Daily Nonsense

Below I have pasted an article from my favorite non-American news source, The Guardian.  I read them frequently when I feel as if I can’t trust the ’standard’ news outlets.  Their agenda is quite different than say, Fox News or MSNBC.

Obama inauguration: Let the remaking of America begin today
Alan Rusbridger in Washington
Tuesday 20 January 2009 22.42 GMT

Barack Hussein Obama was today sworn in as 44th president of the United States of America in front of quite possibly the largest mass of humanity ever to have gathered in one place for a single political moment.

As many as 2 million people in ­Washington’s National Mall heard their new commander-in-chief deliver a sombre 20-minute speech in which he acknowledged that the country was in the midst of crisis – mired in wars, its economy struggling and its national confidence sapped. He promised the largely silent crowd that the challenges would be met, but warned it would take time, some sacrifice, a new form of politics and a re-engagement with the world, in which America would recognise that “power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please”.

President Obama took the oath just after midday under a crisp and ­cloudless azure sky in front of the glistening cream dome of the Capitol, which, it is now accepted, was partly built by slaves.

The day, cold enough to freeze breath, had begun with millions of individual journeys by coach, train and on foot as the crowds began converging before dawn for a moment widely taken as one of renewal and of double foreclosure. This was to be the end of the last eight years of Republican rule and of the bars which, at any previous time in history, would have made the election of an ­African American president unthinkable.

They had come to celebrate – and for days they had been doing just that in parties and balls all over town. The cheer as Obama swore his oath on ­Lincoln’s Bible rippled and roared all the way from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol, nearly two miles away.

But when Obama spoke it was immediately apparent that the tone of this inauguration was grave, addressed as much to the hundreds of millions tuned in around the world as to the shimmering sea of upturned faces in front of him.

“That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood,” he said. “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

“Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our healthcare is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”

If this was read as a repudiation of the previous eight years of Bush, there was plenty more of it. There was, said Obama, a nagging fear that American decline was inevitable; he wanted an end to “petty grievances and false promises”; the time had passed for “protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions”; a nation could not prosper long “when it favours only the prosperous”.

In one of the few lines to be greeted by fervent applause, he turned to defence, proclaiming “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”. In a thinly-veiled reference to Guantánamo and torture he promised not to abandon the rule of law and human rights “for expedience’s sake”.

There was further implicit criticism of his predecessor’s policies in his comments on science and the environment. He vowed to “restore science to its rightful place” and made several references to climate change, acknowledging the threat to our planet and saying America would in future “harness the sun and the winds and the soil” for energy.

On international affairs, he singled out the Muslim world, offering “a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect. America would leave Iraq “to its people” and forge a “hard-earned peace” in Afghanistan.

All inauguration ceremonies consciously celebrate, and reference, both the constitution and former presidents.

Four ghosts hovered over yesterday’s ceremony. Lincoln’s Gettysburg address gave the new president the overarching theme for his speech – the “new birth of freedom”. It is Lincoln, the gangly lawyer from ­Illinois, who has fascinated Obama more than any other previous president.

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves and yesterday’s inauguration were in some ways bookends to the darkest stain on America’s history. For many in the crowd this was the over-riding reason for the pilgrimage to Washington. Obama put it simply: “A man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

The second ghost was Martin Luther King, who, had he lived, would have been an 80-year-old spectator. No one in the crowd could have been oblivious to the echo across time of the words that had rung out from the other end of the National Mall 45 years previously.

And then there were JFK and FDR. Obama’s call for responsibility and sacrifice recalled both Kennedy in 1961 and Roosevelt’s heartfelt cry in 1933: “We now realise as we have never realised before our ­interdependence on each other.”

Obama’s serious tone and his unflinching acknowledgement of the economic hurricane blowing through America echoed Roosevelt’s speech at the time of the last serious global depression, in which an incoming president vowed “to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly … with a candour … which the present situation of our nation impels”.

The endless crowd listened solemnly to the same sentiments today. They might have come wishing for something more uplifting, but, for many, the day reached beyond symbolism to a moment of genuine transformation after which nothing could be the same again.

As Obama headed back into the ­Capitol building at the end of the ­ceremony clouds began rolling over what had until then been a pure blue sky. But there was one final, rousing cheer as the helicopter carrying George W Bush rose over the gleaming dome of government and took the former president off to Texas – and out of public life for ever.

[Thanks, Guardian]

Yikes!  There is apparently an oft forgotten little clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article One, Section Six) that prohibits senators from taking a civil office if that legislator has ever voted to increase the pay for that job.  Could this preclude Hillary from accepting the post of Secretary of State?

There is also some ‘legal’ precedent that allows for Congress to lower the wage for that particular job.  This is some kind of smoke and mirrors band-aid that means Hillary wouldn’t benefit financially from the higher salary she’d previously voted on.  I’m far, far, far from being a legal expert, but the text in the article below seems unambiguous.

Obama likely to name Hillary Clinton to Cabinet. But wait! Can he?

The president-elect, no-drama Barack Obama, is expected to name his new secretary of State, all-drama Hillary Clinton, as early as tomorrow as part of the week’s rollout for his national security team.

But can he?

As pointed out by a number of bloggers in recent hours, including our eloquent friend Susan over at Wake Up America, there’s a clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article One, Section Six) that prohibits senators (or representatives) from taking a civil office if the legislator has voted to increase the pay for that job.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

A president-elect who’s a former part-time constitutional law professor, even one without his BlackBerry, presumably is aware of this prohibition, obviously designed to prevent double-dipping and raising your own salary, which is only allowed in Wall Street banks.

And Obama surely knows of its historical precedents.

And if Obama makes the appointment of his former bitter rival, she’ll no doubt take office as the point person for U.S. foreign policy.

But the appointment of the loser of the Democratic presidential nomination by the winner of that nomination and of the subsequent general election wouldn’t be properly Clintonian without some extra dramatic flourishes. This is likely only the beginning of such chapters.

Apparently, President Nixon ran into the same problem when he wanted to appoint Ohio’s Republican Sen. William Saxbe as attorney general.

The solution back then, since dubbed the "Saxbe fix," was for Congress to pass another law (not without some outspoken dissent from Democratic senators, by the way) reducing the AG’s pay so Saxbe wouldn’t benefit financially from the higher salary he’d previously voted on.

Similar fixes occurred when President Jimmy Carter named Edmund Muskie secretary of State and H. Clinton’s own husband Bill named Lloyd Bentsen to head Treasury.

So much for the actual money aspect and strict construction.

We’re not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn’t say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said "Emoluments."

It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee’s elected term. Period. Which it has.

This seems more like a TV scriptwriter’s trick to keep everyone hanging around through the commercials starting tomorrow.

– Andrew Malcolm

[Thanks, LA Times]

CNN is reporting that the controversial Senate race between convicted Republican incumbent Ted Stevens and Democratic challenger Mark Begich is still up for grabs.  At last count, Begich was leading Stevens by a margin of 1,022 votes.

But will that be enough to ensure victory?  Apparently, in Alaska there is a 15 day grace period, the longest in the nation, for the arrival of absentee ballots mailed outside of the US.  Could there be enough votes to straggle in to let the ethically challenged Stevens gain victory over Begich?

Remember just how far reaching these results are.  If Stevens wins, Palin could demand his resignation and hold a special election on which she would figure prominently on the ballot.  the book-buring witch could end up in Washington after all, rather than in Hollywood where she belongs.

Alaska, Minnesota set for key steps in unresolved Senate races

• Story Highlights
• U.S. Senate races in Alaska, Minnesota still too close to call
• Wednesday is deadline for Alaska officials to receive absentee ballots
• Minnesota officials mull status of rejected ballots for recount
• Georgia will have runoff election on December 2

(CNN) — Officials in Alaska, one of three states yet to certify winners in the November 4 U.S. Senate races, say they hope to have nearly all ballots counted on Tuesday.

And officials in Minnesota, home of one of the other unresolved races, intend to rule Tuesday whether certain rejected absentee ballots should be considered in a recount scheduled to start Wednesday.

In the Alaska race between embattled Republican Sen. Ted Stevens and Democratic challenger Mark Begich, about 24,000 ballots remained to be counted on Tuesday, said the state’s elections director, Gail Fenumiai.

However, it’s possible a few straggling absentee votes might come in Wednesday in time to be added to the tallies.

The race drew national attention, especially after Stevens was convicted in October of filing false statements on Senate financial disclosure forms. In early returns in the days after the election, Stevens — the Senate’s longest serving Republican — held a narrow lead over Begich, who is mayor of Anchorage.

But Begich took a slim lead last week as officials sorted some 90,000 additional votes — nearly a third of all ballots cast in the state. Those votes included about 60,000 absentee ballots, 9,500 early votes and another 20,000 "questioned" or provisional ballots being checking for validity.

By Friday, when vote counting was stopped for the weekend, Begich had 47.37 percent of votes counted; Stevens had 47.02 percent. The two were separated by 1,022 votes out of more than 290,000 cast, according to the Alaska Division of Elections Web site.

Alaska allows up to 15 days, longer than any other state, after Election Day for absentee ballots to arrive and be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and mailed from outside the United States. Absentee ballots mailed inside the United States are accepted up to 10 days after the election.

Election officials said that schedule was adopted in consideration of Alaska’s sprawling geography, sparse population and sometimes spotty mail service in remote areas.

"Wednesday is the last day we will accept absentee ballots, but we really don’t expect many to come in," Fenumiai said Monday.

In Minnesota, vote totals last week showed Republican Sen. Norm Coleman 206 votes ahead of his Democratic challenger, Al Franken.

On Tuesday, the secretary of state’s canvassing board is scheduled to hear a request by Franken’s campaign that certain already-rejected absentee ballots be counted during a statewide hand recount scheduled to start Wednesday.

Asked what the campaign plans to do if the board decides it will not count rejected ballots, Franken spokeswoman Colleen Murray said the campaign hasn’t ruled out anything, including asking for a postponement of the recount.

Georgia is the other state with a Senate race yet to be resolved. Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss will face Democrat Jim Martin in a December 2 runoff.

[Thanks, CNN]

In a startling news story, the US Secret Service has laid the blame for the spike in death threats against then presidential candidate Barack Obama right on Sarah Palin’s doorstep.

While we’re all agreed that Sarah Palin was the cause behind the spectacular fiery crash of the Republican presidential campaign this summer, it’s interesting to note how Palin’s attempt at defaming the Obama campaign essentially did just the opposite.

While I’ve already commented on Palin and the hate-mongering, I’m still wondering if there are any legal repercussions she should be watchful for.

Maybe we should just allow Sarah and her husband to realize their greatest dream.  Let’s let the socialist state of Alaska to secede from the union and forever remove Palin as a threat to our Presidency or the Republican National Committee.

Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama

Sarah Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama’s patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 8:38AM GMT 10 Nov 2008

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin’s credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.

Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama’s patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.

That claim is part of a campaign of targeted leaks designed to torpedo her ambitions, with claims that she did not know that Africawas a continent rather than a country.

The advisers have branded her a "diva" and a "whack job" and claimed that she did not know which other countries are in the North American Free Trade Area, (Canada and Mexico). They say she spent more than $150,000 on designer clothes, including $40,000 on her husband Todd and that she refused to prepare for the disastrous series of interviews with CBS’s Katie Couric.

In a bid to salvage her reputation Mrs Palin came out firing in an interview with CNN, dismissing the anonymous leakers in unpresidential language as "jerks" who had taken "questions or comments I made in debate prep out of context."

She said: "I consider it cowardly. It’s not true. That’s cruel, it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news that’s not fair and not right."

She was not asked about her incendiary rhetoric against Mr Obama. But she did deny the spending spree claims, saying the clothes in question had been returned to the Republican National Committee. "Those are the RNC’s clothes, they’re not my clothes. I asked for anything more than maybe a diet Dr Pepper once in a while. These are false allegations."

Speaking as she returned to her native Alaska, Mrs Palin claimed to be baffled by what she claims was sexism on the national stage. "Here in Alaska that double standard isn’t applied because these guys know that Alaskan women are pretty tough, on a par with the men in terms of being outdoors, working hard," she said.

"They’re commercial fishermen, they’re pilots, they’re working up on the North slopein the oil fields. You see equality in Alaska. I think that was a bit of as surprise on the national level."

[Thanks, Telegraph UK]

Sarah Palin has apparently ‘forgotten’ to return all of the clothes that were purchased for her and her family when she became John McCain’s running mate. The clothing, in an attempt to make her presentable to the masses, was purchased at such upscale stores as Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Macy’s; and at the luxury retailer Barneys New York.

The designer clothing, valued in excess of $150,000, was obviously not enough lipstick on the sow, McCain and his campaign showed a steady and terminal decline in the polls once Palin opened her mouth and started spewing NeoCon crap to the masses.  And we all know what the final results were; Barack with 364 Electoral College Votes and McCain with a paltry 163.

I’m just curious to know if anyone has bothered to called around to the various hotels where Palin stayed and ask if they are missing any towels or bathrobes.  Oh, right, Sarah can’t be bothered wearing a bathrobe.

GOP tries to sort out Palin’s donor-funded duds

By SHARON THEIMER – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Party lawyers are still trying to determine exactly what clothing was purchased for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, what was returned and what has become of the rest.

And they are discussing with Palin, who’s back in Alaska, whether what’s left of the tens of thousands of dollars worth of designer clothing and accessories purchased for her on the campaign trail will go to charity, back to stores or be paid for by Palin, a McCain-Palin campaign official said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the campaign hadn’t authorized comment.

The sorting should be completed in the next four or five days, the campaign official said, declining to say whether the RNC was sending anyone to Alaska to help take inventory.

The RNC spent at least $150,000 on designer clothing, accessories and beauty services for Palin after she became John McCain’s running mate in September. The spending included $75,062 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis; $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue; $9,447 at Macy’s; and $789 at the luxury retailer Barneys New York. Some of the purchases were for Palin family members, such as $4,902 spent at upscale men’s clothier Atelier and $92 at Pacifier, a Minneapolis baby boutique.

The McCain-Palin campaign said about a third of the clothing was returned immediately because it was the wrong size, or for other reasons. However, other purchases were apparently made after that, the campaign official said.

The spending drew a complaint against Palin and the RNC by a Washington government watchdog group. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Palin and the GOP of violating a federal ban on the use of campaign funds for personal expenses such as clothing.

The RNC didn’t respond to repeated requests by The Associated Press for comment Friday.

It’s routine for candidates to get professional hair and makeup services at campaign expense before they go on camera, but Palin’s shopping spree at GOP donors’ expense is unusual. It contrasted with the down-to-earth "hockey mom" image that Palin sought to craft and gave the campaign unwanted publicity in the form of newspaper headlines, Internet chatter and comedians’ jokes.

FEC spokesman Bob Biersack declined to comment on the spending beyond confirming that the commission has received CREW’s complaint.

Palin and the campaign have characterized the purchases as legitimate campaign expenses and said there was never any plan for Palin to keep the items.

[Thanks, Google News]

Ready to follow in the footsteps of the great American Presidents like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR, Barack Obama was elected to the highest office in the land yesterday in what I will call a landslide victory.

Sweeping the polls in at least 26 states, Barack far exceeded the 270 electoral votes needed to ensure the presidency.  With final counts required in a number of states, the current total of 338 votes is still enough to tell that nasty GOP to piss off!

It will be interesting to review the Wikipedia Historical rankings of United States Presidents a year from now.  Today that page has got both Bush presidencies at the bottom.  Daddy Bush coming in at 41st and Baby Bush as dead last.  I wonder where Barack will be?  Not last, that’s for sure.

From the LA Times.

Barack Obama wins presidency, making history

The Democrat breaks the ultimate U.S. racial barrier with his defeat of Republican John McCain.

By Mark Z. Barabak
November 05, 2008

Barack Obama, the son of a father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, was elected the nation’s 44th president Tuesday, breaking the ultimate racial barrier to become the first African American to claim the country’s highest office.

A nation that was founded by slave owners and seared by civil war and generations of racial strife delivered a smashing electoral college victory to the 47-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, who forged a broad, multiracial, multiethnic coalition. His victory was a leap in the march toward equality: When Obama was born, people with his skin color could not even vote in parts of America, and many were killed for trying.

Obama was winning in every state his party carried four years ago, including Pennsylvania, which McCain had worked vigorously to pry from the Democratic column. Obama was also making significant inroads into Republican turf, carrying Ohio and Virginia, the latter voting Democratic for the first time in more than 40 years. He was also winning the swing states of New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico, which backed President Bush in 2004.

The major TV networks and the Associated Press called the race for Obama within minutes of the polls closing, sparking a raucous celebration in Chicago, where hundreds of thousands of celebrants gathered in Grant Park along the city’s waterfront.

Giant video screens at the scene were tuned to CNN. Each time the network projected a state as an Obama win, the crowd erupted in cheers. The battleground states produced the loudest roars – first Pennsylvania, then New Hampshire, then Ohio, then, finally, victory.

Moments later, the Obama campaign announced that McCain had called the president-elect to concede.

Voters also handed Obama a fortified congressional majority, as Democrats picked up several seats in the Senate and in the House. The party knocked off at least two GOP incumbents, including North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

McCain, burdened by his party’s toxic image, prevailed in a band of states that comprise a shrinking Republican base, mainly in the South, the Plains and parts of the interior West.

In winning the White House, Obama to a large degree remade the electorate: About one in 10 of those casting ballots Tuesday were doing so for the first time. Though that number was about the same as four years ago, most of the newcomers were under age 30, about a fifth were black and a fifth were Latino. That was greater than their share of the overall population, and those groups voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Overall, he won large majorities of women, black and Latino voters. Although he lost among white voters, Obama narrowed the margin significantly from 2004.

For most voters, the sagging economy was the topmost concern – a dynamic that played strongly to the Democrat’s favor. Six in 10 voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the nation, according to exit polls – far more than cited energy, Iraq, terrorism or healthcare.

Voters flocked to the polls in record numbers Tuesday, continuing a pattern of electoral exuberance that started in the primary season. There were scattered voting problems reported throughout the day, including long lines, malfunctioning voting machines and mislaid ballots.

But there was nothing like Florida’s infamous “butterfly ballot” fiasco, which sent the 2000 presidential contest into several weeks of overtime before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to settle the race.

Mostly, there was patience, good cheer, and for many, pride in taking part in a slice of history, whatever the result; had he won, McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, would have been the first woman to serve as vice president.

Lines began forming across the country before the sun had risen, with queues starting at 4 a.m. in New York City. The outcome across most of the Democratic-leaning Northeast was never in doubt, but many felt it was their responsibility – and privilege – to vote.

“I needed to cast my own ballot today, not just because it’s my duty as a citizen but because for once it feels like it counts,” said Eric Schwartz, 36, a computer specialist on New York’s Upper West Side. “It’s a more global feeling. Like I needed to make a mark on a day when things matter. Today, everyone matters.”

In Arlington, Va., Takia Williams, 25 and African-American, wrestled with her frustrated 2-year-old, who wanted to play on the slide in the back seat of their car. But nothing could dampen Williams’ spirits after casting a ballot for Obama. “I couldn’t wait to vote,” she said.

Obama will be one of the youngest presidents in American history, the first born outside the continental United States (in Hawaii) and only the third to move directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House.

He burst on the national political scene just over four years ago, with an electrifying keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in Boston. Obama’s soaring speech previewed themes he would reprise in his presidential bid, including a call to end the partisanship symbolized by a country divided into Republican red and Democratic blue.

Months after that address, Obama won his U.S. Senate seat, and there was immediate talk of a run for president. The speculation, however, vastly understated the challenge facing Obama, who by his own admission entered the crowded Democratic field as a decided underdog. His victory over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton after a long, contentious primary season was in itself one of the great political upsets of all time.

Contrary to the wisdom at the time, the battle did not sap but rather strengthened Obama. He built campaign organizations in traditionally Republican states, like Nevada, North Carolina, Colorado and Indiana, that came into play in the fall thanks to the groundwork laid in the spring.

Obama also became a better, more substantive candidate and a much stronger debater, which served him well in his three matchups with McCain. Obama’s unflappable performance on stage and steady response to the Wall Street meltdown helped allay voter concerns about his judgment, maturity and readiness to assume office, undercutting what was perhaps McCain’s strongest argument against the freshman lawmaker.

For all the wild celebration in Chicago, there were quieter moments that captured the full weight of history.

Former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, a veteran of protests in Selma, Birmingham and other racial flash-points, was among hundreds of black Atlantans who crowded the pews for an election-watch party at the Rev. Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church. When CNN called the state of Pennsylvania, an early harbinger, Young pulled out a handkerchief and dabbed away tears

mark.barabak@latimes.com

Barabak is a Times staff writer.

Times staff writers Richard Faussett in Atlanta, Johanna Neuman in Washington and Maeve Reston in Phoenix contributed to this report.

[Thanks, LA Times]

You may experience some difficulties at the polls tomorrow.  And I’m not talking about the difficulties that are Republican sponsored like this one encouraging Democrats to vote on November 5th. (ed. This is NOT true.  Everyone votes November 4th).

As more and more voters are expected to report to the polls tomorrow, there are concerns that the changes in voting procedures will create delays for everyone.  So be it!

I’d rather be inconvenienced a little than lose my right to be a part of this historic event.  Wait in line for an hour or two, bring it on!  Here is my plan for tomorrow.

1. Bring a paperback to read.
2. Bring my MP3 player with built-in FM radio.
3. Some comfy shoes.
4. Some hard candies.

Simple, yet effective method to stave off boredom should it rear it’s ugly head.

Voting Experts Say High Turnout May Add to Problems at the Polls

By IAN URBINA
Published: November 2, 2008

Millions of voters will encounter an unfamiliar low-tech landscape at the polls on Tuesday. About half of all voters will vote in a way that is different from what they did in the last presidential election, and most will use paper ballots rather than the touch-screen machines that have caused concern among voting experts.

But the change does not guarantee a smooth election day, as the nation’s voting system remains untested for what is expected to be an unprecedented turnout. Six years after the largest federal overhaul in how elections are run, voting experts are still predicting machine and ballot shortages in several swing states and late tallies on election night.

Two-thirds of voters will mark their choice with a pencil on a paper ballot that is counted by an optical scanning machine, a method considered far more reliable and verifiable than touch screens. But paper ballots bring their own potential problems, voting experts say.

The scanners can break down, leading to delays and confusion for poll workers and voters. And the paper ballots of about a third of all voters will be counted not at the polling place but later at a central county location. That means that if a voter has made an error — not filling in an oval properly, for example, a mistake often made by the kind of novice voters who will be flocking to the polls — it will not be caught until it is too late. As a result, those ballots will be disqualified.

Voting rights groups have also filed lawsuits against election officials in Pennsylvania and Virginia, saying they have not stocked enough paper ballots to prepare for the expected turnout.

Most voting experts are not predicting a repeat of the Florida meltdown of 2000, but they are warning that shortages of electronic voting machines or printed ballots in swing states, along with problems verifying the identity of voters, could worsen lines and fray nerves.

[Thanks, NY Times]

The future of our country will be determined tomorrow. 

It’s really just that simple.  Will our future be as bright and shiny as it was for my parents on November 8, 1960 when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard M. Nixon?  Or will our future be a continuation of the last eight years under this Republican dictatorship?

Look at how much we have lost in these last eight years.  Our standing in the world arena, both politically and economically.  Our self respect after Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay.  Our First Amendment rights.  Our privacy, consider the domestic spying controversy for which no one will ever be held responsible.  Our moral and ethical compass after the intentional unmasking of Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA covert agent by our own government.  Again, no one will ever be held responsible for such a treasonable act.  The sub-prime mortgage crisis in which the unchecked greed of Wall Street has led to thousands of families losing their homes.  Blackwater and their murderous rampages through Iraq in which hundreds of civilians have been left crippled or dead.  Not to mention the rapes of both Iraq citizens and American contract employees.

The damning and embarrassing list goes on and on.

But you have a chance to start the nation on the road to recovery.  You have the opportunity to become a part of real, positive change both for your fellow Americans and America.

The time has come to stop the unchecked deregulation in Washington that has led to a few corporations making epic profits from your hard work.

The time has come to stand up and be counted among the Americans who choose change.  Change over another 8 years of the Bush failed policies.  And let me tell you something, any Bush policy is a failed policy for you and me and everyone else except a very select few.  Bush, Cheney and their gang of thieves have managed to make money during all of this, while you and I dip into savings to put gas in our tanks.

The time has come to stand up and be counted among the Americans who just say NO!

Get your fat ass up off the couch and go VOTE tomorrow.  You’ll be glad you did.

I would have liked to think that McCain, an obvious supporter of Bush and all of his failed policies, could never have had a real chance at the White House.  I would have thought that almost any Democratic candidate could have run, and won.

But poll numbers in the weeks immediately after the Republican National Convention were proving me wrong.  America was being dazzled by the pretty face.  But couldn’t they see the rotten core that pretty face was hiding?

Apparently America has come to her senses.  Uncommitted voters, Hillary-centric Democrats who abandoned ship after the Democratic National Convention and many, many Republicans have started realizing just what an evil, petty and unqualified candidate Palin is.

And not a moment too soon.  As long as the Bush, Cheney, Mukasey triumvirate of evil doesn’t get its way in Ohio, we still have a chance.

Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds

By MICHAEL COOPER and DALIA SUSSMAN
Published: October 30, 2008

A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.

And in a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain’s image, voters said they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people for his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.

After nearly two years of campaigning, a pair of hotly contested nominating battles, a series of debates and an avalanche of advertisements, the nationwide poll found the contours of the race hardening in the last days before the election on Tuesday. Twelve percent of the voters surveyed said they had already voted. These were among the findings:

• Mr. Obama is maintaining his lead, with 51 percent of likely voters supporting him and 40 percent supporting Mr. McCain in a head-to-head matchup.
• Some perceptions of race are changing, with a marked increase in the number of people who say they believe that white and black people have an equal chance of getting ahead in America today.
• Mr. McCain’s focus on taxes, including his talk about Joe the Plumber, seems to be having some effect, as a growing number of voters now say Mr. McCain would not raise their taxes.
• Eighty-nine percent of people view the economy negatively, and 85 percent think the country is on the wrong track.
• Mr. Obama continues to have a significant advantage on key issues like the economy, health care and the war in Iraq.

The survey found that opinions of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain had hardened considerably, as 9 out of 10 voters who said they had settled on a candidate said their minds were made up, and a growing number of them called it “extremely important” that their candidate win the election. Roughly half of each candidate’s supporters said they were “scared” of what the other candidate would do if elected. Just 4 percent of voters were undecided, and when they were pressed to say whom they leaned toward, the shape of the race remained essentially the same.

Bolstered by the fiscal crisis and deep concerns about the direction of the country, Mr. Obama has seemed to solidify the support he has gained in recent months. When likely voters were asked whom they would vote for in an expanded field that included several third-party candidates, Mr. Obama got the support of 52 percent of them, Mr. McCain 39 percent, Bob Barr 1 percent, and Ralph Nader 2 percent.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Saturday through Wednesday with 1,439 adults nationwide, including 1,308 registered voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

The poll was conducted as a wide range of state polls have shown Mr. Obama, of Illinois, ahead or tied in several crucial contested states, including some traditionally Republican states that Mr. McCain, of Arizona, must carry to win the election.

The survey suggested that Mr. Obama’s candidacy — if elected, he would be the first black president — has changed some perceptions of race in America. Nearly two-thirds of those polled said whites and blacks have an equal chance of getting ahead in today’s society, up from the half who said they thought so in July. And while 14 percent still said most people they knew would not vote for a black presidential candidate, the number has dropped considerably since the campaign began.

Mr. McCain’s heavy focus on taxes in the final weeks of the campaign seems to be having some effect, the poll found. Forty-seven percent of voters said Mr. McCain would not raise taxes on people like them, up from just 38 percent who said so two weeks ago. (And 50 percent said they thought Mr. Obama would raise taxes on people like them, while 44 percent said he would not; both numbers are similar to two weeks ago.)

With just days until Americans choose a new president, the survey found them deeply uneasy about the state of their country. Eight-five percent of respondents said the country was pretty seriously off on the wrong track, near the record high recorded earlier this month. A majority said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. And President Bush’s approval rating remains at 22 percent, tied for the lowest presidential approval rating on record (which was President Harry S. Truman’s rating, recorded by the Gallup Poll in 1952).

Mr. McCain’s renewed efforts to cast himself as the candidate of change have apparently faltered. Sixty-four percent of voters polled said Mr. Obama would bring about real change if elected, while only 39 percent said Mr. McCain would. And despite Mr. McCain’s increased efforts to distance himself from President Bush, a majority still said he would generally continue Mr. Bush’s policies.

Dixie Cromwell, a 36-year-old cosmetologist from Shelby, N.C., who is a Republican, said in a follow-up interview that she had already voted for Mr. Obama.

“I generally vote Republican, but this year I voted Democrat,” she said. “I just don’t feel we can go through any more of the same old thing that we’ve been going through with the Republican Party.”

Mr. Obama’s policies were seen as much more likely to improve the economy, provide health insurance to more people, and scale back military involvement in Iraq than Mr. McCain’s were. But Mr. McCain enjoyed an advantage when it came to questions about which candidate would make a better commander in chief: 47 percent of voters said Mr. McCain was very likely to be an effective commander in chief, compared with 33 percent who said Mr. Obama would be.

While a majority viewed Ms. Palin as unqualified for the vice presidency, roughly three-quarters of voters saw Mr. Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, as qualified for the job. The increase in the number of voters who said Ms. Palin was not prepared was driven almost entirely by Republicans and independents.

Over all, views of Ms. Palin were apparently shaped more by ideology and party than by gender. Ms. Palin was viewed as unprepared for the job by about 6 in 10 men and women alike. But 8 in 10 Democrats viewed her as unprepared, as well as more than 6 in 10 independents and 3 in 10 Republicans.

Marjorie Connelly, Megan Thee and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.

[Thanks, NY Times]

Well, Alaska has certainly been in the news quite a bit recently.  First we’ve got the ethics challenged, book-burning, anti-abortion creationist clogging up the media with her stupid and inane comments as she single-handedly tanks the Republican run for the White House. 

And now we’ve got yet another Republican from Alaska in the news.  Senator Ted Stevens was just found guilty Monday on seven counts of failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts and free work on his home in Alaska.  Another corrupt Republican government official.

I’ve heard that party leaders are actually relieved that Sen. Stevens ’stance’ was not an issue in this most recent Republican foible.

Top Republicans call for Sen. Stevens to resign

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has joined other top Republicans in calling for convicted Sen. Ted Stevens to resign.

Earlier on Tuesday both members of the Republican presidential ticket — Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — as well as other Republican senators called on Stevens, R-Alaska, to step down.

While campaigning for re-election on Tuesday, McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, told reporters that Stevens should step down immediately, according to McConnell’s spokesman Dom Stewart.

McConnell is in a tight race with his Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford.

Earlier in the day, McConnell said in a statement that Stevens "will be held accountable so the public trust can be restored."

Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also issued a strongly worded statement Tuesday.

"I am disappointed to see his career end in disgrace," Ensign said. "Sen. Stevens had his day in court and the jury found he violated the public’s trust — as a result he is properly being held accountable."

[Thanks, CNN]

We all know that George W. Bush isn’t the man we elected as president.  But with the manipulation of the results from overseas voters and the residents of Ohio, Bush was determined to be the winner yet again in 2004.

One of the cornerstones of his theft of the office of the president was in Ohio.  Using voting machines which have now proven to be inaccurate, George W. and his puppet-master Dick Cheney were able to prevent more than 350,000 individuals from having their votes count.

350,000 votes was just enough to manipulate the results of the Electoral Congress and assure the continued reign of the true ‘Axis of Evil’.

Hey, guess what?  The Bush-Cheney administration has their eyes set on Ohio voters once again.  Choosing an influential battleground state and manipulating the votes might just be enough to get McCain and the warthog elected.

Bush Undermines Democracy with Attack on 200,000 New Ohio Voters

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted October 27, 2008.

How far will an already politicized Justice Department go to assist Republicans win on November 4?

As the 2008 presidential election heads into its final week, the current president threw a political wild card on table late Friday, when he asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the status of 200,000 Ohio voters.

George W. Bush’s request, if honored, could be politically explosive. It would remind voters of the Department of Justice’s partisan abuses of power in the scandal surrounding the firing of seven U.S. attorneys in 2006 who did not deliver ‘voter fraud’ convictions.

It could be a big distraction, drawing attention away from issues that call for legitimate DOJ intervention, such as shortages of voting machines in minority precincts in Virginia and Pennsylvania, compared to nearby white precincts. That disparity would violate existing civil rights law.

Or it could interject a complicating dynamic into the already heavily litigated Ohio general election, by adding the Department’s weight to GOP legal claims that pre-emptively question the legitimacy of a close vote count in a key battleground state.

Either way, the Department must choose if it will remain silent or get involved in an action that would go well beyond its historic role of quietly monitoring elections and avoiding messages to voters.

"This is taking the politicization of this to a new level, and the last thing we need is for the elections officials and voters of Ohio to be put in a chaotic situation in the last days before the election," Jon Greenbaum of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told the Washington Post, reacting to the White House request.

The White House, according to the same Post report, described its actions as a routine referral to a federal agency as requested by a member of Congress, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Boehner had written to Mukasey early last week but received no response.

The Obama campaign reaction was to send the fourth letter this month to Mukasey urging he ensure the Department does not interfere "to satisfy desperate partisan political demands."

"For the Department now, in response to the intense politics of the moment, to abruptly intercede in the current work of state and local officials would inflict incalculable damage — further and irreparable damage — to your office and to the reputation of senior federal law enforcement," said Robert Bauer, Obama campaign counsel.

Bauer’s "further" damage was a reference to media leaks by FBI officials confirming it was investigating ACORN, a low-income advocacy group, for voter registration issues. That disclosure violated Department rules and Bauer asked Mukasey to instruct a special prosecutor in the U.S. attorney firing scandal to investigate the leak. Like Beohner’s request, Mukasey also did not respond to Bauer’s request.

The Real Issue

At issue in the White House pressure tactics is how the GOP may be able to contest the vote count if the results are close.

Republicans in several battleground states have sought to challenge the validity of hundreds of thousands of voter registrations using a gray area of federal election law and error-prone databases.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) instructs states to use Social Security and driver’s license databases to verify voter registrations, but leaves it up to states how to specifically do that. In Ohio, for example, the Secretary of State, Democrat Jennifer Brunner, has issued for local officials to follow.

The absence of specific federal guidelines on using the Social Security and state motor vehicle databases to verify registrations is compounded by another factor: the fact that these records, especially Social Security data, have error rates as high as 28.5 percent when used for verifying voter registrations.

These factors are behind the GOP’s assertions that key battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania are facing major ballot security crises that threaten the legitimacy of the vote.

In various lawsuits, the GOP has argued that registrations that did not match these databases be segregated and treated as a separate class of voters. The GOP said these voters should receive provisional ballots, which would have to be verified before being counted.

But, so far, most state and federal courts have rejected the GOP’s legal arguments. Late last week, a Wisconsin court told that state’s attorney general, a McCain campaign co-chair, that he did not have the authority to sue on this issue. Moreover, in Ohio, the GOP’s lawsuit went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it sided with Brunner. The Ohio secretary of state, a former judge, said her office had met HAVA’s requirements by promulgating its own procedures to verify voter registrations.

Soon after the Supreme Court ruling, several Republican House members started lobbying the Justice Department to intervene. At the same time, Brunner issued new directives — which have the force of law — telling Ohio’s 88 county election boards they count not bar anyone from voting because of ‘no-match’ voter registration issues.

The White House then asked the Justice Department to intervene after Brunner’s latest directives.

[Thanks, AlterNet]

Someone once accused Barack Obama of being an elitist.  And I, in my heart of hearts, agreed with them.  A recap for those few people who don’t know about Barack’s educational background – A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review.

Harvard. Law. School.  as well as the president of the Harvard Law Review, Yep, he’s one of the elite I’d say.

Let’s look at Sarah Palin for a moment, her educational accomplishments include semesters at community colleges and after 5 years of college and degree hopping she finally graduated in 1987 with a degree in communications-journalism.  I don’t even know what that means!  Is she qualified to be a weather girl on a local TV station?  I do know that is a far cry from President of the Harvard Law Review.

But, Diva Sarah Palin not only thinks she’s good enough to be Vice President, but she actually believes that she can single-handedly drive the failing and flailing Republican ticket to victory while ignoring the advice from both the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee.

I guess the adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" holds true in this case.

Party at war as Palin ‘goes rogue’
Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent | October 27, 2008

DAMAGING recriminations between aides to John McCain and Sarah Palin, who is being accused of "going rogue", are spilling out into public view.

Reflecting a bitterly divided campaign going into the final week of the presidential race, unnamed campaign insiders are starting to speak out in a traditional Washington game of "precriminations", where blame starts to be apportioned in the face of a likely defeat.

Ms Palin is making it obvious she is unhappy how she has been handled by her campaign staff – particularly that she has been shielded from any unscheduled interaction with journalists.

US media outlets yesterday were reporting open hostility from aides close to both candidates, some calling Ms Palin a "diva" in what will be an even more heated blame game after November 4 should Senator McCain lose.

"She’s lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican quoted by the website Politico yesterday, adding that Ms Palin had already begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements on the campaign trail. CNN reported similar comments.

Politico cited four Republicans close to Ms Palin as saying she had grown frustrated by advice given to her by campaign handlers, whom supporters blame for a series of public relations gaffes.

As The Australian reported last week, Ms Palin has in the past two weeks noticeably distanced herself on several occasions from Senator McCain, a move many regard as her attempt to establish her own identity and a possible run for the White House in 2012 if Democratic contender Barack Obama wins on Tuesday week.

CNN reported a Palin associate saying the candidate was simply trying to "bust free" of what she believes was a damaging and mismanaged rollout.

Polls continue to indicate that Senator McCain needs a stunning reversal in the last week of the campaign to win.

While one AP poll last week had him in a dead heat with Senator Obama, most polls show the 47-year-old Illinois senator with a six- to 10-point lead. And he is ahead in enough battleground states that media networks across the US are projecting a comfortable win for Senator Obama in the electoral college tally should the polling hold true.

It makes reports of the internal spats in the McCain camp all the more damaging as Senator McCain looks to ride the race home with a consistent message focusing on Senator Obama’s relative lack of experience and a left-liberal economic agenda.

But reports indicate Ms Palin may continue to make headlines in the final days of the campaign as she appears increasingly willing to disregard advisers’ orders and speak out on her own.

Politico reported the Alaska Governor’s supporters were accusing McCain campaign strategists of already attempting to pin the blame on Ms Palin for the failure of the campaign.

It later quoted advisers to Senator McCain reacting angrily to the report, branding Ms Palin a "diva". The McCain sources said Ms Palin had repeatedly gone "off-message" recently, suggesting she appeared to be looking out for herself.

Ms Palin has also been taking some heat over the $US150,000 ($220,000) spent on her wardrobe since late August, undermining her appeal as a down-to-earth working "hockey mum".

Campaigning in Iowa yesterday, noting the chill in the air, she said: "It reminded me a lot of Alaska, so I put my warm jacket on, and it is my own jacket. It doesn’t belong to anybody else."

[Thanks, The Australian News]

Wow!  150,000 dollars!

$150,000.00 of Republican donations going to clothe the pit bull.  Wow………  I’ll say it again, WOW!

Albert Einstein once said “If most of us are ashamed of shabby clothes and shoddy furniture, let us be more ashamed of shabby ideas and shoddy philosophies… It would be a sad situation if the wrapper were better than the meat wrapped inside it.” .  And in this case I would say that the wrapper around Palin is much, much better than the ‘meat’.

Or, to put it another way, there is a proverb that says “A pretty face and fine clothes do not make character” and as we race toward the November 4 finish line we see that Sarah Palin is characterless indeed.

As to the last statement in the article below, that the clothes will go to charity after the campaign, I don’t believe that for an instant.  For someone who has lied and stolen in the past to give up all the swanky clothes would be unbearable for her.

Ethics campaigners cry foul over Palin shopping spree

17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Political ethics campaigners lodged a formal complaint Thursday over the 150,000 dollars the Republican Party spent to dress vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin in fashionable new clothes.

In a submission to the Federal Election Commission, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleged that the shopping spree was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act by Palin, the Republican National Committee and RNC "operatives".

"It is ridiculous that the RNC would spend 150,000 dollars to outfit a vice presidential nominee and her family at any time," said the group’s executive director Melanie Sloan on its website (www.citizensforethics.org).

"But it is more outrageous given the dire financial straights of so many Americans and the state of our economy."

With the November 4 election less than a fortnight away, it emerged Wednesday that the Republicans splashed out for Palin — the moose-hunting governor of Alaska and self-described "hockey mom" — after John McCain picked her as his running mate.

The Politico website said chic designer outfits from such top-end retailers as Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue, plus hair care and make-up, cropped up as "campaign accessories" in a monthly RNC financial disclosure statement.

McCain’s campaign said the clothes will go to charity after the November 4 election.

[Thanks, Google News]

The shininess and newness seems to be wearing off of Sarah Palin.  As new poll numbers come in it looks like the perky little Alaskan Governor is going to be glad she’ll have a job to go back to on November 5th.

With only 15 days left before election day, the reaction to John McCain’s ill-advised VP pick is becoming evident as bi-partisan polls continue to show a widening gap between the two contenders.

It looks like America doesn’t have to be straddled with another 4 years of the failed policies and decisions that have gotten us to the abysmally low place that Bush and Cheney have driven us.

15 days out, Obama reverses slide; Palin a drag on McCain

By Jay Bookman | Monday, October 20, 2008, 07:54 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

As expected, Barack Obama has halted and even reversed John McCain’s rise in the wake of their performances in the third and final debate, according to at least two tracking polls.

In the latest Gallup three-day tracking numbers released Sunday, Obama’s lead is back up to 10 points. It had fallen to six points before the poll began to reflect reaction to the debate.

Obama has also doubled his lead in the latest Zogby tracking poll released this morning, with the Illinois senator reaching 49.8 percent. That’s Obama’s highest support level in the poll’s 14 days of surveying.

“This three-day rolling average of telephone polling now includes a sample taken entirely after the final presidential debate last Wednesday,” Zogby notes.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests that the McCain campaign may be preaching to its own choir, pleasing the already converted but not the independents they need to win Nov. 4.

“Overall, 52 percent of likely voters said they are less confident in McCain’s judgment because of his surprise selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; 38 percent are more confident because of it. That is a stark reversal from the initial, positive public reaction to the pick,” the Post reports.

“Just after the GOP convention, 52 percent of independents, and 64 percent of independent women said the Palin pick made them more confident in how McCain would make presidential decisions – those numbers have now dipped to 39 and 37 percent, respectively.”

Voters who say they may still be persuadable are “among the least apt to see the new GOP focus on 1960s radical William Ayers and the community group ACORN as legitimate campaign issues.”

“Nearly seven in 10 movable voters said Obama’s past relationship with Ayers is not a legitimate issue; likewise, a narrow majority see the Obama campaign’s association with ACORN as not germane,” the poll found.

The party base will no doubt complain that Palin’s numbers have been driven down by a hostile media. On the other hand, the rest of America thinks the party base should open their damn eyes and ears and listen to what that woman actually says.

[Thanks, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

The RIAA has been targeting a vast assortment of individuals for copyright infringement.  From handicapped single Moms to 15 year-old girls through what seems like half the college students in the U.S. the RIAA has tried to leave no stone unturned in its pitiful attempts to extort money from those least able to defend themselves.

Apparently John McCain and the McCain campaign are guilty of breaking some of the same laws as those people as well as breaking the laws that got Muxtape shut down!  Playing songs at their hate-fests rallies which they have no legal right or license to play.

There is a growing list of artists who have stood up and complained about McCain’s copyright infringement that include Heart, Van Halen, John Cougar Mellencamp, and Jackson Browne.  Jackson Browne has gone so far as to file suit against both John McCain himself and his campaign organization.

I’ve been scanning the headlines and listening to the news radio, but I haven’t heard anything about the RIAA filing suit against McCain & company, but it’s only a matter of time, right?  Right??

McCain’s Musical Copyright Infringement Continues

Posted on October 10th, 2008 by ZP Heller

It’s getting to the point where the only songs the McCain campaign will be able to use at rallies are the ones written specifically for them, like John Rich’s pseudo-country trifle “Raisin’ McCain.”  A couple of days ago, the Foo Fighters issued a statement telling McCain to stop using their song, “My Hero.”

The band said in a statement:

“The saddest thing about this is that `My Hero’ was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential.  To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song.”

The Foo Fighters join a slew of artists who have complained of McCain’s copyright infringement.  Others who have told McCain to quit usurping their music for political gains include Van Halen, John Mellencamp, Heart (sorry Sarah “Barracuda”), Frankie Valli, the owners of the theme song from “Rocky,” and Jackson Browne, who even filed a suit against the campaign.

Clearly, fewer and fewer artists want to be associated in any way with McCain.  But what’s particularly ironic in the case of the Foo Fighters is that McCain couldn’t be further from the ordinary hero mentioned in the song.  He continues to put himself before the country, which we saw most recently with his closing remarks at the second debate (as compared to Barack Obama’s) and his theatrics with the economic crisis.  He’s desperate to prove himself as the common man who rises to the occasion, but the reality is that he has NEVER been the common man and he has RARELY IF EVER risen to the occasion.

If you want to know what I mean, read Tim Dickinson’s scathing Rolling Stone piece on McCain, “Make-Believe Maverick.” Use that evidence, race it around.  There goes my hero, he’s ordinary.

[Thanks, The REAL McCain]

In these brief days following the last presidential debate, two more stalwart institutions have come out in support of Barack Obama.  Both the Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack as their pick for 2008.

It is interesting to note that both media outlets cited Barack’s calm demeanor and deliberate nature in the face of McCain’s ‘The Sky is Falling’ return to Washington after suspending his campaign during the bailout deliberations.

A calm and cool president on today’s international stage would be an asset that couldn’t be bought at any price.

‘Wash Post’ and ‘SF Chronicle’ Endorse Obama
By E&P Staff
Published: October 16, 2008 8:40 PM ET

NEW YORK In an editorial posted online tonight, The Washington Post, a day after the final presidential debate, endorsed Barack Obama for president.
The Post editorial page has been more aligned with the Democrats’ domestic agenda but closer to McCain on the Iraq war and some other international issues.

Indeed, it opens its editorial with, "The nominating process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president."

Earlier today, the San Francisco Chronicle endorsed Obama. In E&P’s exclusive count of all editorial endorsements Obama has taken an early lead by a 3-1 margin (another update tomorrow).

Here are excerpts from the Post and Chronicle editorials. For continual updates on endorsements and links, go to

The E&P Pub
*
THE WASHINGTON POST

"The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama’s relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

"Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good. "

It closes:"Any presidential vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama’s résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, ‘our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."’

"But Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment."

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

From the start of the campaign, Americans were confronted with profound policy choices about how and when to extricate this nation from a war it initiated, how to temper a looming recession, and whether to continue Bush administration policies that had widened the gap between rich and poor, eroded individual liberties, strengthened presidential power, shifted the Supreme Court to the right, weakened relations with our allies, and delayed action necessary to slow the warming of the planet.

Then, suddenly, the emergence of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression gave Americans an opportunity to see the two major-party candidates under heightened stress. It was a rare chance to see the two senators encounter the type of pressure that comes with the job description of president of the United States.

Even though each ultimately voted for the same solution – the $700 billion bailout – their demeanors could not have been more different. Sen. John McCain magnified the aura of crisis, "suspending" his campaign to return to Washington, where his role in negotiations was at best tangential. Sen. Barack Obama was a portrait of calmness and deliberation, reminding Americans that it is possible for a leader to juggle more than one task at a time.

Obama showed steadiness in a moment of anxiety, with Americans’ portfolios withering and policymakers scrambling to do something – anything – to staunch the panic. The Illinois senator was similarly deliberative – in contrast with McCain’s quick-draw provocation – when Russia invaded Georgia in August.

In those crises, and in the hot lights of three debates, Obama demonstrated a presidential depth and temperament. His performance under the unrelenting scrutiny of the past 20 months has helped quell the "experience issue" for a 47-year-old senator who was elected in 2004.

We either have a faux Fox News story that it trying to diminish the impact of any "Incite to Riot" litigation against Palin or we have a cover-up.  What’s your guess??

Report: Secret Service Says ‘Kill Him’ Allegations at Palin Rally Unfounded

A Secret Service agent called charges that a man yelled "kill him" in reference to Barack Obama during a Sarah Palin rally "unfounded," .  

FOXNews.com

A senior Secret Service agent said allegations that a man yelled ‘kill him" when Barack Obama’s name was referenced Tuesday during a Sarah Palin rally are "unfounded," reports the Timesleader.com, a Northeastern Pennsylvania news agency.

Agent Bill Slavoski — who was standing in the audience along with other Secret Service agents during the rally in Scranton, Pa. — said neither he nor the other officers heard the comment, according to the report published Thursday.

The charges — first reported Tuesday on the Scranton Times-Tribune’s Web site — claimed that a male audience member shouted "kill him" after congressional candidate Chris Hackett mentioned Barack Obama’s name at the rally. 

Slavoski reportedly said he was "baffled" after first reading the report on Wednesday. 

Slavoski — who is charge of the Secret Service’s field office in Scranton — launched an official investigation into the charge and said he could not find anyone other than the Scranton Times-Tribune’s reporter to corroborate the story.

A Secret Service spokesman told FOXNews.com that the investigation is not closed and asks for anyone with information on the allegations to contact the agency.

[Thanks, FauxFoxNews]

A poll of undecided voters has given the win in last nights debate to Barack Obama.  With a 56 to 44 percent score, the young Obama is maintaining a double-digit lead over the aged John McCain.

Reports say that McCain did better in the verbal sparring portion of the debate than he had in his past performances, but it really wasn’t enough to swing the tide in his favor.  From the looks of all of the poll numbers, the only way the Republicans can win this election is to steal it again.

McCain improved but Obama won debate, survey finds

By STEVEN THOMMA
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — John McCain did better in his final debate with Barack Obama than he had in the two previous ones, but Obama still won it, according to an online Ipsos-McClatchy survey of undecided voters.

Obama won by 56-44 percent, and the undecided voters said that if they were forced to choose after watching the debate, they tilted to Obama by 53-47 percent.

The online survey of 366 undecided voters isn’t a scientific random sample, doesn’t statistically mirror the population and thus has no margin of error. The sample instead resembles a giant focus group and is reflective of many undecided voters’ opinions.

The survey found that 53 percent of the respondents said that McCain did better Wednesday night than he had in the first two debates, and nearly half said he did much better. Just 29 percent said that Obama performed better in the 90-minute debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., than he had in the first two face-offs with McCain.

On balance, though, the poll’s findings suggest that McCain fell well short of the kind of breakthrough he needs to overtake Obama’s lead in broader polls, both nationally and in key battleground states.

The online undecided voters gave Obama higher marks than McCain for expressing his opinions more clearly, for his understanding of the issues, for agreeing with the voters on issues they care about and for his ability to think on his feet.

They also thought that Obama would do a better job getting the country on the right track, helping the middle class, creating more jobs and dealing with health care. In a blow to McCain and his effort to convince voters that Obama would raise their taxes broadly, these undecided voters narrowly trusted the Illinois senator on taxes more than they did McCain.

They gave the Arizona senator higher grades than they gave Obama for being tough enough for the job and for being able to defend the country and combat terrorism. They also trusted him more as a potential commander in chief.

Perhaps McCain’s biggest obstacle to winning the debate was the way voters reacted to his attacks on Obama. By a 2-to-1 margin, the voters said McCain was more disrespectful and more mean-spirited than Obama was, and by a similar ratio they said Obama was more likable.

METHODOLOGY

These are some of the findings of an Ipsos online poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday. For this survey, a national sample of 366 undecided voters from Ipsos’ U.S. online panel was interviewed online. Weighting then was employed to balance demographics and ensure that the sample’s composition reflects that of the U.S. adult population according to Census data and to provide results intended to approximate the sample universe. Statistical margins of error aren’t applicable to online polls because they’re based on samples drawn from opt-in online panels, not on random samples that mirror the population within a statistical probability ratio. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including but not limited to coverage error and measurement error.

It’s just weeks away and the gap between the Democrats and the Republicans is widening to double digit results in the polls.  A new CBS News/NY Times poll puts Senator Barack Obama 14 points ahead of erstwhile rival, John McCain.

The gains that the Obama-Biden ticket have taken appear to be pretty much across the board.  We have to assume that there are a certain number of Republicans in that group as well as a significant number of otherwise unaligned voters.

Apparently, the bilious and hateful attacks by McCain and his ethically challenged pit bull have done little other than swing the tide to the Obama side.

This has really turned out to be a fun election.

Poll: Obama Opens 14-Point Lead On McCain

CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Major Swing Among Independents, Suggests McCain’s Strategy May Be Hurting Him

Oct. 14, 2008

(CBS) Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is entering the third and final presidential debate Wednesday with a wide lead over Republican rival John McCain nationally, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.

The Obama-Biden ticket now leads the McCain-Palin ticket 53 percent to 39 percent among likely voters, a 14-point margin. One week ago, prior to the Town Hall debate that uncommitted voters saw as a win for Obama, that margin was just three points.

Among independents who are likely voters – a group that has swung back and forth between McCain and Obama over the course of the campaign – the Democratic ticket now leads by 18 points. McCain led among independents last week.

McCain’s campaign strategy may be hurting hurt him: Twenty-one percent of voters say their opinion of the Republican has changed for the worse in the last few weeks. The top two reasons cited for the change of heart are McCain’s attacks on Obama and his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate.

[Thanks, CBS News]