Fireloglake denounces the "slanderous" attacks, as if the months-long attacks against both John McCain and Sarah Palin have not sunk to the most vile slanders, slurs, and smears ever seen in a presidential election.

Even more interesting is Milbank's partisan reporting of the event.

No doubt both sides have invested the deepest personal emotions in the outcome of the race, but only a blind idiot could deny that the demonization of Republicans, after eight years of BusHitler, has now reached the truly unhinged heights of epic fever pitch.

McCain/Palin Rallies are Lynch Mobs?

I often attack the demonology of the left, so for some perspective, how about this:

Barack Obama is not a terrorist, yet would you call this a "lynch mob":

It’s no wonder that the slightest incitement from Sarah Palin or John McCain will turn one of their rallies into a lynch mob. Just talk to the folks who attend....

I’ve been doing blog video for a while, and presidential rallies a lot longer. And this is the most strange, ignorant, uninformed, angry, up-to-no-good, and gullible group of people I’ve ever seen at a political rally.

Ever.

"Up-to-no-good"? Like those at a Klan rally?

That's taking it a bit far, but we're seeing everything in this election, so I'm not suprised an Obama backer wants to turn GOP activists into night riders. It's all about racism nowadays, not the fact that Obama consorts with unrepentent '60s terrorists.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama for President?

Barack Obama Hussein Obama for president? Some voters say no way:

With all due respect, it's not just drunk hillbillies who think Obama's middle name is an issue:

The Democrats believe there will be a landslide at the voting booth on November 4, 2008, for Barack Hussein Obama. I do not agree, but more on that in another post. I hope you noticed that I used Barack Hussein Obama's middle name. I have refrained from doing that lately, but it's back on the table and in articles from now on. Why? Because I will not allow the thought police who are in the tank for Obama to silence my free speech. People are being investigated by the FBI for using Barack Hussein Obama's middle name.

Some folks have decried "the Willie Hortonization of Obama," so just mentioning Obama's full, legal (Muslim) name will get one labeled as racist.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

New McCain Ad Hammers Obama's Ayers Connection

Via Captain Ed, the McCain campaign's got a new 90-second advertisement attacking Barack Obama's ties to unrepentant '60s terrorist William Ayers:

Here's the text:

Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years. But Obama tries to hide it. Why?

Obama launched his political career in Ayers’ living room. Ayers and Obama ran a radical “education” foundation, together. They wrote the foundation’s by-laws, together. Obama was the foundation’s first chairman. Reports say they, “distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in education.”

When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” That’s it?

We know Bill Ayers ran the “violent left wing activist group” called Weather Underground. We know Ayers’ wife was on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list. We know they bombed the Capitol. The Pentagon. A judge’s home. We know Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. …. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

But Obama’s friendship with terrorist Ayers isn’t the issue. The issue is Barack Obama’s judgment and candor. When Obama just says, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Americans say, “Where’s the truth, Barack?”
Barack Obama. Too risky for America.

Also, don't miss Sol Stern's new essay, "The Bomber as School Reformer":

Back in the early eighties, in an interview with David Horowitz and Peter Collier, Bill Ayers remembered his reaction upon learning that he would not be prosecuted by the government for his bombing spree as a member of the Weather Underground. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country,” he exulted. Ayers is now a university professor, but he must have been exulting all over again after reading Saturday’s front-page story in the New York Times.

The article explored the putative relationship between Ayers and Barack Obama during the time they worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a five-year philanthropic venture that, starting in 1995, distributed over $160 million in school-improvement grants to the Windy City’s public schools. Ayers wrote the grant proposal that secured seed money for the schools and ran the implementation arm of the project; Obama became chairman of the board that distributed the grants. Not only did the Times exonerate the Democratic presidential candidate of having anything like a “close” relationship with Ayers—their paths merely “crossed” while working on the Challenge, the paper said—but it also bestowed the honorific of “school reformer” on the ex-bomber. “Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform,” the article maintained. On Meet the Press Sunday morning, Tom Brokaw—who will be moderating tomorrow’s debate between the presidential candidates—picked up this now conventional wisdom and described Ayers as “a school reformer.”

Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer. (If you find the metaphor strained, consider that Walter Duranty, the infamous New York Times reporter covering the Soviet Union in the 1930s, did, in fact, depict Stalin as a great land reformer who created happy, productive collective farms.) For instance, at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”

Related: "Obama Wears Many Different Faces Along the Campaign Trail to Get Votes."

October Surprise! Documents Detail Obama's Radical Ties

I've written all year on just about every angle of Barack Obama's radical associations, but the latest documentary evidence on the Illinois Senator's ties to the socialist New Party offers a new twist on the secret life of the shady Chicago socialist.

While conservative commentators have long understood Obama's essential oppositionalism to American ideals and institutions, the new information, if played well, could be just the kind of October surprise that can swing the momentum of an election.

Thomas Lifson reports:

Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

For the full documentary trail linking Obama to the New Party, see Politically Drunk on Power, "Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996."

Barack Obama's socialist radicalism is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, with key pieces strewn here and there in a systematic campaign of biographical and historical revisionism that continues to this day (last night Obama sought surreptitiously to portray himself as a pragmatic moderate in his debate with John McCain).

Yet, although some of the most damaging revelations (especially on Reverend Jeremiah Wright) peaked in significance during the primaries, if these new documents gain traction in the mainstream press, the New Party findings could alarm enough voters already wary of Obama's questionable past to shift the election to the GOP.

Chest Pounding Scrawny Creeps of the Leftosphere

I clicked around on some left blogs this morning, and the triumphalism following the debate last night seemed even a little more over the top than normal.

For example, Markos Moulitisas has another post up offering his revenge-style commentary:

Now's the time for us to press the advantage and crush their movement for a generation or more.

The question isn't whether we get complacent. No one around these parts is getting complacent. The question is whether we take full advantage of what is shaping up to be a rout and truly press our advantage. Our enemy is on the retreat. We can't let them get away and regroup. It's time to crush them. Throw those anvils and make more Republicans "weep".

Kyle Moore also had a chest-thumper of a post, declaring the wingnuts in "PANIC!":

While many in the national punditry are saying this debate wasn’t a game changer, I find myself in disagreement. I think if the debate did anything, it, as Kos writes, “broke their spirit.” If the right isn’t panicking about how Obama just moved that much closer to winning the election, they are lambasting McCain for not being conservative enough. And I don’t even think Sarah Palin can inject enough vitality back into this campaign so that it can do what it needs to do in the last weeks of this election.

As readers know, Kos is a really bothersome individual, and Moore's endorsement of him is frankly indicative of the hegemonic moral laxity on that side of the spectrum.

Note to Moore, in any case: I'm not panicked. This has always been a Democratic year, and McCain's doing better than anyone would have expected by now, in an electoral environment some have described as a depression.

In any case, I'm with Jim Treacher on the netroots nuts:

DEAR KOS:

Take a long crawl off a short pier, you astroturfing worm.

The more these idiots pound their scrawny chests, the more convinced I am that they're nervous. If they're so confident, so sure they're going to crush the evil wingnuts, why are they desperately picking apart every utterance McCain makes? "OMG! He said 'That one'!!!" Really, guys? And, "Holy nonexistent God, somebody yelled something unintelligible at a Palin rally! She should drop out NOW!!!" Yeah, that'll probably work as well as the other 20 times you've told her to drop out in the last 6 weeks.

This is not the behavior of people who think they've got it in the bag.

But then, Kos hasn't had a lot of experience at being a winner, so you can't really blame him for not knowing how to act like it. You might as well ask him to make a fist or reach something on the top shelf.

The louder these creeps declare victory with a month to go, the more I say: Screw them.

We've still got about a month left in this campaign, and it's going to be rough sledding for the GOP, but I really don't think the lefties should be popping their corks quite yet.

Barack Obama's Crisis of Confidence

Armchair analysts and professional pundits will be dissecting tonight's presidential debate over the next couple of days. Partisan bloggers, of course, will be spinning their candidates performance and looking for the fatal "gotcha" moments emerging during the exchange.

Frankly, though, both John McCain and Barack Obama performed well, and neither side scored a knock-out punch; nor did either candidate make a major blunder. McCain continues to dominate on questions of national security and he exudes a perennial sense of duty and service to nation. McCain also seemed more intent to launch pointed jabs at the Illinois Democrat; and Obama, in response, refused to take the bait, apparently seeking to stake-out the high-road of a putative front-runner.

Yet, beside the housing bailout and the candidates' concluding remarks (on the direction for the nation's future), there was one moment that offered a particularly striking contrast between the candidates.

After a few initial questions on the economy and the federal role in helping Americans through the hard times, moderator Tom Brokaw posed an Internet question on national sacrifice:

Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices - sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?

Senator Obama's response offered a revealing window to his essential dismissal of traditional American optimism and the nation's history of up-by-the bootstraps perseverance:

You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.

And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."

That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.

And so it's important to understand that the - I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.

And let's take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.

Take note of this ...

Obama says each and every one of us must "start thinking about how we use energy."

This is Obama's call for national sacrifice: to reduce oil consumption? Sounds more like an economy-killer, and it refects, fundamentally, the kind of "malaise" sensibility that marked Jimmy Carter's presidency during the 1970s - a presidency of limits, and limited visions.

Recall, President Carter, on July 15, 1979, delivered his "crisis of confidence" speech:

I know ... that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign promises into law - and I have to admit, with just mixed success. But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America. So, I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy....

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

President Carter - history will recall - was a failed one-term chief-executive, a president stymied in both domestic and foreign policy, and one who's disastrous leadership on the economy left a long legacy of inflation and unemployment that wasn't corrected until the Reagan administration's economic boom of the mid-1980s.

During tonight's debate, John McCain - in great contrast to Obama - spoke with assurance on the "sacrifice question," noting:

Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We're not - we're not - we're not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.

In other words, there's nothing we can't do if we set our minds to it. Americans have risen to the challenge, time and again; and when facing rough times, we keep our chins up and barrel through the hard patches.

Barack Obama, instead, announced that we have to cut back, lower our sights - that government will make health care a right and not a responsibility of personal initiative. Obama wants an expansion of government in economic and energy policy, precisely when polls show the country is not looking for a second New Deal.

The American people witnessed a preview tonight of a 1970s Democratic reprise - the comeback of Carteresque crisis and malaise, absent, so far, the cardigan sweaters and double-digit stagflation statistics.

McCain Favorables High Amid Record Public Dissatisfaction

Gallup's data on record low public satisfaction include surprisingly upbeat findings on John McCain's favorability ratings.

Although public satisfaction with the way thing are going has hit a record low of just 9 percent, McCain's favorables remain as high as at earlier points in the campaign:

Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain are set to meet for the second presidential debate in Nashville Tuesday night at a time when only 9% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States -- the lowest such reading in Gallup Poll history.

The previous low point for Gallup's measure of satisfaction had been 12%, recorded back in 1979, in the midst of rising prices and gas shortages when Jimmy Carter was president.

The economic turmoil explains the trend, but the findings on McCain are remarkable:

Despite the fact that Obama has led McCain by a significant margin in Gallup's tracking of presidential preferences for 10 days now, the two presidential candidates continue to have positive images, with McCain's a little less positive than Obama's.

McCain's 40% unfavorable rating is slightly higher than he has been recorded so far this year, but his 55% favorable rating is no worse than it was in late August (after the Democratic National Convention) and earlier in the year. Similarly, Obama's favorable and unfavorable ratings are neither better nor worse than they have been at previous points over the last several months.

More about Obama though: The Wall Street Journal reports today on the Chicago Democrat's high negatives among all voters — and 40 percent of white voters - on Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright and other controversial black leaders.

Does this mean McCain's still got a chance? Could be, according to Roger Simon of the Politico:

Greg Mueller was a senior adviser to Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes in their presidential campaigns and is an expert on conservative politics.

“McCain can definitely win the race,” Mueller said. “McCain needs to change the discussion back to a referendum on Obama. He needs to define Obama’s agenda as dangerous to America.

“It is dangerous to the economy. Obama is calling for higher taxes, historical spending and a huge increase in regulation that will hamper American business. Contrast that with McCain’s message of lower taxes and freezing spending. On foreign policy and national security, Obama is a risky bet in a hostile world.

“McCain needs to keep banging those themes over and over again, so on Election Day voters think Obama is just not ready for this. The McCain campaign needs to feed the doubt people have about Barack Obama. There is a lot of doubt out there. I don’t care what the polls say.

Well, McCain/Palin have already started pounding hard on Obama's liabilities, and if the poll findings hold up, we may see some tightening in the numbers between now and the election.

Four weeks is a long time in politics. Much remains to be seen.

McCain's Path to the White House

With a month to go in the presidential campaign, predictions of a Barack Obama election blowout are getting as common as the shady Chicago socialist's discarded radical pals.

I'm optimistic but no Pollyanna.

Nevertheless, folks don't talk about October surprises for nothing. Tonight's debate may prove to be a crucial game-changer for the Republicans. John McCain needs to focus on what he can do for the country.

* He was out in front on market reforms of Freddie and Fannie, and he's got a legitimate record as a reformer and spending hawk: Run with it.

* He was right about Iraq from day one, never wavering amid a domestic antiwar campaign that at times has bordered on treason: Hammer it.

* He is the personification of patriotism and service to country for which people hunger: Tap it.

* Most of all, John McCain represents the historic center of America's political cuture and ideology. Don't run from it. Hammer the point. Show America over and over again what four years of a Barack Obama adimistration means for the nation's exceptionalism and ideals.

I do not believe that Americans are so worried about the economy that they are willing to abandon the American experiment of exceptionalism to the state-centralized lethargy of European socialist economics.

That said, politically, look at the map above. The Los Angeles Times reports that McCain's facing an uphill battle. True, but compared to 538 and RealClearPolitics, there's significant possiblities for the GOP ahead.

Here's a decent scenario on the state of the race:

National polls give Obama a small but steady lead over McCain, built as the financial crisis has consumed the country. But the race for president is actually a series of contests fought state by state or, in the case of Nebraska and Maine, congressional district by congressional district. (Most states are winner-take-all. After quitting Michigan, McCain strategists said they would redeploy forces to Maine, the other state that apportions its electoral votes, to fight for one its four electors.)

The attempt to split off a vote illustrates the lengths the candidates are going to win an electoral college majority, mindful of the exceedingly close outcomes in 2000 and 2004. "If you win an electoral vote from the other side, that's a swing of two votes," said Robert Hardaway, a University of Denver expert on the electoral college. "In a close race, that could make the difference."

Strategists for the two sides are sifting daily reams of data -- opinion polls, voter registration numbers, TV ad logs -- to decide how to spend their money and where to schedule the presidential hopefuls and their running mates. As they plot their maps, each candidate starts with the 2004 results. If nothing changed and McCain won every state Bush carried, the Arizona senator would have 286 electoral votes and keep the White House in Republican hands for a third straight term.

But replicating Bush's success is a tall order for McCain, given the unpopularity of the incumbent and the economic upheaval that, surveys indicate, is hurting Republicans more than Democrats. Polls show voters place more trust in Obama when it comes to handling the economy.

They also have McCain trailing or tied with Obama in a half dozen states Bush won in 2004: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado. McCain is tied or only slightly ahead of Obama in two other Bush states, Missouri and Indiana.

McCain could afford to lose a few Bush states -- Iowa and New Mexico seem most likely -- if he wins some that Democrats carried in 2004. Topping his list is Pennsylvania, which has 21 electoral votes and may be the closest thing to a must-win for Obama. Polls show the race there is close.

The election's still close.

McCain needs to focus his core message now more that ever, hammering his ace cards of experience, accurate instincts on the economy, and unshakable patriotic convictions. That's the Maverick's path to the White House.

McCain Leads Independents, Whites in New CBS Poll

Well, if the new CBS poll on the presidential horse race is any indication, Barack Obama is nowhere near clinching the deal:

In a sign that the race for president has returned to about where it was before the first presidential debate, the Obama-Biden ticket leads the McCain-Palin ticket 47 percent to 43 percent among registered voters in a new CBS News poll.

The Obama-Biden ticket led by a wider margin, nine percentage points, in a CBS News poll released last Wednesday, before Joe Biden and Sarah Palin faced off in the vice presidential debate. Obama-Biden led by five percentage points on Sept. 25.

In the new poll, the Democratic ticket leads by 3 percentage points, 48 percent to 45 percent, among likely voters.

There's lots of favorable data for Obama, but check out these numbers:

McCain/Palin hold statistically significant leads among independent and white voters, and as data from the new Wall Street Journal poll indicate, many voters are still on the fence: "A Month Away, Some Voters Can't Decide."

Captain Ed shares this juicy quote from the Wall Street Journal's summary:

The poll suggests that the first African-American to win a major party nomination could be vulnerable to race-based attacks tying him to unpopular black figures such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor and Al Sharpton, an outspoken and controversial figure. Thirty-five percent of all voters — and 40% of white voters — said those connections bother them. This is absent any candidate or party pressing hard on those themes, something Republicans have hinted they may start to raise more aggressively in the campaign’s closing days.

These data indicate that it's not a waste of time and resources to hammer Obama on his radical associations, and they validate McCain/Palin's shift to a more combative style on the stump today.

Will Obama Health Care Plan Cover Late-Term Abortions?

Barack Obama's health care proposals "would require insurance companies to cover routine treatments like vaccines and mammograms":

John McCormack asks if the Obama plan goes beyond mandating coverage for "routine treatments," but would require insurance companies to pay for abortions, including third-trimester procedures:

Following a speech to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, Obama made a controversial pledge to require private insurers to cover abortions. He said:

In my mind reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. …

we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services...

We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care.

Just in case there's any doubt that Obama's reference to "reproductive services" meant that he intends to mandate coverage for abortion, the Chicago Tribune's Mike Dorning reported after the speech:

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Obama has not been perfectly clear on his support for the Supreme Court's broadly defined "health exception" that permits third trimester abortions “in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”

McCormack contacted the Obama campaign to determine if the Obama health plan would mandate insurance coverage of all legal abortions, including "partial birth" abortions:

He's still waiting for a response, but because we know that Obama - aka Senator Infanticide - is the most extreme left-winger on abortion in America, it's not surprising that the campaign's not provided a definitive answer to the inquiry.

Who is the Real Barack Obama?

Who is the real Barack Obama?

That's the new question popping up along the GOP campaign trail today, and the answer among some McCain supporters is telling:

Here's Marc Ambinder's response to the video:

Judging by McCain's slightly startled reaction, he clearly didn't anticipate that reaction, and McCain's in no way responsible for the utterances of anybody in his audience. But he must have some idea of how deeply this fear/outsider/other meme has spread. A tripartite strategy isn't needed...

Who cares what kind of idea he has of this "meme"?

The main thing is that he's doing what he needs to do: go on the attack against the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern.

Mark Halperin has the transcript of McCain's speech.

Democrats and the Financial Crisis

John McCain can pick up his economic game a bit by highlighting the Democratic Party's role in the creation of the financial crisis, seen here in this ad from Right Change:

This is much more than smear politics.

As Ron Moody writes:

As we prepare to elect our next president we need to keep in mind that a president can do only as much as Congress allows him to do. Case in point, the Bush administration made an effort five years ago to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prevent the mortgage mess. This move was aggressively opposed by congressional Democrats, specifically Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who are now trying to put blame [on] Bush.

Four years ago, Sen. John McCain pushed for federal regulations in regard to Fannie and Freddie to control their reckless business practices. Again, the Democrats put a halt to such regulations.

The top three U.S. senators getting big political bucks from Fannie and Freddie are Democrats, with Sen. Barack Obama in the number two position after only fours years in office. Dodd is number one, with more than $250,000 received.

So now we have Frank, chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, in hot water because of his past relationships with Fannie Mae, and Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who accepted millions of donations from now-failing finance firms he oversees. They helped put together the deal to bail out the companies that line their pockets. Think wisely, people, when you cast your ballot in November.

See also Bloomberg's penetrating piece, "How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis," which provides additional information on how congressional Demcrats blocked regulation that might have contained - if not prevented - the Wall Street collapse.

Obama Supporters Attack Cinnamon Stillwell

Readers may recall my post last week, "American Power Fan Mail," which shares the hate e-mail I got from an angry Obama supporter.

Well, you should see the stuff Cinnamon Stillwell gets. In response to her essay, "Palin Derangement Syndrome: Obama's Worst Enemy?", Cinnamon got a big, nasty round of attacks.

Here's a sampling:

*****

Please look in a mirror, my dear. Do you have ONE person of color as a friend? (Ask the person you're thinking of, if there is one, not yourself -- you may delude yourself into thinking s/he's a friend, but it's not likely.) Your crap about who the "real America" is, well, that's basically KKK codespeak for "people of color don't count, they're not real Americans." Most people in this country live in cities, not in the Appalachian woods you and your ilk hold dear. Face it, baby, it won't be long before the country is less than half-white and you're a forgotten memory. THAT future looks bright.

*****

Live simply.

Love generously.

Care deeply.

Speak kindly. HATE REPUKES

Sin (the very existence of a neo-con is indeed that):

As a Vietnam vet, retired member of the US Army and proud father and father-in-law of members of the USAF, I just want to say that your fascist rant has just prompted me to send even more $ to Obama's well-filled coffers. Your Nazi slut's approval ratings are dropping daily, baby. I am pumped up with energy and, yes, hate, for Repukes, and there are millions more like me that are going to send you back to your Munich beer hall.

I sh*t on your stinking soul.

*****

That is some wicked demonology, and there's more at the link.

This goes with the territory, I guess ... but it takes a thick skin to be a conservative political commentator these days.

Obama for America? Dishonorable, Dangerous, Risky

Here's the new John McCain ad buy:

Narrator: Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are

Barack Obama: “… just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”

Narrator: How dishonorable.

Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops. Increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous.

Obama and Congressional liberals. Too risky for America.

Barack Obama is the candidate of the antiwar, anti-American left. Obama's backers advocate death to America.

It's not just Bill Ayers. An Obama administration will locate this dangerous ideology at 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.

Firedoglake: America Will Die in the Blood of Empire

Victory in Iraq was all but declared earlier this year.

Both major candidates have claimed success for the Petraeus surge, and each have proposed policy adjustments for the future of Iraq and global security. Even this week, the Associated Press conceded a major Bush administration argument on the conflict, that success in Iraq would stablize the Mideast and promote American interests in the region. Even American public opinion sees the administration's counterinsurgency strategy as improving security in Iraq, and making it possible for the eventual drawdown of American forces.

If we might expect policy disagreements between the right and left in American politics, it should be on the pace and scope of the forthcoming troop withdrawal, or one might think.

Not so for the folks at Firedoglake, who seem stuck in 2003, up in arms over the long-ago controversy surrounding the American decision to topple the Baghdad regime in furtherance of over a dozen U.N. resolutions finding Iraq to be in material breach of its disarmament commitments.

But there's more at issue tonight, for Firedoglake is essentially calling for the death of the United States as the Imperial hegemon, in its essay, "It is in Blood That Empires, Like Humans, Are Born, It is in Blood That They Die":

War ... is hell. This isn't news, everyone knows it. But as with most of what everyone "knows" they don't really get it, because most people don't get things that have never effected them or people they love. And if you're in Congress, well, with very few exceptions, no one you care about is going to fight, no one you know is going to risk their life and maybe even get captured and tortured. The same is true of most people serving in the administration....

And so we come back to the heart of the war. We rarely talk about it anymore, but it's simple enough. All those people who supported the war, and most especially all those who voted for it, bear the moral responsibility for the results of the war. At least 100,000 dead Iraqis (and probably closer to a million). 4,000 and rising dead US soldiers. Rape. Murder. Torture. Orphans who got to watch their parents being killed. Husbands who saw their wives die, or wives who watched their husbands gunned down or blown into bloody carrion. Families who have buried multiple children.

All because members of Congress didn't care and because they were gutless. Because they though [sic] to themselves "I might have to face attack ads if I vote against this war." Can you think of anything more weak, anything more pathetically evil, than to care more about your reelection than about thousands dying? Than about the certainty that from your vote will come rape and torture and murder?

And can you think of anything more pathetic, more redolent of bad judgment than to say "but I didn't know. I trusted George Bush?"

As far as I am concerned most of Congress doesn't just have blood on their hands, they are in it up to their chins. Their gutlessness, cupidity and selfishness is such that most of them, in a just world, would be preparing their defenses for a Nuremburg trial. They attacked a country which had not attacked the US, based on lies that were debunked at the time, for petty personal reasons of political ambition or cowardice.

We all know that won't happen, but what I will tell you is this. Without the Iraq war, the financial crisis happening right now either wouldn't be, or would be much less harsh. It is quite likely that Iraq is the last mistake of the American century and marks the end of America as a superpower.

Where to begin?

Well, for one thing, international relations scholars document a current sustained American preponderance in the international system, and as stressful as Iraq has been, the U.S. is not at risk of losing is status as the world's sole superpower. Who are the peer competitors likely to replace U.S. leadership of the world system? China? Russia. The European Union? Hardly... If we go down, they'll go down with us, as international interdependence creates overlapping sensitivities and vulnerabilties to global crises and shocks.

But, frankly, all this is just grist for the larger attack on the moral legitimacy of the United States altogether. Firedoglake represents classic far-left anti-Americanism, and the project here is to continue the push for war crimes proceedings upon the possible accession to power of a Barack Obama administration. Ultimately, though, the goal is the destruction of the United States itself, which is alleged as racist and oppressive to the core, an irredeemable abomination in the world of nations.

Here's Firedoglake's conclusion:

American hegemony rose out of the ashes of WWII. World War II was an unprovoked war. Germany attacked those that did not threaten it. At Nuremburg Americans hung Nazis who had not been involved in the Holocaust, for no crime other than unprovoked war, declaring that it was a capital offense. Out of that war, and out of Nuremburg, America was born as the leader of the free world. Not just the mightiest, but the nation that said "never again".

It is fitting then that an unprovoked war is what is bringing an end to America's leadership of the free world, to its economic and military hegemony. Having done what it once condemned, having proven unwilling or unable to correct itself, America has reaped what it sowed....

It is in blood that empires, like humans, are born.

It is in blood that they die.

Notice the obligatory moral equivalence between Hitler's Germany and Bush's America.

Readers should have no doubts: The ideas expressed here are identical to those expressed by William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, tenured-radicals who sought death and destruction for American institutions during the Vietnam era. Ayers has said of America, "What a country ... It makes me want to puke."

Firedoglake, founded by Jane Hamsher, is a leading online fundraising and advocacy blog for the hardline radical left. Hamsher's Blue America has been a central vehicle for netroots mobilization over the last few election cycles, and the organization has been central to Barack Obama's fundraising success this year.

When Firedoglake announces that American hegemony will die in the blood of empires, know that these same people, who routinely spout this nihilism mayhem, have raised millions to install in the White House a Marxist-trained Chicago community organizer with ties to black liberation theology and unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists.

Barack Obama and Chicago Machine Politics

Back in July, when the New Yorker published its satirical cover portrait of Barack and Michelle Obama decked out in Muslim garb and militant fatigues, the political backlash tended to overlook Ryan Lizza's accompanying feature story, "Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama."

That's too bad, because Lizza's portrait of Barack Obama as a Chicago machine politician deserved just as much attention as Obama's radical ties.

Now comes John Kass, however, at the Chicago Tribune, with a needed update exposing the essential graft in Obama's Chicago machine politics pedigree. Kass suggests that John McCain - at Tuesday's debate - may find a road paved with damaging materials from Obama's connections to the Cook County Democratic establishment, it's "the Chicago Way":

Obama definitely does not want to go there. It would be a forced march for him. Obama's gauzy references to Chicago involve baseball and where he met Michelle and those blissful hours he spent as a community organizer. What he doesn't want discussed is his evolution from independent Democrat to potential White House enabler of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

The Chicago Way is a road the Beltway media establishment dare not travel. It must frighten them. It conflicts with their fairy tale about Obama as reformer, and they're much too busy rummaging through garbage cans in Alaska to bother about Chicago's political alleys.

But any child in Illinois knows the Chicago Way leads through the most politically corrupt city in America, in a politically corrupt state, where muscle trumps reason, where Democratic warlords brazenly promote their offspring into public office, where even souls are offered up for sale.

The national media have never wanted to understand, much less expose, political corruption here, or examine how Obama prospered under the Daley machine's guidance. A trip down the Chicago Way would force them to re-examine their ridiculous narrative that sets Obama as a political reformer riding a white horse, or is that a winged unicorn?

Not only does the press not want to understand, it has systematically abandoned any pretense of objectivity to fully engage in the most explicitly pro-Democratic media campaign in modern journalistic history.

Sarah 2.0 Brings Out Genuine Fear on Left

Over the last few weeks, Sarah Palin has been mercilessly ridiculed as a vapid right-wing piece of trailer park trash, and more.

Boy, what a change one vice-presidential debate makes.

Sure, while there's a new twist to the anti-Palin attacks (the "mindless populism" meme's a good one), some on the left are now speaking of Palin in a much more serious language, using enemy images to suggest an existential danger to the republic should the McCain/Palin ticket somehow squeak through on November 4th.

Jeralyn at Talk Left really captures the left's terror in its new comprehension of the Palin threat:

Nothing better shows the poor judgment of John McCain than his Hail Mary pass of choosing Sarah Palin, a politician with no relevant national experience, serious knowledge gaps on important issues and questionable ethical judgment to be his running mate. By putting his personal quest to be President over the well-being of our nation, he has demonstrated he lacks the character to be President. He sold us out for the sake of his own ambition. The radical right is now in a position to propel McCain/Palin to victory and then McCain will owe them...

If McCain wins it will be because the radical right leapt to his cause once he put evangelical Sarah Palin on the ticket. It is only their enthusiasm that can win the election for McCain.

What's interesting in this post is how Jeralyn speculates on what will happen if a McCain/Palin administration takes office (the Supreme Court will be radicalized?). Jeralyn, classier than most on the left (especially Amanda Marcotte), eschews the "country bumpkin" slurs and identifies Palin's core conservative beliefs as a powerful mobilizing agent on the right for a grassroots resurgence. What a fascinating thing to be attacked for energizing the party's own core base of support. Of course, the continuing potential for Palin to siphon working class voters from the Democratic column adds an unstated element to the horror.

Lefists this morning - responding to Palin's comments yesterday - are now bending over backward to prove that the Obama-Ayers connection is insignificant old news.

It's not, and the fact that Palin's taken up the charge is especially horrifying.

The Alaska Governor challenges all that is ideologically sacred to those on the left of the spectrum. Palin's strong performance Thursday night, and her willingness this weekend to attack Barack Obama's greatest vulnerabilities, have created a new "Sarah 2.0" dynamic. Her comeback is real, and it's sowed genuine fear in her opponents.