2008 Presidential Elections

[Ryan Ruck]

And we have the guns...

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Shifts Resources Out of Georgia

Barack Obama's campaign is moving staffers out of Georgia and into more competitive states, according to WGCL in Atlanta.

Obama has had about 75 staffers in the state, which last voted for the Democratic nominee in 1992. Some staffers will be moving to North Carolina and other swing states, the CBS affiliate reports. The campaign stopped running television ads in the state three weeks ago.

John McCain led Obama 53 percent to 44 percent in the latest poll of the state, conducted by Rasmussen.

[Ryan Ruck]

Autumn Angst: Dems Fret About Obama

Polls showing John McCain tied or even ahead of Barack Obama are stirring angst and second-guessing among some of the Democratic Party's most experienced operatives, who worry that Obama squandered opportunities over the summer and may still be underestimating his challenges this fall.

"It's more than an increased anxiety," said Doug Schoen, who worked as one of Bill Clinton's lead pollsters during his 1996 reelection and has worked for both Democrats and independents in recent years. "It's a palpable frustration. Deep-seated unease in the sense that the message has gotten away from them."

Joe Trippi, a consultant behind Howard Dean's flash-in-the-pan presidential campaign in 2004 and John Edwards' race in 2008, said the Obama campaign was slow to recognize how the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate would change the dynamic of the race.

"They were set up to run 'experience versus change,' what they had run [against Hillary] Clinton," Trippi said. "And I think Palin clearly moved that to be change [and] reform, versus change. They are adjusting to that and that threw them off balance a little bit."

A major Democratic fundraiser described it a good bit more starkly after digesting the polls of recent days: "I'm so depressed. It's happening again. It's a nightmare."

Adding to Democratic restlessness, McCain has largely neutralized some issue advantages that have long favored Democrats.

This week's USA Today/Gallup poll reported a split on which candidate "can better handle the economy"; 48 percent chose Obama while 45 percent said McCain. In late August, Obama had a 16-point edge on the issue.

Also this week, an ABC News/Washington Post poll reported that when voters are asked "who can bring about needed change to Washington," McCain still trails Obama by 12 points. But in June, McCain trailed by 32 points.

That shift in the public's perception of the issues, in Democratic pollster Celinda Lake's words, "tremendously concerns me."

Lake joined other Democratic veterans, some speaking not for attribution, in emphasizing a classic liberal woe: that the Democrat let the Republican define him.

"Obama needed to define himself," Lake said. "I do think that during the Democratic convention we should have done a better job of defining McCain."

Steve Rosenthal, a veteran field organizer for Democrats and organized labor, said that some entrenched Democratic vulnerabilities never receded this year. And in his view, Palin has reawakened those liberal weaknesses.

"For some white, working-class voters who don't want to vote for Barack Obama but weren't sure about McCain, Palin gave them a good reason to take another look and consider supporting McCain," Rosenthal said.

"On the one hand, it could be a temporary reshuffling of the deck," he added. "And on the other hand, it underscores the deep-seated problems we have in this race with race, class and culture.

"In some ways, you play the cards you're dealt," Rosenthal continued. "There is a good amount of time left for Obama to make 'the connect.'"

Asked if partisans in his state are worried, New Jersey Democratic Chairman Joseph Cryan responded: "Absolutely, absolutely. It's a 'sit up straight and listen' kind of thing.'"

While Obama's campaign is "a little bit off-balance," Cryan added, "that's okay. Campaigns ebb and flow."

Like Rosenthal and Cryan, most of the Democrats interviewed for this article, both on and off the record, expressed confidence that the landscape this year tilts in favor of a Democratic victory and that Obama has plenty of time to retake command of the race. Many predicted that any bounce in polls caused by Palin's selection could be followed by a plunge as her record and qualifications continue to be scrutinized.

Still, a wide range of conversations with Democrats yielded several reasons to doubt that Obama is quite the political natural — or the November shoo-in — that some of his most ardent supporters believed.

Among the problems:

Obama's Summer Doldrums: After his months of exhausting trench warfare with Clinton ended in June, Obama faced a delicious opportunity — to further define himself to the American public and hone a transcendent message in advance of the August Democratic convention.

Yes, McCain's campaign had enjoyed months of free kicks at the Democrats after the GOP primary race ended and the Obama-Clinton steel cage match continued. But most of those months were spent with the McCain camp in severe disarray, both on message — Phil Gramm's "mental recession" comes to mind — and in campaign tactics, such the infamous green backdrop at his June 3 speech in a New Orleans suburb.

Yet the latest polls — and the seeming ability of Palin to instantly transform this race — would seem to indicate that voters got no overarching message from the Obama campaign other than he is a gifted, even inspirational political performer who aspires to change the country. The economic message Obama is now scrambling to hammer home was either absent or mixed in with a variety of other topics.

The thing voters likely remember most from the period is Obama's July trip to Europe — a trip that prompted the McCain campaign's focus on the issue of elitism and celebrity and that some Obama campaign officials now privately acknowledge was a mistake.

Did the Obama team spend this period quietly building up formidable ground operations in all 50 states? Possibly — and no one could question the fundraising prowess that makes this 50-state strategy possible. But as the campaign frantically tries to combat Hurricane Sarah with a meat-and-potatoes economic message and an effort to identify McCain and Palin with an unpopular president, it seems logical to conclude that its chance of success would be greater if that thematic strategy had begun months earlier.

There are also some doubters, by the way, about whether it is wise to be trying to expand the national playing field as broadly as Obama is seeking to — as opposed to putting chips on a select number of undoubted swing states.

"Their 50-state strategy is insanity," said Schoen. "If they don't use their financial advantage where they need it most," he said, citing states from Ohio to Nevada, "and put every thing there and blow it out, they are at deep risk of losing."

Forgetting the lessons of 1992: One of the certainties of American politics is that it is hard for Democrats to win presidential elections without a deep connection to Main Street values and economics. That would seem doubly true for Obama, given the unstated but undeniable barrier his race presents in certain areas of the country. And few nominees have ever had such an inviting target as the economic record of the Bush administration — from a ballooning federal budget deficit to higher unemployment rates to a mortgage crisis that could be the most menacing fiscal threat in decades.

McCain has shown little interest in economics throughout his career, and Palin's limited budgetary experience comes in a state that relies heavily on earmarks from Washington and the largesse of Big Oil. The primary economic cure voiced by the GOP tickets is more tax cuts and an unspecific pledge to be tough on congressional earmarks. Perhaps the only economic solution given prominence at the St. Paul convention was a push to allow domestic coastal oil drilling.

Yet still, the Obama campaign seems to be struggling to find a consistent, cohesive economic message. One can understand why aides would not want to muddy his mantra of change and his image as a post-partisan, revolutionary figure. But blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Michigan likely won't vote for Obama because of some meta-narrative or a series of fabulous speeches.

"The [Obama] campaign is beginning to look like other campaigns," said a former top strategist for past Democratic presidential campaigns, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Obama is struggling with working-class whites just like John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis did, and Walter Mondale. He's struggling with voters in the border-state South. And he's struggling with an enormous wind at his back, a hatred for George Bush and a mainstream media that is little short of a chorus for his campaign."

Clinton, of course, was the only one of these Democrats to actually win the struggle. As he could tell Obama, voters want to know how their lives would be bettered by an Obama presidency in very specific terms. This connection (along with independent Ross Perot) is what powered his upset run against George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Clinton probably would have offered Obama that advice personally months ago — but the two men were scheduled to have their first campaign-year meeting on Thursday, just over 50 days from Election Day.

The Expectations Game: Anyone who thinks the presidential election should be a layup for Obama should remember that Democrats have broken the 50 percent barrier in presidential elections only twice since 1944.

Did Obama himself forget?

Even if he didn't, he let a narrative take hold in the news media and among many of his own supporters that led to expectations that he should be far ahead, leading to disappointment when he isn't.

"A lot of Democratic elites thought this was a slam-dunk. And I thought, no it's not," said Lake, the pollster. "People in this town were already measuring drapes. And I was thinking, have you been in the real world lately?

"If you have been involved in campaigns, you thought it was going to be close for a year," she added. "And I think a lot of Democratic elites are waking up to that."

[samizdat]

from St. Bernard- this is what bo's alaskan huskies are diggin up.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/0244/84583

See psalms 2 and 59. God will have the last laugh on this. He gets free advertising.

The short story, for those who have little interest is that Joel's Army/Dominion/3rd wave movements are modern holy rollers with a charismaticl twist and moral majority tint. They fast, pray use cell phones and unlike Muslim camps- they're unarmed.

It's safe to say that these Christians are not heretics- they're just high on Jesus.
KOOL AID.

[Aplomb]

Sarah Palin sends her son off into Iraq and then gets her first grilling on 9/11 anniversary. I thought she did well in putting herself in the hot seat and defending herself against a relentless assault of condescending questioning the likes of which the Presidential candidate, Barack Obama has not had to endure. It is disgusting that this crap was defined as an "interview". Come on, let's be honest. This was not an interview that is going to go over well with women, but the way that she handled things in a confident way makes the grade in what women like to see. There were more pluses than minuses scored since most of us females go through this ridiculous type of condescending interaction with men daily. Take a look at the recent interview with O'Reilley taking Obama to task and compare. The interviewer smiles and entreats for replies on hot topics, and he gives slack w/o demanding an answer, and Obama is given the respect of finishing a thought. Not bad at all for a first in my estimation.

Now what I'd like to see her do is review the video and next time around take control in the interview. One thing for certain, for instance, is to not feel the need to respond to the interjected interruption of a thought. She need not say something defensive and ask to finish her sentence, but rather with confidence, assertively finish her statement. In addition, the McCain camp needs to require that the interviews are not edited for fairness in the presentation and content. She's a quick study, so I think that grilling was all the practice Governor Sarah Palin needed to handle the next one and pull off the debates quite well.

One other thing is that sometimes there is a difference of wording about things and Gibson tried to use that concerning Bush, to make Palin look dumb. It is similar to the way polls and issues to be voted on are worded in a marketing/packaging strategy to gain the desired results. While men may be thinking that she didn't know much but talking points, I believe most women identified with typical demeaning interaction with men and feel even more emotionally sided with Palin.

[Aplomb]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-st...h-palins-words

Charlie Gibson's Attempt to Twist Sarah Palin's Words


By John Stephenson (Bio | Archive)
September 11, 2008 - 21:03 ET

Hubris was indeed revealed in the ABC interview with Sarah Palin, and it wasn't coming from Sarah Palin, but Charlie Gibson. But there was more than Charlie's sneering condescending tone, looking down over the rim of his glasses like some snobby intellectual that bothered me. Twisting her words into a fabrication feeding the fear of theocracy was utterly insulting. It was especially insulting to claim that these were her "exact words" after being challenged on it. Watch this video excerpt from the interview to see the exchange.
Here is the transcript of the exchange:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Actually, Charlie, that is totally untrue. Here is what she actually said:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Here is a tip for the future Charlie. Try not to rely on the AP for your "exact quotes". It makes you look like a total fool, especially after condescendingly insisting you are correct.
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

[Aplomb]

Rove on several "Bush Doctrines"

[samizdat]

I think ob's on self-destruct. Implosion, impaling. A Biden-hilary ticket will be hard to beat. OK ob- take off the gloves and let's see your kung-fu. You know...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=75147

[Aplomb]

Yes, sami, it certainly looks like Obama was baited and took the bait. Obviously a new ad will come out that the American public will see that will do damage to the democratic candidate. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=75147

Obama oops: War injuries prevent McCain from e-mailing Campaign issued ad today mocking GOP candidate for lack of computer savvy

A Barack Obama ad that mocks John McCain for not being able to use a [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]computer[/color][/color] and send an e-mail apparently didn't take into account the fact that the Republican presidential nominee can't use a keyboard because of the severe injuries he suffered as a Navy pilot and POW during the Vietnam war. A Boston Globe report eight years ago cited by the National Review's Jonah Goldberg said McCain's "severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes."
But the Obama campaign ad posted on the [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Internet[/color][/color] today poked fun at McCain for admitting "he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail."
The text of the ad says:

1982. John McCain goes to Washington. Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn't. He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class. After one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same.
My name is Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

Littlegreenfootballs has more, by the way, on McCain's computer knowledge and physical limitations. Wild. I had been wondering how the MSM bias could be overcome. It appears that the Republicans have found a way to reach numerous liberal view-educated students. Up next: Obama insensitive and mocking disabled US vets.

I would also bet that McCain isn't going to die off any time soon. People get this impression based on how he "presents" oldish, but that stiff movement is because of what his body has been through rather than aging.

[Aplomb]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...202457_pf.html

Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; A17


"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12


Informed her? Rubbish.


The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.


There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.


He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"


She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"


Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."


Wrong.


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.


Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban

and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.


Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.


It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."


This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.


If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.


Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.


Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.


Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.


Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.


Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.


Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

[Aplomb]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...college_update

drum roll, please...

Election 2008: Electoral College Update
Electoral College: McCain 200 Obama 193

[Aplomb]

Colorado is a "toss up" at this point. Here's a little inside info from my little corner of the world in the extremely vote-covetted Jefferson county. After the RNC speech by Sarah Palin, democrats came into an office asking for "Democrats for McCain" signs. They took over 200 signs. Yesterday I was at that office to volunteer. After walking with a survey and a list of 55 contacts in a mostly-democrat area, I can say that those I spoke with are staunch anti-Republican. There is no doubt that the race here in Colorado is quite tight.

[Aplomb]

Speaking of democrats, let's hear from one on that Gibson "interview":

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122008...726.htm?page=0

ABC'S BUNGLES

BOTCHES MAR PALIN INTERVIEW


Last updated: 3:44 pm
September 12, 2008
Posted: 3:47 am
September 12, 2008


LAST night, Sarah Palin had her first big-time media interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC World News Tonight.


At times, Palin seemed to know less than she should. On the other hand, Gibson sometimes seemed to "know" things that just aren't so.


Her responses to Gibson's cross-examining seemed canned and rehearsed, a little like the answers you might give in a tough college interview. But that may be a result of the ham-fisted editing - which seemed to cut her off mid-thought on many answers.



ABC should release the entire, unedited interview, so that Americans can judge her more fairly.


The biggest concern is that she appeared to not know what the Bush Doctrine is.



There are, in fact, different definitions of it - but all have had an impact on this nation.



One hopes Palin is more up to speed than she seemed.


Of course, she needs to be questioned on many issues - but this interview left us with little new information about her.


Americans already know she lacks foreign-policy experience (as, by the way, did Democrats' 2004 VP candidate, John Edwards). All we could learn from Gibson's grilling on that topic was how well she's memorized McCain's positions. Why ask her whether Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO? Her position will match McCain's, just as Joe Biden's stands will mirror Barack Obama's.


Plus, her answers last night are already being misrepresented. She said - quite correctly - that, if Georgia and Ukraine are admitted to NATO, the United States may be obliged to defend them. This has been morphed into an assertion that we might invade Russia. And ABC News bears much of the blame: It actually sent out a pre-broadcast alert to that effect.


So now we can play this stupid game, pretending she wants to invade Russia instead of debating real issues.


ABC's errors didn't end there. The interview seemed to show a lack of good faith, with the blatant misrepresentation of comments she's made about the Iraq war.


Gibson - probably relying on a sloppy Associated Press report - told Palin she has said that, "Our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."


In a part of the interview that was edited out (but is available on ABC's Web site), Palin says, "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote."


Gibson snaps: "Exact words."


Sorry, Charlie - let's go to the tape.


In the video of her remarks, Palin says "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God." She is clearly praying for wisdom for our national leaders - praying that they are following God's will.


This is Christianity 101, not some fundamentalist plot to wage a holy war. Presumably, Obama, as a Christian, utters similar prayers for our country as well.


There's more: Gibson also accused her of saying of Iraq, "There is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."


Here's what she really said: "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."


Despite Gibson's insistance that she'd said things that she clearly hadn't, Palin was polite and seemed unrattled.


We need to get beyond the stereotypes. Palin has been cast as a right-wing nut job in the media, yet her actual record suggests something more complex. She is a Republican who made herself the enemy of oil companies in Alaska. She raised funding for pregnant teens and learning-disabled children. She has expressed concern that we don't have a clear strategy in Iraq.


But she also was mayor of Wasilla at a time when women were charged for rape kits - we need an explanation why. And what of her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape or incest? Is that a personal position, or does she seek to impose it on all Americans? And, even if no books were banned in the Wasilla library, why did she inquire as to how the librarian would react if they were?


There are real questions that Americans need to hear Palin answer. But they're ill-served by the game the media has played so far. Rather than real insights into this woman, we get exchanges that will lead to arguments about whether she's a religious fanatic - arguments based on a comment she never made.


This is completely destructive to the public debate. As Barack Obama says: Enough.


kirstenpowers@aol.com

[Aplomb]

There is more of the Gibson interview with Governor Sarah Palin here, although even the "the full interview" is not the whole thing. She actually does a GREAT job, but of course, who would have known that with what little ABC had edited and aired on 9/11. Wow!

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5793131

[Aplomb]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...WKYFyGNlkF4Z14

5 reasons why McCain has pulled ahead

David Paul Kuhn Sun Sep 14, 8:24 AM ET



John McCain’s surge in the polls comes even as Barack Obama has inherited the most favorable Democratic environment since the Watergate era — an unpopular Republican president, an unpopular war and a flagging economy.

Suddenly, though, Democrats have found themselves in a world turned upside down, where Republicans have the momentum from running on change — and the latest wunderkind of presidential politics.

Below are five trends showing up in polling that help explain the change.

1. McCain as a 'change agent'

Eight in 10 Americans say they believe the country is on the wrong track. Obama has built his campaign on the perception that he is both the personification of change and the man to enact it.

Even though McCain has spent decades in Washington and a member of his party is in the White House, recent polling shows that he has managed to successfully portray himself as a change agent and erode Obama’s brand in the process.

The Democratic firm Democracy Corps found that the public prefers Obama to bring “the right kind of change” as president by a 50 to 44 percent — down from his 16-point edge in mid-August.

This week’s ABC News/Washington Post poll asked “who can bring about needed change to Washington.” The public favored Obama by 12 points — down from 32 points in June.

CBS News polling this week found that 46 percent of voters believe McCain can change Washington — up from 28 percent in July.

The Obama campaign has taken notice. His stump speech now rips McCain as a phony reformer, and yesterday he launched a TV ad campaign and website highlighting McCain’s ties to lobbyists.

2. The center shifts: Independents move to McCain

Independent voters, and particularly white independent men, have leaned Republican in presidential races since 1980. But before the Republican convention, Gallup polling showed just 40 percent of independents favoring McCain.

Post-convention, that rose to 52 percent — and the increase in support was slightly greater among men than among women, which appears to undercut the idea that Sarah Palin has benefited the ticket by drawing women to it.

Before the Democratic convention, white women favored McCain by 7 points. After it, they favored him by 6. Following the Republican convention, McCain was winning white women by 11 points — a 4-point gain.

Before the Democratic convention, white men favored McCain by 20 points. After it, that margin shrunk to 13 points. Following Denver, white men favored McCain by 25 points — a 5-point gain.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 62 percent of men have a favorable view of Palin, while just 53 percent of women view her favorably.

Though no Democrat has won a majority of white voters since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Obama cannot win unless he pulls back some of these white independent voters.



3. The economic gap narrows

James Carville, who coined the catchphrase “the economy, stupid” in 1992 while working as a strategist for Bill Clinton, frets that Obama is losing his ownership of the issue that has become voters’ foremost concern in recent months.

“I noticed the tightening on the economy,” Carville said. “And if it stays that way, I would be damn worried.”

When Democracy Corps asked voters last week which candidate would “do a better job” with the economy,” Obama had a 50 to 44 percent advantage—down from a 16-point edge in mid August.

Gallup this week shows a 3-point edge for Obama on the question of which candidate “can better handle the economy”—down from 16 points in August.

A recent internal Republican poll found that 30 percent of likely voters shop at Wal-Mart at least once a week. Obama retained a slim 45-42 edge with Wal-Mart women—but 64 percent of men in the group favored McCain against just 29 percent who preferred Obama.

4. Palin narrows the enthusiasm gap

The Republican base, once disenchanted, has returned with a vengeance since McCain’s surprise pick of the first-term Alaska governor as his running mate.

This week’s CBS News poll found that 53 percent of Obama voters said they were “enthusiastic” about Obama, up 5 points since before his party’s convention, and still better than the 42 percent of McCain supports who feel the same way. McCain’s support, though, is up 18 points since selecting Palin.

The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 12 percent of McCain’s supporters were “excited to be voting” for him in early August. This week 34 percent said they were excited — nearly a threefold increase.

Palin has played no small part in this GOP awakening. CBS found that fully 85 percent of McCain backers were “pleased” with the selection of Palin, compared to 65 percent of Obama supporters who said the same about his running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

And among independents, 46 percent have a favorable view of Palin while only 31 percent say the same of Biden.

While Democrats have continued to hit at Palin’s inexperience, only 36 percent of likely voters believe Palin lacks the proper experience while 47 percent said the same of Obama.

5. Democrats voter ID edge dulls

Democrats have been relying on their newfound advantage in party identification all year. Party ID remains the best single indicator of voter support.

Republicans began losing voters prior to the 2006 midterm elections that gave Democrats a functional majority in the Senate. But those voters straying from the fold were mostly becoming independents, not Democrats.

Democratic voter enrollment began to grow in 2007, even as the drop in Republican enrollment leveled off. Now, though, the dynamic appears to have shifted.

The week before the Republican convention, just 39 percent of voters said they leaned toward or identified themselves as Republicans. Following the convention, that number rose dramatically to 47 percent. Meanwhile the percentage of voters leaning toward or identifying themselves as Democrats dropped from 53 to 47 percent. Gallup notes that party ID shifts are not unusual after a convention.

Gallup also reports that the double-digit Democratic lead among voters who are asked which party they’d generically prefer to control Congress has disappeared and that the two parties are now effectively tied.

[Aplomb]

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42

The Story


In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens - two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist - began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.

Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. See who here. Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.


The Process

Beginning with these 3,400 questions, Science Debate 2008 worked with the leading organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.


The Questions and Answers, a Side by Side Comparison

Barack Obama's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America August 30, 2008 click here for Senator Obama's answers only

John McCain's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America September 15, 2008 click here for Senator McCain's answers only

[Aplomb]

The lefty Atlantic was just a victim, don't ya know...

http://americandigest.org/mt-archive...tlantic_mo.php

Out-Takes: Behind The Atlantic's McCain Cover [Bumped]

[ UPDATE: Monday - Video: Atlantic editor James Bennet takes a turn in the Fox barrel saying, in essence, "Who knew?." Magazine and article author are just "victims." Atlantic to apologize to McCain, suspend payment to Greenberg, contemplating lawsuit. Details at bottom of post. Scroll down.]

"Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.” - Jill Greenberg

The Atlantic Monthly's current cover by Beverly Hills photographer Jill Greenberg looks like this:

Not really Annie Leibovitz quality, but not even Annie's delivering that these days.

["One sees such portaits, and what can one say but...”Salieri."]


As far as it goes it is workmanlike enough and presents McCain, unlike the Obama covers we are used to seeing, without the halo. Given the level to which the owner and the staff of the Atlantic are in the tank for Obama -- the owner's wife, Katherine Brittain Bradley, is on record in one instance for $28,500.00 to committees supporting Barack Obama-- even the cover-lines are not half-bad if a bit half-hearted. I'd only remark that it is no accident that the Atlantic's editor approved the upper red slash bar with the words "Porn" and "Adultery" in it. Editors, especially those whose paycheck depends on displaying their bias for their boss, love those little gotcha games. I know. I played them too.


But that's not where the Atlantic cover story stops.



snip--


You may recall that last week US Weekly played fast and loose with a Sarah Palin cover and it ended up costing that magazine around 10,000 subscribers as the cancellations flowed in. The Atlantic starts with a much smaller subscriber base than US Weekly and an almost non-existent news stand sale. May both shrink accordingly and increase the $5 million per year loss it is currently running. In addition, it might be a good thing if advertisers and media buyers were alerted to this episode. I'm going to do my share.


You see, I no longer write to editors about these frauds and outrages, I write to the advertisers. You should too.

Beverly Hills photographer Jill Greenberg's Current Client List. Proud to be associated with her?


snip--


UPDATE 5: Atlantic Monthly Editor to Offer Apology to McCain for Photog’s Doctored Pics

Editor James Bennet said Greenberg behaved improperly and will not be paid for the session. He said the magazine is also considering a lawsuit.... “She has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so we’re taking steps. So we’re looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,” Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is “already drafting a letter of apology” to McCain.

“I mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us … but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,” he said.

James Bennet, editor of the Atlantic, turns in a required appearance on Fox to underscore that The Atlantic did not know what it was getting when it hired Jill Greenberg. What he says makes a certain amount of sense, but not complete sense.


I'm not buying the Bennet line that The Atlantic did not know what they were getting. Bennet may not have know about Greenberg's history. (Note that he is careful to use "I" throughout), but the art director must have known. The Greenberg "Crying Babies" story was news throughout the sphere, the media, the television, and the magazines.



It reached international levels. The art director of the Atlantic, James Treat, certainly knew about Greenberg. He also knew, from the mere fact of working within The Atlantic, and most likely from editorial meetings with Bennet and the author, what the tone of the cover story was and what sort of image was likely to be approved.


This is common in magazines -- art directors being told how to slant an image -- and art directors listen carefully in order to assign a person most likely to win the editor's approval. If they don't come up with such an image they risk having to do the job over with much less time.


When it comes to covers, art directors are utterly under the control of the editorial and, especially, the publishing arms of the magazine. An interior illustration may be "owned by the art director, but the cover is owned by the business arm of the magazine first and foremost.

[Aplomb]

Governor Sarah Palin was here in Colorado yesterday. Obama is also here. This is really funny in a way because the Republicans can balance the campaign scale w/ the veep pick in just the one speech. We in Colorado see not just our state as ground zero, but Jefferson county being the decider in this election. Consequently, many more people than normal here who are serious about this election are very busy in the political process. Myself included. An unexpected blessing came my way yesterday when I was able to be at the Palin rally at the Jefferson fairgrounds arena. She was great with the crowd with about 5000 people in attendance. She stayed awhile shaking hands with people after her speech. I could barely see her from where I stood, but seeing all of the people around me who are traditional working-family conservatives, is as much of a motivating factor as hearing Sarah speak.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10457815

Palin shifts outlook for undecideds

The VP pick raises new issues for "Wal-Mart moms," but many say they haven't made a final decision.
By Allison Sherry
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 09/14/2008 12:49:22 PM MDT

ARVADA — Trina Green said she worries about her lack of health insurance and the price of groceries. On her bookkeeper's salary, she needs cheaper gas to shuttle her baby and her 7-year-old around. She is concerned about the quality of her son's school and the war in Iraq.


And vice presidential pick Sarah Palin is making her take a second look at voting for John McCain.


"She's not soured; she's not influenced yet," said Green, a registered independent in Jefferson County, a key battlefield where there is a roughly equal measure of independent voters compared with Republicans and Democrats. "She's young, she's vital. You can see the life coming out of her. Our schools need help. Maybe because she's a young mom, she'll have some ideas about that."


Though Green says she is still undecided about her vote in November, her growing affinity for the McCain-Palin ticket — attributed solely to Palin — means that McCain's effort to target "Wal-Mart moms" may be working.


Many of the undecided voters here are moderate, working, suburban women who say they like Palin because, at least on the surface, she seems to be one of them.


"She has the same problems and the same issues that everyone else does," said Jessie Rember, an Arvada mother of two, and a German professor.


The Republican vice presidential nominee is stopping here Monday morning for a rally at the Westernaires Arena. Interest in Palin's appearance — her second in Colorado in nine days, but first solo — was so strong that the event was moved to the larger venue.


Political observers say these fiercely independent voters, whose names tend to morph each election cycle from "soccer moms" to "security moms," will be who chooses the presidential winner this fall.


"People have realized that we can't lump all women voters together," said Karrin Anderson, a professor at Colorado State University. "This group and the Latino voters are going to be key."


At a Republican National Committee meeting in New Mexico in April, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said the demographic would be a top target this election season.


"They shop at Wal-Mart," Davis told the Albuquerque Journal. "They don't have expensive tastes. They are suburban by nature."

Obama campaign reaches out
The power of this voter group hasn't gone by the Barack Obama campaign either.
They are reaching out, in large part, with a message of fixing the economy. Michelle Obama and other surrogates have held a series of economic roundtables with women in Colorado and other battleground states.


Last week, the campaign held a forum on women's issues in Jefferson County with state Rep. Debbie Benefield. State Treasurer Cary Kennedy held a pay equity forum in Loveland recently, and Obama officials say they have held several women-to-women phone banks across the state.


"Women are realizing just how much is at stake in this election and just how much they have to lose if the McCain-Palin ticket is successful in November," said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller.


Yet for the moment, McCain, through Palin, is making the biggest strides.


In a Washington Post-ABC News survey last week, McCain's camp picked up a 20 percentage point boost among white women after the Republican National Convention, where Palin made her coming-out speech.


Palin, the political leader, is still largely unknown. In her two weeks in the national spotlight, she has been largely shielded from probing questions about how she would lead. She has granted only one media interview. Her few stump speeches have been closely hued to McCain's, calling for energy independence and change in Washington.


What voters mostly know about the Alaska governor is that she was a PTA president and hockey mom, that she has five children, married her high school sweetheart and feeds her kids macaroni and cheese.


Many pundits predicted that her "normalcy sheen" would be punctured with more exposure. But so far, that image is lasting.


"If they (the McCain campaign) handle her right, this could last quite a while," said Bonnie Dow, associate professor of communication studies at Vanderbilt University.



"What people know about her is extremely limited."

Widespread indecision
Here in Jefferson County, undecided voters are everywhere: taking their kids to hockey practice, sitting on barstools in Edgewater, shopping in Arvada's Old Towne.


They are quick to share the pros and cons of each candidate: Barack Obama seems smart, but he may raise my taxes. I don't know enough about him. I like McCain but don't like his early stance on the war. What's his economic plan? Sarah Palin seems smart, but is she ready to be president?


Maro Dimmer is a registered Democrat still stung by Hillary Rodham Clinton's loss in the primaries. The owner of a German bakery, Dimmer said she has yet to make up her mind but likes the energy Palin brings to McCain's ticket.


"I think she's dynamic; it makes me more likely to vote for the campaign," Dimmer said, noting she wouldn't vote for Palin just because she is a woman but admires her intelligence. "Palin is not experienced the same way Obama isn't experienced in international politics."


Conifer resident Peggy Myers said in her years of voting, this is the first election she hasn't known what to do. She admires both candidates but called Palin a female George W. Bush. Palin is not entering into her decision, though, because she is running for vice president.


"I'm looking at the two people who would be president," she said, "and I think both men are decent and have a goal of uniting the country."


Political scientist Rebecca Deen says both campaigns would do well keeping it positive for undecided and moderate voters, who are easily off put by negative campaigning.



This means that, without a lot of substantive information on Palin, Obama's camp would do well avoiding attacks on her.


"These folks are not necessarily swayed by the mud attacks," said Deen, a professor at the University of Texas at Arlington. "I think once we get to the debates and there's real substance, people will start making up their minds."


Danielle Breck, a registered Republican, said she resents Palin because she always seems to be on the attack for McCain. The past two weeks of news coverage have moved the 32-year-old waitress closer to voting for Obama.


"She brings energy to the ticket, but it's the wrong kind of energy," Breck said, noting she's still undecided. "She is a full supporter of being at home and taking care of her family, but what is she doing? What is she saying? I need more substance."
Allison Sherry: 303-954-1377 or asherry@denverpost.com

---

Political visits

Palin kicks off in Colorado.
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was scheduled to arrive in Denver late Saturday, kicking off a flurry of national political appearances.
After a "down day," Palin will hold a Monday morning rally at the Westernaires Arena at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds. The doors open at 7 a.m. for the 9 a.m. event, and GOP officials say no more free tickets are available.
Obama in Colorado too.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opens a two-day Colorado trip with two Monday events: one in the morning at the Cross Orchards Living History Farm in Grand Junction and one at 4:30 p.m. at the Colorado State Fairgrounds in Pueblo.
Then, on Tuesday morning, Obama will appear at Lockridge Arena at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden. Free tickets for that event are available beginning at 10 a.m. today at metro-area Obama campaign offices.

[Aplomb]

http://www.examiner.com/x-770-Breaki...ndermine-Palin

Breaking News Examiner

Prof Tells Students: "Undermine" Palin

0 Comments
POSTED September 16, 5:11 AM
Rick Pearcey - Breaking News Examiner

Students in an English class at Metropolitan State College in Denver have been told to assemble criticisms of GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that "undermine" her, and students say they are concerned about the apparent bias.

"This so-called 'assignment' represents indoctrination in its purist form," said Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, whose sister, Janna, is taking the class from Andrew Hallam, a new instructor at the school.


The instructor also, according to students, is harshly critical of President Bush during his classroom English presentations. He reportedly has allowed students who identify themselves as "liberal" to deride and ridicule those who identify themselves as "conservative" or Republican.


"So much for critical thinking. What's happening in that classroom represents a microcosm for what's happening with the angry left around the country," Matt Barber told WND. "The visceral and even abusive reaction Hallam and some of his students are having against Sarah Palin and Republican students in the class is occurring on a much larger scale among left-wing elitists throughout the media, academia and the larger Democrat Party."


More from "Prof Tells Students: 'Undermine' Palin" at WND . . .

[Toad]

There's an interesting composite poll here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

You can see 9/02 there was a sudden and rapid reversal and spike in the McCain ticket swinging a good 5.3 points or so and taking the lead. (With Palin announced) Oddly, about 9/10 the McCain ticket starts slipping a fair bit. I wonder what happened there, or maybe didn't happen. Anyhow, just as interesting, at the point of that second reversal, Obama didn't bounce back, he's continued a decline.

I like the composite poll. Any one poll can be skewed either way. Once you start averaging in a dozen polls, the numbers become much more meaningfull.