Politico, Jake Tapper at ABC, and CNN are now all reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be offered the Secretary of State position by President-elect Barack Obama sometime after Thanksgiving.

I wanted to hold off on commenting about this appointment until it appeared definite.  According to members of the transition team, Clinton's financial disclosures have satisfied all remaining significant questions, clearing the way for her to replace outgoing Secretary Condoleezza Rice.

I've done a lot of thinking about Hillary Clinton since she met with Obama in Chicago.  I know the arguments against her being in that particular position.  She doesn't agree with Obama on foreign military policy.  She likes to be in charge.  She's got too much drama.  Her husband will meddle.  She'll try to upstage the President. 

Even with those arguments, I've come to this conclusion.  Obama's taking a risk with Clinton.  However, to use a poker analogy, Obama's getting ridiculously good implied odds on this bet, making it worth the risk.  Allow me to explain what I mean.

First, there's a concern, based on her primary campaign and some of her prior experience in the White House, that she won't play ball by Obama's rules.  However, Hillary Clinton has shown that she's a team player.  She's received accolades from both sides of the aisle since speculation about her joining Obama's Cabinet became public.  No surrogate campaigned harder for Obama during the general election, and she took major steps to get her supporters behind Obama. 

Then, I remembered a story I read about Clinton, dating back to her high school days.  The story roughly goes as follows.  She'd lost a close, tough race for class president.  Some time later, the president came to her and asked her to organize a major school event.  She could have told the president what to do with his offer.  However, she knew she was much better at organizing than he was, and she could perform a service for her school.  So, she swallowed any residual disappointment - and worked her heart out for a successful event.

I've often argued here that past is prologue.  Remembering that story made me realize that Clinton has always been perfectly capable of doing the job she has to do, regardless of the circumstances.

Second, there will need to be some very tough diplomatic messages sent by the Obama Administration.  Is there any question that she's qualified to deliver those messages?  Moreover, Clinton has relationships with many foreign leaders, and a good deal of respect around the world.  This will give her instant cachet in foreign affairs, and her voice will not be ignored when she represents us in the international halls of power. 

Third, with Clinton watching his back at State, Obama will be somewhat freer to focus on domestic issues (specifically, economic recovery and health care reform).  These are clearly major initiatives that will demand a lot of Obama's first term.  Also, I do not believe experience is the controlling factor here.  The ability to communicate smoothly, to engage in hardball when necessary, and to break down complex situations is going to be crucial, and Clinton certainly is quite able in all those areas.

Fourth, I don't think Bill Clinton will be nearly as much a problem as others do.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama frequently taps him for informal advice, especially on economic issues.  Besides, POTUS 42 would have had to curtail many of his post-White House activities if his wife had been elected President anyway. 

Fifth, I think Clinton does more to advance Obama's promises of diversity and independent thought in his Cabinet than any other pick possibly could.  She'll toe the line publicly, but she is neither in fear nor awe of Obama.  As a result, she will tell him (behind closed doors, natch) when she thinks he's off course.  Every leader needs someone who is unafraid to tell him the truth.  Obama certainly respects Clinton enough to listen to what she says, and that will make her a very influential Cabinet member.

Whatever else one can say about Obama's picks, there's no question that we will find out what he's made of a manager of people right away.  It takes an extraordinary temperament to even attempt Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" concept in modern government, and it takes a remarkable person to serve under someone you spent $250 million and over 12 months battling in a primary that almost rendered the general election an afterthought.. 

Hillary Clinton will play a pivotal role in the actual and perceived success of the Obama Administration.  And, for all the speculation about her intractability and dislike for Obama, she's been telling us all along that she intends to bloom where she's planted.  Her record shows this to be true.  I believe she will be ready to help steer our international efforts, and I look forward to this next chapter in her remarkable life.

There are times in every election season where pundits, prognosticators and political junkies (guilty!), bereft of the daily gotcha games, policy shifts and sharp attacks of the campaign trail, find themselves starved for news. 

When there is no actual news to report, these people do what they do best.  They attempt to create news to fill the perceived vacuum.  And that is where the madness - the delirious, frothing, rabid analysis, replete with the requisite hand-wringing, finger-shaking and concern-trolling - takes full flight amongst these people. 

These times usually occur in the two weeks or so before the vice presidential nominees are unveiled, and in the ten weeks or so between the end of the Presidential election and Inauguration Day, when the next President's transition efforts are at full steam.

This is a time-honored tradition in American politics, as old as the Republic itself, and this year is no exception.  Barack Obama has been President-elect for exactly 11 days as of this writing, and the new meme appears to be that he's choosing people who are too (Clintonian, male, Democratic, partisan, not me).

I find all of this frenzied speculation utterly unconvincing.  Let's see if we can calm the waters and maybe even stop the madness a bit. 

First, there's the notion that Obama isn't looking at enough women or other "special" groups. 

As far as I am aware, the only people who are currently signed on to the Obama Administration are Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff, Robert Gibbs as White House press secretary and Valerie Jarrett as senior advisor.  It appears that Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson are under consideration for Secretary of State, and David Axelrod will be a senior advisor or special assistant of some sort if he chooses to leave his insanely lucrative consulting business. 

That's right.  Obama is guilty of selecting a Jewish man, a White Southerner and an African-American woman to top posts.  On top of that heinous offense, Obama is also guilty of considering a White New Yorker, Hispanic Westerner and a White Illinoisan to staff other top posts.  (Sounds positively monochromatic, no?)  One thing is certain, though:  their plainly evident excellence defuses any rational opposition.

Again, note that the above people are the only ones confirmed by the transition team as either being in the running or already on board.  That means that everything else you may have heard is nothing more than gossip, and should be given appropriately short shrift.

Second, there's the notion that Obama is picking too many Clinton "loyalists", thus ensuring there won't be any "change" to "hope" for.

The truth is that there has been exactly one Democratic President between 1981 and now.  So, what's an incoming Democratic President to do if he wants experienced people from his own party to help in his transition and administration?  The simple truth is that most Beltway Democrats probably have the phrase "Clinton Administration" somewhere on their resumes. 

Incidentally, there's also a huge difference between the atmospheres faced by those Clinton staffers who came in after 1992 and those Obama staffers who will come in after this year.  Clinton did win a ton of electoral votes - but he only won 43% of the popular vote.  He did not have the sort of public mandate and support that Obama will enjoy.  That translates into political capital that the Obama Administration can deploy to enact big planks of the campaign platform. 

Of course, whether that will actually happen remains to be seen.  However, I surmise that Obama will go after the biggest items early in his term, when the public will be most tolerant of bumps on the road to change.  The point, however, is that Clinton's staff didn't have nearly as much muscle to flex as Obama's will.  Moreover, these people are Democrats interested in doing good things in government.  I suspect they will be on board with the new President.

Third, there's the notion that Obama isn't doing anything to "heal" any "divides" by not considering any Republicans for positions in his administration.

This is where I issue a warning to all those who see the GOP as irrelevant.  They still have a large base, and they still have the support of the MSM.  (Don't believe me?  Take a look at this Sunday's talking-head-fest, and see the guest lineups.) 

This notion was started by John Boehner, carried forward by other Republican Congresscritters, and reported with typical credulity by the MSM.  Memes such as this one, while blatantly false and frankly idiotic, can drive wedges if care is not taken to slap them down immediately upon conception.

Obama is reportedly considering keeping Robert Gates at Defense (my speculation:  he'd like to have retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, but he's not available until 2010).  He's also reportedly considering other Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell and Richard Lugar for various positions.  Yes, I know what Lugar said about it...but that's what Joe Biden said publicly about the Vice Presidency, too.  Anyway, that's five Republicans.  Seems like a lot of Republicans.

A few final points to consider about the transition and staffing process.  Being on the Obama transition team is no guarantee of being in the Obama Administration.  For example, Robert Reich is highly unlikely to do anything other than his current duties as a transition advisor, and that position should expire by January 19. 

Also, notice that, while the GAO's transition offices are going full-steam and being run by Obama operatives, Obama himself has been on the ground in Washington for about four hours since November 5.  He's handling his end of things out of his transition offices in Chicago.  This means that any major appointments will come from Obama - not from Foggy Bottom.  The President-elect is very much in control of the selection process, and will not be rushed or successfully pressured.

Barack Obama is building his administration carefully, with ample political and personnel consideration, focusing on quality rather than meeting some artificial quota, and with control over all parts of the decision making process. 

These were, as I recall, cornerstones of his campaign.  That should be reassuring, given the success of said campaign.  In the meantime, as Mark Halperin (!!!) said about the media frenzy following Republican crocodile tears over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment:  "Stop the madness!"

I have a confession to make.

I did not vote for Barack Obama today.

I've openly supported Obama since March.  But I didn't vote for him today.

I wanted to vote for Ronald Woods.  He was my algebra teacher at Clark Junior High in East St. Louis, IL.  He died 15 years ago when his truck skidded head-first into a utility pole.  He spent many a day teaching us many things besides the Pythagorean Theorem.  He taught us about Medgar Evers, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis and many other civil rights figures who get lost in the shadow cast by Martin Luther King, Jr.

But I didn't vote for Mr. Woods.

I wanted to vote for Willie Mae Cross.  She owned and operated Crossroads Preparatory Academy for almost 30 years, educating and empowering thousands of kids before her death in 2003.  I was her first student.  She gave me my first job, teaching chess and math concepts to kids in grades K-4 in her summer program.  She was always there for advice, cheer and consolation.  Ms. Cross, in her own way, taught me more about walking in faith than anyone else I ever knew.

But I didn't vote for Ms. Cross.

I wanted to vote for Arthur Mells Jackson, Sr. and Jr.  Jackson Senior was a Latin professor.  He has a gifted school named for him in my hometown.  Jackson Junior was the pre-eminent physician in my hometown for over 30 years.  He has a heliport named for him at a hospital in my hometown.  They were my great-grandfather and great-uncle, respectively.

But I didn't vote for Prof. Jackson or Dr. Jackson.

I wanted to vote for A.B. Palmer.  She was a leading civil rights figure in Shreveport, Louisiana, where my mother grew up and where I still have dozens of family members.  She was a strong-willed woman who earned the grudging respect of the town's leaders because she never, ever backed down from anyone and always gave better than she got.  She lived to the ripe old age of 99, and has a community center named for her in Shreveport.

But I didn't vote for Mrs. Palmer.

I wanted to vote for these people, who did not live to see a day where a Black man would appear on their ballots on a crisp November morning.

In the end, though, I realized that I could not vote for them any more than I could vote for Obama himself. 

So who did I vote for?

No one.

I didn't vote.  Not for President, anyway. 

Oh, I went to the voting booth.  I signed, was given my stub, and was walked over to a voting machine.  I cast votes for statewide races and a state referendum on water and sewer improvements.

I stood there, and I thought about all of these people, who influenced my life so greatly.  But I didn't vote for who would be the 44th President of the United States.

When my ballot was complete, except for the top line, I finally decided who I was going to vote for - and then decided to let him vote for me.  I reached down, picked him up, and told him to find Obama's name on the screen and touch it.

And so it came to pass that Alexander Reed, age 5, read the voting screen, found the right candidate, touched his name, and actually cast a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Oh, the vote will be recorded as mine.  But I didn't cast it. 

Then again, the person who actually pressed the Obama box and the red "vote" button was the person I was really voting for all along. 

It made the months of donating, phonebanking, canvassing, door hanger distributing, sign posting, blogging, arguing and persuading so much sweeter. 

So, no, I didn't vote for Barack Obama.  I voted for a boy who now has every reason to believe he, too, can grow up to be anything he wants...even President.

I've been doing a lot of at-home phonebanking over the last week or so, and I've (unsurprisingly) been directed to North Carolina for a number of my calls.  I've noticed a lot of undecided voters tell me that they are impressed by Dean Smith, the legendary former UNC men's basketball coach, having endorsed Barack Obama earlier this election season.

When I first heard it, I was chuckling to myself.  As it kept coming up in my calls, though, I began to remember just how respected Smith still is throughout the state, with his reputation for hard work, consistent excellence and fair play.

So, that got me to thinking.  What if these voters could see Dean Smith, on their TVs, non-stop for the last 10 days of the election, forcefully making the case for Obama's superior candidacy?  Hence, this ad idea.

(Notes:  I know this particular ad is very unlikely to happen, for a number of reasons.  But I think it could completely nail down the state - and blow a big blue hole in McCain's endgame strategy.  Also, the words in CAPS are intended for speaking emphasis.  This ad would run about a minute, and be a targeted North Carolina buy for the last 10 days or so of the campaign.  And the campaign isn't exactly lacking for the funds to do it.)

{backdrop:  Camera pans down from a Carolina blue sky, through brilliantly hued trees lining a park.  Camera pans to full shot of Dean Smith, sitting on a park bench, wearing a long-sleeved shirt in Carolina blue with no logo.}

{Text on screen:  DEAN SMITH, UNC Hall of Fame Basketball Coach.  Disappears after 3 seconds.}

SMITH:  Hi. I'm Dean Smith.  I support Barack OBAMA for PRESIDENT of the United States.  And, EVERY TIME I pick up a paper or turn on the TV, I CLEARLY see that I made the RIGHT decision. 

{cut to video clip of falling NYSE ticker}

Now, our ECONOMY is tanking. 

{cut to video clip of gun battle}

We're in TWO WARS. 

{cut to video clip of factories emitting thick black smoke}

And our ENVIRONMENT is in trouble.

{cut to video clip of McCain pounding podium without sound}

But John MCCAIN has spent a lot of time trying to make Barack responsible for HORRIBLE acts that happened back when Barack was EIGHT YEARS OLD.

{cut to video clip of Palin making faces and jabbing air with finger at podium, without sound}

Sarah PALIN talks about Barack being a "socialist", because he wants to IMPROVE the country by putting MORE people to work AND giving the MIDDLE CLASS and LOWER CLASS a tax BREAK.

{cut to Michele Bachmann's Hardball video clip, without sound but with crazy eye action}

And on October 17, a Congresswoman from Minnesota actually called for members of CONGRESS to be INVESTIGATED for MAYBE having "anti-American" beliefs.

{cut to video clip of Joseph McCarthy ranting, without sound}

The LAST time we had a REPUBLICAN running around UNFAIRLY accusing good, decent Americans of being un-American...

{cut to clip of Ervin at McCarthy hearings, standing and speaking calmly, without sound}

{Text on screen:  SEN. SAM ERVIN, Congressional hearings, 1956.  Disappears after 3 seconds.}

...a TARHEEL senator named Sam Ervin STOOD UP and spoke OUT against that anti-American behavior.  He reminded all of us that Americans EXPECT AND DESERVE MORE than gossip and cheap politics from our leaders.

{cut back to Smith, still sitting}

{Smith stands, then delivers the next line}

This election is TOO IMPORTANT for us to just sit on the bench.

{slow zoom into Smith's head and upper torso}

On November 4th, let's STAND UP, just like Senator Ervin did, and send a MESSAGE to the rest of America about what OUR GREAT STATE represents.

Vote for FREEDOM, RESPECT and DIVERSITY.  Vote for an END to the POLITICS of FEAR. 

{stop zoom at head and chest}

VOTE for the ONLY candidate who can give us the CHANGE we NEED.  VOTE for  Barack OBAMA.

{cut to Obama campaign disclosure/approval}

OBAMA:  I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

One person's view of the last (thank God!) Presidential debate of this election season.  These aren't in any particular order. 

...It seems remarkable to me that this debate wound up being so much about McCain.  Just a few months ago, this entire election was framed as being all about Obama.  I suppose it says something that the Democrat has apparently passed the leadership test from pundits in that short time. 

...Bob Schieffer made much of this debate about small things.  To that end, he really didn't do McCain any favors at all, as the Republican really needed opportunities to hammer home a strong economic message.  (Apparently, such a message does not exist for him.)

...Obama did appear to have installed Dean Smith's "four corners" offense in this debate - play keepaway, commit no turnovers, and wait for the clock to hit 0:00.  It's not the most exciting way to finish an election

...McCain was able to use a set piece to good effect:  "I'm not President Bush."  Unfortunately, that comes about three months too late.  The GOP strategy of "we'll just not talk about Dubya and hope everyone forgets" should have been junked for a "compare-and-contrast" stump.

...Pat Buchanan (yes, THAT Pat Buchanan) may have had the best observation of the night.  He noted that many undecided voters appear to have rejected the Republican brand already.  Of course, Buchanan used that to dismiss the unanimous snap-polling results.  However, that point really underscores the difficulty of McCain's campaign this year:  hold the right, appeal to the middle, and try to separate himself from the noxious Bush regime while endorsing many of Bush's policies.

...Did McCain really mock the idea that the health of the mother should be a concern in the abortion debate? 

...I think McCain's biggest problem in the last 20 days is that ACORN and Ayers won't be effective talking points except when playing to his base.  Voters appear to have rejected the notion that Obama is dangerous or risky, and McCain does himself no favors by pushing that meme any further.

...Anyone have "Joe the Plumber" in their drinking game?  Didn't think so.

...Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher likes McCain, and isn't shy about it.  Apparently, however, McCain wasn't able to get Joe registered to vote in this year's election, thus making Joe the GOP equivalent of "Obama Girl".  (h/t Politico's Ben Smith)

...Speaking of Joe the Plumber, does he make over $250,000 per year?  Seems unlikely - until I review the plumbing bill I paid to have one faucet installed and one pipe unclogged.  Final price: my first born, my third born, and a nephew to be named later.

...McCain actually seemed pretty sharp and lively for the first 40 minutes.  However, his visceral changes over the last 50 minutes or so were pronounced - and rather ugly.  McCain made some good points during the debate, and actually seemed more comfortable in this format than I thought he'd be. 

...McCain really needed to get himself off the "Grumpy Old Men" schneid.  He really needed to show he could be cool, calm and respectfully disagreeable.  His facial expressions, his repeated interruption of Obama, and his sarcasm were all manifestations of his frustration as he slowly realized Obama wasn't really going to engage him.  The end result was not flattering for the Arizonan.

...Yet another reason why I'll never be a good politician:  I was hoping Obama would skewer Palin when given the opportunity by Schieffer.  It was interesting that Obama took fewer shots at Palin than McCain took at Biden during that question.  Not sure how that will play out.

...Two things that need to happen:  (1) reduce the total number of Presidential debates.  (2) Let the Commission on Presidential Debates set general-election debate format rules without the campaigns' interference.

...I actually laughed at McCain's "Senator Government" reference.  I thought it could well be a fake slip. 

...Did McCain really repeatedly conflate autism with Down's Syndrome?  I don't remember him mentioning Down's when he talked about Trig Palin, but he sure brought up autism a lot.

...Bottom line:  McCain really needed to hit his groove with the voters tonight.  This really was, I felt, his best debate performance of the three.  It still didn't strike electoral gold - in large part because the inevitable visceral comparisons to Obama are just so bad for McCain. 

Now, we go to the home stretch.  Be prepared for the kitchen sink, the compactor, the dishwasher, the refrigerator and the oven over these last 20 days.  I would be stunned if at least one suddenly cash-flush 527 doesn't aggressively pursue lines of attack against Obama that McCain himself won't.  In fact, I suspect McCain's counting on it.   

It is very common for political junkies to write political obituaries before the deceased is actually dead. This has resulted in many cases where, to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the politician's demise were greatly exaggerated.

However, I will engage in the same "prebituary" folly here - with the 2008 Presidential election, no less. Yes, there are three weeks to go. However, even if the election swings completely back in favor of Arizona Sen. John McCain, there will be three great stories of this election.

Those stories will be the incompetence of Obama's opponents in managing their campaigns, the remarkable planning and discipline of Obama's campaign, and the amazing luck Obama has enjoyed this election season.

While all of these stories are linked in various ways, they deserve to be compiled in one place.

The Incompetence of Obama's Opponents

This discussion starts with the Democratic primary, and the campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton's advantages ($120 million war chest, 150+ superdelegate endorsements, and the 1992 & 1996 campaign veterans) made her the overwhelming favorite as soon as she announced her candidacy in 2006. She was polling at 40% - in a field with six other candidates.

So, how did she go from that dominant position to second place? A two-word summary might be simply "horrendous management". A brief stroll down Jabroni Drive might explain how Clinton failed to get to The People's Champ Boulevard.

Campaign manager replaced? Check.

Chief pollster and chief strategist demoted? Check.

Meddling ex-President spouse? Check.

Myopic focus on news cycles while failing to drive any overall message? Check.

To be fair, the Hillary Clinton that appeared in early March was a significantly improved campaigner from the Sybil-like hodgepodge she offered in January and February. This was primarily because she found a populist, underdog message that really resonated with her audiences.

That begs one question. Why, in a year where incumbents are booking movers en masse for the third week of January, would the candidate who basically had the stage to herself for almost the entirety of 2007 choose to run as the "experience" candidate?

Fast forward to today's McCain campaign, which makes the Clinton '08 campaign look as regular as the US Naval Observatory atomic clock by comparison. Having observed the mistakes Clinton made in running against Obama, the McCain campaign not only reproduced those mistakes, but then added some world-class schmuckery all its own.

Campaign manager replaced - twice?  Check.

Absolute indecision on how to run against Obama - despite having had months to consider a strategy? Check.

Complete failure to develop even the slightest hint of an economic strategy? Check.

Myopic focus on winning news cycles while failing to drive any overall message other than POW? Check.

GOP strategist Ed Rollins codifies McCain's missteps quite nicely in a recent CNN commentary article. Rollins also briefly touches on another similarity between the Clinton and McCain campaigns that he doesn't discuss enough. Both candidates waited until late in their campaigns to pull out the negative advertising - after Obama had been able to get ahead of the slime slinging with his own personal appeal.

As if all this repeat blundering weren't enough, the blunders McCain has made since the end of the Democratic National Convention are already being trumpeted as cautionary tales for generations to come.

Here's a recipe for a 2008 Maverick Sour. Start with picking an unvetted running mate with no record of academic or policy achievement. Then, issue multiple contradictory statements on the rapidly tanking economy. Pretend to suspend your campaign just long enough to torpedo an emerging bipartisan deal. Openly lie to a major late-night talk show host about why you cancelled on him, ensuring weeks of ridicule. Resume your campaign and start talking about a '60s radical and lower capital-gains taxes. Let your pitbull running mate off her leash - sans rabies shots. Start inciting hatred at your political events - while trashing a civil rights hero for accurately stating that your campaign is echoing strains of people like George Wallace. Mix with a large dollop of economic incompetence.

Stir for nine weeks. Pour into a glass rimmed with POW sea salt. Enjoy with a turncoat Democratic Senator friend in the library of one of your eight homes on November 5 as you ponder how you lost the election to a first-term Senator.

The Planning and Discipline of Obama's Campaign

The Obama campaign will go down as perhaps the most farsighted Presidential campaign in history. The campaign has shown a relentless focus since day one - stay largely positive, control media access, step on rumor mongering, and advertise aggressively.

The top of the Obama campaign - manager David Plouffe, chief strategist David Axelrod, communications director Robert Gibbs, and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett - has been rock-solid and leak-proof. Bill Burton and Dan Pfeiffer have been excellent at shaping the press releases, which are a large part of the reason Obama is now profiled as being steady and solid in times of crisis.

How deep was the planning? Consider that the Obama campaign fwas already focused on how to win a single extra delegate in Nevada during the primary - back in early 2007! It is here that Jeff Berman, the Obama director of delegate selection, truly shone. Berman's understanding of the Byzantine rules of delegate selection absolutely outclassed the "expertise" of Mark Penn, Harold Ickes and the rest of the Clinton advisers combined.

What about the Obama message? Yes, Obama was criticized in many quarters for being too cautious, too staged, too stiff, too regimented. So, it's ironic that his campaign's almost surreal focus on driving a message of intellect and change is now reaping the benefits. Who would have thought that merely emphasizing competence would be enough to derail Hillary Clinton AND John McCain?

The single biggest message change Obama has made in 22 months? He went from "Change We Can Believe In" to "The Change We Need" after the Democratic National Convention. It always helps when you can tell just one story, over and over.  Even in his major policy shifts, on items like offshore drilling and FISA, Obama's overall message remained constant.

The Obama campaign has always operated on multiple levels in two critical areas: fundraising and GOTV operations. This ability to operate on multiple levels - while still maintaining message discipline - highlights Obama's ability to organize, manage and grow an operation.

The campaign has always trumpeted its small-donor funds, which are ridiculously large. However, the campaign also very quietly welcomed big-dollar donors, and Obama never lost sight of the money bombs they could produce. One need only recall the $11 million Obama raised in Hollywood - in a single night.

The Obama campaign has rightly focused on canvassing and signing up voters in places where a Democrat - especially a Black Democrat - should historically have no business even campaigning, much less winning. The campaign has hardly ignored Black voters, though.

On the contrary, Obama's been focusing targeted GOTV and registration advertising in Black media and in Black communities. Planning like this is a big reason why McCain must now defend even blood-red Georgia, where 37% of early voting has come from Black voters.

The Luck of the Obama Campaign

The Cuban chess legend, Jose Raul Capablanca, was once pressed to explain a game he managed to win despite having a horrible position. Capablanca's eventual answer: "A good player is always lucky."

Certainly, Obama plays the game of politics as well as anyone. However, he's certainly had his share of luck - from Blair Hull's primary challenge self-destructing in 2004, to Jack Ryan's general-election Senate campaign imploding in the same year. This year, though, Obama has benefited from a number of fortuitous events. Let's look at some of them.

The New Hampshire primary. It's hard to look back on this as a "lucky" event for Obama. A slightly deeper look, however, might support this conclusion. Remember: Obama had just won the Iowa caucuses, and had a lead in New Hampshire. If he hadn't said, "You're likeable enough, Hillary", Obama probably wins New Hampshire. This would likely have ended Clinton's campaign...which would have meant Obama does NOT go through the primary crucible that he did.

Obama would not have been forced to develop his debating skills, his ability to handle negative press firestorms, his policy positions or his campaign operations. Hillary Clinton winning New Hampshire allowed her to go on to Super Tuesday and beyond - and, in the process, she gave Obama a trial by fire that he'd never experienced in his political career.

The primary schedule. This was not something that either Clinton or Obama controlled. However, notice the states that Obama won during his 11-primary streak in February were states that he was likely to do well in anyway. That February momentum - and the stockpile of delegates he built up - was THE difference in the Democratic primary. Obama was never going to win states like Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania in a primary. Berman's delegate strategy was to hold margins down in those states. It was much easier to do that coming off 11 straight wins.

The economy. There's no question that, historically, Democrats do better when the economy is issue #1. There's no question that Obama's superior preparation and understanding on that issue gives him a huge edge over McCain, who's still refining his economic plan - three weeks before the election!

There is a good argument to be made that Obama's recent boom has happened in large part because people are looking for economic security. However, the economy could have tanked any time in the last year. Now, consider this. Who would have benefited more from an economic collapse during the Democratic primary? That's right - Hillary Clinton.

She was far more trusted on the economy than Obama was, in large part because she'd developed very detailed plans for virtually every situation. Even the gas tax holiday - which was a horrible idea, in my humble opinion - saw Clinton with a plan for implementation and financing.

The country's focus at that time was on Iraq, rather than the economy. Obama had a pronounced edge over Clinton on the Iraq War, which he rode to that same delegate margin he held through the June 3 primaries. If the current financial crisis had happened in January or February, it would not be difficult to imagine Clinton having a big edge over Obama circa January.

Conclusion

"Fortune favors the prepared mind." - Louis Pasteur

Barack Obama has enjoyed good fortune throughout his Presidential run. However, that fortune would be meaningless if he didn't have the organization and plan in place to take maximum advantage in opponents' errors. That part is not luck - it's design.

And, in the quiet of their well-appointed living rooms, Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain will spend many a night, each staring at a crackling fire in the hearth. They'll be wondering how a man with half a term in the Senate and no pre-existing national political network could have upstaged them. The answer can be found in the perfect storm of their incompetence, Obama's intelligence and historical happenstance.

"Biden's Fantasy World" is the title of an editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal.  And indeed, Sen. Joseph Biden did make some factual errors in his recent vice presidential debate with Gov. Sarah Palin.

However, the WSJ commits at least as many factual errors as Biden did - with the benefit of a full staff and without the pressure of having to make an instant response under bright stage lighting.

The Journal made a total of five accusations against Biden from the debate.  Two of them are completely false, and a third is stretched gossamer-thin in a desperate attempt to validate their pre-arranged conclusion.

First, the WSJ says that Biden's claim on Gen. David McKiernan's assessment of the "surge" strategy in Afghanistan was incorrect.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.

The Journal, much like the McCain campaign, has forgotten about that pesky Internet thingy.  Factcheck.org and CNN both put Biden's claim to the test.  CNN summarizes their results thusly.

"Afghanistan is not Iraq," McKiernan said in Washington on Oct. 1. He also said "the word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.'" He called for a "sustained commitment" leading to a political and not just a military solution.

He said Afghanistan is a "far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq." The newspaper paraphrased him as citing the country's "unique challenges" — "the mountainous terrain, rural population, poverty, illiteracy, 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war."

The Verdict: True.

Then, the WSJ attacks Biden for allegedly misstating McCain's position on Bosnia.

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked." Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Unfortunately, the Journal fails the smell test on this one too.  McCain was initially one of the most vocal Senators against going in to Bosnia.  Michael Wines of the New York Times had the story - fifteen years ago. (emphasis mine)

But anyone who wagered that Mr. McCain would favor United States intervention in Bosnia's war would lose his shirt. As President Clinton and lawmakers ponder the prospect of air strikes to counter Serbian aggression or the despatch of thousands of American troops to enforce a cease-fire, Mr. McCain has been sounding the Senate's most persistent and most urgent alarms on the question of involvement in a European war.

And here's McCain, in his own words to the same reporter, voicing some of his objections.

"I think you can draw a parallel to the military challenge in Bosnia with what the Russians faced in Afghanistan," he said. "Even with ground forces and with overwhelming air superiority, they were unable to defeat a motivated, very capable enemy."

Now, Biden did make an error when he claimed that the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon (flatly false).  Biden also danced along a very thin lawyerly edge when he asserted that Obama never said he'd meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.  Obama never specifically identified Ahmadinejad as such a leader, and has pointed out that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be the leader of Iran for those purposes.  However, PolitiFact did find a number of cases where Obama appears to reference Ahmadinejad as the leader he would meet with. 

Right or wrong, the foregoing accusations against Biden are at least on important topics.  So, befitting a campaign that McCain topper Rick Davis has already said "is not about issues,"  you can guess which Biden "gaffe" from the debate was the focus of the McCain camp's postmortem fire. 

If you're thinking immaterial, irrelevant AND largely false, you've hit the jackpot that was the "Katie's Restaurant" reference.  It was certainly THE reference that the McCain campaign seized upon and peddled in the spin room.  So, did Biden give a clearly outdated reference just to be a "phony...Lunchbucket Joe," as the Journal asserts?

Answer: No.  Delaware Online's Pulp Culture blog, photos and comments on the subject show that Biden was likely guilty of no more than a name error, as there is a current restaurant AND a Katie's sign at the place where Katie's Restaurant once did business. 

Also, Biden said, "All you have to do is to go down Union Street with me in Wilmington and go to Katie's Restaurant..."  Well, as it turns out, if you head south (down) Union Street and hang a left on 6th Street, you're only two blocks away from Wings To Go, the restaurant that is now where Katie's once stood.  Here's a picture of the relevant MapQuest map. 

It is at this point that I do the public service of correcting the final paragraph from the WSJ editorial.

We think the word "lie" is underused in politics today, which is why it's become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we will say the Wall Street Journal was deliberately making events up when its editorial board made these false statements. Since they had the luxury of several days and virtually unlimited research resources, there is no chance they merely misspoke. In any case, Mr. Biden may not know as much about the world as the Journal does, but at least most of what he knows is true.

Meanwhile, the only Palin debate error that is mentioned is her conflation of Gen. George McClellan, the Union's commanding officer during the first years of the Civil War, with Gen. David McKiernan, the commanding officer of US forces in Afghanistan.  Apparently, those third-graders at Gladys Woods Elementary lent Gov. Palin their history books as part of her debate preparation.

Let today's editorial - which will doubtlessly be echoed as gospel by other news outlets too lazy and apathetic to actually verify their stories - serve as a cautionary tale, lest we get the false impression that the MSM worm is really turning.

(Originally posted at Daily Kos under the same title.)

Howard Wolfson has authored a new article for The New Republic.

The title?  It's Over: Why Bill Ayers Won't Save John McCain. 

We'll look at the article in a moment.  However, for those relatively new TPMers who may not know or recall the details of why the article is remarkable (four months is an eternity in a Presidential election, after all), we'll provide some back-story.

The back-story goes months and months back, lost in a mashed-up, hazy fog of bailouts, lipstick, evaporating jobs, zingers, gaffes and Surge (apply directly to the violence!)...way back in time...to the spring of 2008.  (Hey, four months is an eternity in most elections, this one in particular.)

Howard Wolfson was, at that time, employed by Sen. Hillary Clinton as the communications director for her Presidential campaign.  Wolfson is, as a result, one of the main reasons why Barack Obama should thank Clinton on a daily basis for the grueling Democratic primary. 

Wolfson, you see, crafted the daily assaults, talking points and non-stop conference calls that drove the conversation about Obama from early March until the North Carolina and Indiana primaries in May.  He was unabashedly aggressive, and a real pain to work against.  If you needed to win a news cycle, though, Wolfson was THE guy.  Only Steve Schmidt comes close to him in terms of manipulating the media.

It's through this prism that I always saw Wolfson, the political operative.  So, I was definitely surprised to see "A Clintonite In Denver", Wolfson's well-written and heartfelt opinion piece in the September 1 Washington Post.  Based on the timeline of Wolfson's post-primary activities, and the melancholy he described after Clinton conceded, this article reads as much-needed catharsis, where he finally connects with what made his former opponent such a force.

Now, fast-forward to today.  Wolfson takes his keen analytical eye to the current state of the Presidential race, and the beginnings of what appears to be a no-slime-barred closing push by John McCain's campaign against Obama.

Remember, Wolfson is the man who so effectively stirred the pot on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers throughout the spring, on a few occasions nearly derailing the Obama campaign.  A lesser politician than Obama would have been sunk between March and May.

So, Wolfson opens up with a powerful lede, in the process laying the groundwork for an analysis that, while perhaps a tad overconfident, comes from a source who's been down the same road against the same opponent.

Perpetually fretting Democrats will not want to accept it. The campaigns themselves can't afford to believe it. Many journalists know it but can't say it. And there will certainly be some twists and turns along the way. But take it to a well capitalized bank: Bill Ayers isn't going to save John McCain.  The race is over.

I've been canvassing and phonebanking here and away from home for the last month, and I've assiduously avoided saying anything like that to myself.  But there it was, clear as day on my monitor.

The.  Race.  Is.  Over.

Barring new video of a half-dressed Obama with a Boy Scout troop in a seedy motel room doing keggers with Osama bin Laden while Bill Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger chant nearby with togas askance, I came to realize, with the same certainty I felt after the last Bush-Kerry debate in 2004...

The.  Race.  Is.  Over.

Wolfson then states precisely why it's all over.

If the election were tomorrow, Obama would win all of the states John Kerry carried and add Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio and Florida. Barack Obama is campaigning in Indiana, which last went for a Democrat in 1964 and North Carolina, which has gone for a Democrat only once in thirty-four years. At the same time John McCain has pulled out of Michigan and Sarah Palin has been forced to visit Nebraska.

This dynamic is very unlikely to change. John McCain's goal in the first debate was to discredit Senator Obama as a credible Commander in Chief and elevate the issue of foreign policy and national security. He didn't come close. Absent a domestic terror attack the economy will remain the number one issue in the race, and there is little Senator McCain can do to make up his gap with Senator Obama on it. Oh, Senator McCain will try to make issues of Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko and Rev. Wright, and that might hurt Senator Obama around the margins -- but it will not prevent him from winning.  The economy is simply bigger than the rogues gallery that John McCain is conjuring up.

Now, please don't think I'm backing down.  Not at all.  In fact, I'm going to my local campaign office as soon as this is over to do more phonebanking.

However, after spending two great weekends canvassing and talking to undecided voters in southern Ohio - including one memorable instance where I wound up drawing a group of about 30 older Whites to hear me giving my spiel to one of their neighbors - I read Wolfson's words, not with a pang of trepidation, but rather with equal parts elation and energy.

Of course, strictly speaking, the election is not over, and will not be until the last polls in Hawaii close.  One of the greatest maxims in competitive chess is that the hardest thing to do is win a won game.  You always have to analyze, plan and be prophylactic.  You can't overlook a trick, or miss a tactic. 

I'm starting to feel it, though.  The electoral board shows a real - and growing - strategic advantage for Obama.  And, like in chess, McCain is now being reduced to desperate tactics, bereft of strategic benefit, made only in the hope that Obama will overlook one of them out of overconfidence.

I knew Pennsylvania was a lock a week before McCain even pulled out of Michigan.  I think we're winning Ohio and Virginia.  McCain's new revelation that his health-care plan involves huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid may well seal his fate with Florida's senior population.  The last three polls out of North Carolina - a state I never, ever thought Obama could win - show Obama with a lead. 

It's even having an effect downballot.  I focus especially on the Senate, where the once-impossible 60 seats is looking more and more, well, possible.  Jeff Merkley has moved ahead of Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon.  Kay Hagan is all but certain to knock out Sen. Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina.  Jim Martin is in a virtual tie with Sen. Saxby Chambliss for Chambliss's Georgia seat.  Jeanne Shaheen is closing out Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire.  Al Franken has pulled even with Sen. Norm Coleman in Minnesota. 

And, in my personal favorite, Bruce Lunsford is almost even with Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.  We owe the Republicans for Tom Daschle; I'd love to see their Senate leader get wiped out.

What makes me happiest, though, is that I've competed enough - in politics and other endeavors - that I trust my instincts.  Every instinct I have - supported by virtually every poll I've seen over the last month - tells me that our hard work will pay off 29 days hence. 

This makes me want to work even harder.  I'm getting greedy now.  I want a blowout - an unmistakable mandate - to give Obama political capital he can spend making his platform reality.

Wolfson is right.  The race is over.  We just have to bring it home.

...was Gwen Ifill.

This, for the record, is the second straight debate where I thought the moderator was the best part of the evening.

I doubt the Republicans will give Ifill any kudos, but they won't have much to say about her moderating. 

Biden had command of the issues, as expected.  Palin did a good job of giving non-answers, liberally sprinkled with falsehoods and misleading statistics.  But Ifill kept them both on track, and ran a very crisp discussion.

Well done, Gwen.  Just don't expect McCain to apologize for questioning your impartiality.

It's really unfair to keep piling on Gov. Sarah Palin.  Then again, there are so many falsehoods, contradictions and vacuous statements that grateful print and TV journalists must be thinking that Dan Quayle is Palin's chief of staff.

At the CNN website, and set to air on "Anderson Cooper 360" tonight...the latest debunking of the Drilla From Wasilla.

CNN reporter Gary Tuchman got curious about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that being able to see Russia gave her foreign policy experience.  So, he and a crew went to the only place in Alaska where you can actually see Russian land - an island called Little Diomede.

The relevant part of Tuchman's AC360 blog (emphases mine):

We were curious if Sarah Palin has ever visited this island. According to the natives, the answer is no.

As a matter of fact, no Alaska governor in the state’s nearly 50 year history has ever visited the remote outpost that still has little running water. We were curious what the Little Diomeders thought about Palin’s claim of foreign policy experience because of the proximity of Siberia. Interestingly, many of these Alaskans had no idea who Sarah Palin was! It turns out they have no TV on the island, and therefore, many don’t follow the news.

The island’s mayor has heard of her though. No American mayor resides in a city closer to Russia than Andrew Milligrock, and he says being two miles from Russia doesn’t give him any foreign policy expertise.

I mean, seriously.  Wouldn't it just be easier if Palin...er...ah...told the truth?  

Would it have been too much for her to say this? "Well, of COURSE I don't have foreign policy experience.  I'm a governor - that's not my job!  But I'm a quick study, and John McCain knows foreign policy like no one else in this election, so I'm sure I'll be able to learn from him during our administration."

Then again, the near-compulsive willingness to
prevaricate to claim even the most farfetched potential strength rather than be truthful with even the slightest potential weakness is what defines a Republican.  So I shouldn't be surprised.

So, there's been an awful lot of good political fortune for Barack Obama today.  The polls continue to move in his direction.  Democrats on the Hill show unity they haven't had...well...in my 34 years on this Earth.  Republicans are now the Cheneys who couldn't shoot straight, and are (correctly, IMHO) being assigned the blame for both the meltdown and the bailout failure by voters.

John McCain looks angrier, more confused and more petty every time he opens his mouth.  (Today's gem, from his economic roundtable:  "...ensuring that America is secure, and not dependent on oil from people like Hugo Chavez or other parts of the Middle East which is, we know, could be destabilized under certain sets of circumstances."  President Chavez will be surprised to find out that Venezuela has been relocated.)

And, best of all, it looks as though any bailout that gets passed is likely to be attributed more to Obama than John McCain.  Wait...what?  How'd THAT happen?

Let's review the salient facts and reactions to yesterday's developments concerning the Bush Administration's bailout proposal.  Then, I am going to propose that some of today's good fortune is actually the product of some devious - and, frankly, excellent - political maneuvering, by someone who definitely had the motive, means, and opportunity to do it. 

NOTE:  The analysis and hypothesis below are strictly my own opinions.  I do think they're worth considering as an explanation for yesterday's extraordinary turn of events, for the reasons I lay out below. 

The facts: 

Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech on the House floor imploring bipartisan support to pass a compromise package that would allow the federal government to ultimately buy up about $700 billion in bad debt, thus freeing the flow of credit in the marketplace and lessening the strain on banks and borrowers.

The bill, taken to a vote shortly after Pelosi's remarks, failed the House by a 228-206 margin.  The Republicans voted 133-66 against.

The spin:

In the inevitable finger-pointing that followed, Republicans pointed at Pelosi's speech as being too partisan and driving away Republicans who were leaning toward supporting the bill.  Each party said the other didn't do enough to get the necessary votes.

The reaction:

Upon hearing the news that lawmakers weren't passing a financial-relief measure, and staring at Congress being out of session until Thurday due to the Jewish holidays, Wall Street promptly plummeted the Dow by 777.68 points in Monday's trading.  It marked the largest number of points ever lost in one day's trading (and the 17th greatest drop ever in percentage of market points).

Today, there seems to be more unity than ever among top politicos to get a measure passed.  Starting with President Bush's 7:45 a.m. ET (!!!) address to the country, and continuing with McCain and Obama, the focus appears to be on getting a deal done, period.  The markets, encouraged by this, have pushed the Dow up about 300 points as of now in today's trading.

The recap:

Let's evaluate the situation, starting at the beginning.  Democrats know they can get more than half of their members to go for the bailout package.  They know the politics of the package are terrible, which is why they're insisting on healthy Republican support. 

Pelosi knows the voting is close.  She's got members like Bobby Rush, who will stand with her if needed, but don't want to vote for it.  She also knows that House Republicans are in a standoff with the Bush Administration.

John McCain is caught square in the middle of this, hoisted by his own mavericky petard.  Rushing back to Washington to broker a deal and "save the economy" only works if a deal actually happens.  The only stumbling block?  Chris Dodd's "fourth leg" - House Republicans.

So, what does Pelosi do?  She goes to the floor of the House, and throws a number of (soft) jabs at the Bush Administration in particular, and Republicans in general.  Those fence-sitters on the right jump off the unity bandwagon, and the measure fails.

The questions:

"Why would Pelosi give anything but the most bipartisan of talking points, knowing that the deal is in trouble?  Why give Republicans any cover to vote 'nay' with her speech?"

My answer:

Pelosi intentionally agonized House Republicans to get them to vote against the bill.

Follow-up question:

"Why the hell would she do THAT, moron?  She wants the bill to pass!"

My answer:

Nancy Pelosi is NOT stupid, regardless of how many characterize her as such.  She grew up in Baltimore's first family of politics, she made her way to Congress, she climbed the ladder, and has forged her own way to become the highest-ranking woman to ever serve in American government.  You don't do half of what Pelosi's done without knowing how the game is played at the highest levels of federal government.

She knows that one Presidential candidate took personal responsibility for forcing a deal through by Monday.  She also knows that one Presidential candidate had his surrogates out on the morning talk shows yesterday, giving said candidate credit for a deal before the votes were ever in place.  She further knows that this credit grab would boomerang if no deal is done by that "mavericky" deadline.

She can't actively whip Democrats to vote "nay", as that would reflect poorly upon her own leadership.  At the same time, she knows that a "nay" vote would hurt McCain much, much more than it would hurt Obama.

So, what's a Speaker with a Presidential agenda to do?  Drum up "nay" votes from Republicans!  How to do it?  Speech!

What the political advantage if the bill passes anyway?  Pelosi's speech disappears into the Congressional Record, probably never to be seen again.  McCain gets some credit, and the campaign continues.

What's the political fallout if the bill fails?  McCain's credit-grabbing goes the way of WaMu, and he's left with a lot of bad credibility debt.  Meanwhile, Obama gets the chance to step in with a measured, bi-partisan approach, claiming that the market drop is more than ample evidence that something needs to happen, and soon.  If the bill passes on its next vote after Obama's more active role, suddenly HE gets the credit for being a calm, steady hand.  Dare I say, even presidential?

What's the downside for Pelosi?  Virtually none.  She's a stone lock to be re-elected to the House, and she's about as big a lock to remain Speaker.  Almnost all of the Dems who voted against the bailout are vulnerable for re-election, and this bill is toxic for many people right now.  So their votes are completely understandable, and likely made out of political necessity.  She can claim to have delivered 140 votes, while the Republicans only needed another 12.

What's the downside for McCain?  In a word, massive.  His campaign "suspension", brutally exposed as a farce by David Letterman, did absolutely nothing except throw a monkey wrench into the evolving deal.  He couldn't even deliver a single House GOPer from his own state of Arizona! 

McCain now looks like a politicizing sidekick instead of a reforming maverick.  This immediately calls all of McCain's decisions and thought processes into question.

The conclusion:

Some of this will require a willing suspension of disbelief that Pelosi is capable of gaming something out to this extent.  I submit to you, though, that Pelosi is a career politician, as tough as they come.  Don't let that chic Hermes scarf and motherly mien deceive you, as it has so many of her rivals.    

Also, I firmly believe that nothing in Washington ever happens by accident.  Pelosi wrote those remarks; they weren't off the cuff.  And her impromptu press conferences during this financial crisis were all decidedly dripping with hail-fellow-well-met bonhomie.  So she certainly knows from bipartisanship.

Finally, it's pretty common knowledge that a deal of some sort is going to get done, whether we like it or not.  (Full disclosure:  I am personally opposed to the bailout, in large part because I feel the money will simply disappear into the pockets of the same people who got us into this mishigoss and never be seen again.) 

More evidence that a deal is coming:  Warren Buffett has plunked a cool $500 million into Goldman Sachs - and has frankly admitted he did so because he fully expects a bailout.  The number of people in the world more plugged in to money and economic policy than Buffett can probably be counted on the fingers of a mutilated right hand, so I tend to take what the "Oracle of Omaha" says about finance as gospel.

Add all this up, and it's hardly inconceivable that the Democratic Speaker of the House played what chess observers might call a "sham sacrifice" - a temporary material (or political) sacrifice that will more than repay its investment a few moves (or days) down the road, with no serious danger of losing (or poll damage) during the intervening time. 

It should also be noted that sticking the shiv to the Maverick is likely to pay rewards by influencing down-ballot House races, especially for the vulnerable red incumbents.  This should help swell the Dem margins in the House.

Again, I'm just theorizing here.  All of this, though, seems like a logical explanation for Pelosi giving a speech that, while not a classic red-meat hatchet job, was certainly not the most politic given the sensitive negotiations for GOP votes.  And if you find yourself scoffing at Pelosi having the requisite political skillz for this, remember:  that same underestimation of Pelosi's skills is a big reason why she wields the Speaker's gavel right now. 

Contrary to popular wisdom, there IS video of Sarah Palin's big trip to the UN. 

To see an executive summary of her learning experience, as released by John McCann, click here and watch. 

As is now common knowledge, the topic du jour througout America is the $700 billion Wall Street bailout originally proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

But, really, what's $700 billion among friends?  After all, it took about $150 billion to finish the S&L bailout (thanks, Keating Five!).  And we all recently "bought" shares in AIG, the nation's largest insurer.  The price tag?  A paltry $85 billion.

So, what's so tough about $700 billion?  We can't be out of money - after all, our Mint still has paper and ink, right?

I'm not an economist, but I wanted to try and wrap my head around just how much money we're talking here.  I decided to compare this bailout price tag with some other numbers.  What I found floored me.

Remember, now, Paulson wants $700 billion dollars.

$695.4 billion: Gross domestic product of Taiwan. (If the bailout were a country it would be the 21st largest GDP.)
$580 billion: cost of Iraq war - to date.
$515.4 billion: proposed 2009 Pentagon budget
$315 billion: John McCain's nuclear energy plan 
$295 billion: amount of Pentagon overspending on 2008 budget. 
$150 billion: Obama's energy plan cost
$50-$65 billion: Obama's health care plan cost, per year 
$59.2 billion: proposed 2009 U.S. education budget
$10 billion: McCain health care proposal cost, per year
$42 million: Carly Fiorina's golden parachute when Hewlett-Packard fired her
$38 million: Paulson's post-2004 salary as Chairman & CEO of Goldman Sachs
$43,371: The 2004 median Ohio household income
$32,000: The average national debt obligation of each American

Of course, you could always look at the bright side.  The proposed bailout is only 7% of the $10 trillion that is expected to be the national debt around January 20, 2009.

Personally, the way I've come to see this is as follows.  When my wife and I looked at moving into a new house in 2004, we had a particular number in mind, both for the cost of the house and the monthly mortgage payment.  We knew we couldn't afford more, even though we were offered bigger mortgages.  So, we stayed within our means.

I recognize that some borrowers were not intending to live beyond their means - rather, they were sold on overextending themselves by predatory lenders (here's looking at you, Ameriquest).  However, the fact is that these borrowers did not do their own research.  They should suffer the consequences.  Yes, it's rough.  But I cannot afford to help pay for my neighbor's foreclosure, lest I suffer a foreclosure of my own.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for those investment houses that are going down in the wake of the mortgage and credit crises.  If the homeowners were irresponsible for borrowing excessively, these institutions have treble responsibility.  It was their relaxed procedures - stoked by the greedy rush to grab big fistfuls of the subprime pie - that caused them to lend so much - in many cases, to people they would have rejected pro forma three years ago.  Now, they want hundreds of billions of dollars - not to pay off debts and close their books, like the rotten S&Ls, but rather to remain operational and ultimately become profitable again.

This is analogous to me hiring a driver with two DUIs, a previously suspended license and five prior accidents...to drive my son's school bus.  The reason?  Well, the driver knows what went wrong before, and promises to not let it happen again.

To hell with that nonsense.  No bailout.  Let Darwinian economics run its course.  I believe we'll survive a crash - if there is one; no one has projected exactly what would happen if we don't bail out Wall Street.  Moreover, I think we would come out, long-term, in a much sounder position than if we keep bailing out these greedy firms and their greedy borrowers.

No corporate welfare.  No raising my debt obligation by $3,000 to help someone who decided to get a $300,000 mortgage while making $40,000 a year, just because it was there.  And no cutting off the energy and health care plans we so desperately need, just so Maurice Greenberg and his pals can have their billion-dollar cakes and eat them too.

Yes, there will be suffering.  I understand that letting those irresponsible investment houses crash will cause job loss and further-eroded confidence in our dollar.  I don't dismiss any of that, and I know times will be hard.

But isn't one of the major conservative fiscal talking points that the market can self-correct?  And isn't letting a badly-managed business fail, snapping up the useful parts, and putting them to work in a better-managed business part of that self-correction?

These are only my opinions, formed after several days of researching this issue.  I'm trying to apply common sense to this issue, but I'm not an economist.  What do you folks think?

Howard1 recently posted "How Racism Works".  The discussion threads in that post have helped me crystallize some thoughts on the touchy subject of race in politics.  I'd like to relate a personal story that, perhaps, can speak to some of that subject, and maybe shed some light on how some people use racism as fuel instead of retardant.  It's a bit long, so I apologize in advance...that was for you, Ripper. :-)

I am a Black man who was born and raised in East St. Louis, IL.  It's a town that has spent much of the last 30 years as an object of national ridicule.  Even Richard Pryor used to joke about working "the kamikaze shift in East St. Louis".  The past ten years have been kinder, thanks to casino money and falling property values that have encouraged some businesses to return.  Times are still hard there, though.

When I went to East St. Louis Senior High in the early '90s, I was one of the best high school chess players in Illinois, and the #1 high school player in the metro St. Louis area.  As a result, I did get some media coverage, and I was reasonably well known.  East St. Louis Senior is known for championship football, basketball and track - not so much for chess.

One Saturday, we went to a tournament at Horton Watkins High, which is in Ladue.  Ladue is a suburb of St. Louis that has often been listed among the ten richest towns in America.  Horton Watkins reflects this affluence, as it resembles a mansion more than a high school on the outside - and a high-tech lab more than a high school on the inside.

In between my first and second games, I walked around, marveling at the school.  I didn't go into any of the rooms, though they weren't locked.  I wondered what it would be like to attend a school where the faucets in the science classrooms worked - never mind the faucets in the student bathrooms, into which I never ventured during my time at "The Side".  The rooms were all bright, airy, well furnished, and immaculate. 

I was in mid-drool at one carpeted area when a security guard approached me.  He started questioning me about why I was in the building.  I got halfway through one sentence when he cut me off and told me I was trespassing.  I got halfway through an apology when he cut me off again and told me he was going to call the local police.  He grabbed my elbow and dragged me to the school office.  I bit my tongue and walked along with him to avoid any further scene, but I wasn't in my happy place just then.

I wore my hair in a box cut back in '92, when this happened.  But I was in a polo shirt, Dockers and loafers, and was clean shaven.  (That was what I usually wore, unless I was doing gym or yard work.)  So my overall appearance was not slovenly.

When we got to the office, he half-pushed me through a swinging door and into the principal's office.  He ordered me to sit down while he called the cops. 

The principal happened to walk in shortly thereafter.  The guard hurried up to him and told him what I had done.  The principal saw me, and said, "Boyd, what are you doing in here?"  The guard's face fell through the floor.

When I explained what had happened, the principal walked me back to the cafeteria where we were playing, apologized to me, and apologized to my coach.  The guard came by shortly thereafter and did the same thing.  I elected not to answer him, primarily to avoid saying something classless.  I could have been charitably described as aggrieved at that particular moment.

Later, the Watkins faculty sponsor came over to apologize as well.  He was absolutely livid, and told me the guard should have at least recognized me.  He then showed me a copy of that week's school paper - where a story about the upcoming tournament ran on the front cover, along with a picture of me from the previous year's event.

Now, every adult involved in that situation - including our coach - was white.  Ladue has virtually no African-American presence. 

Was race a factor in this incident?  Objectively, one could argue it wasn't - I was in a part of the school that wasn't being used for the tournament.  It wasn't locked either, though, and even the guard admitted I hadn't harmed anything. 

Realistically, given the totality - the guard's aggressive behavior, his unwillingness to listen to me at all, treating me like some sort of thug - I came to the conclusion that race was the ONLY reason he reacted the way he did. 

Now, to be fair, every other adult associated with the school treated me very well.  I found myself, though, automatically questioning them and their motives.  I wondered what they said behind my back.  I wondered if they'd have behaved toward me as they did if I wasn't "the chess guy" or hadn't been in some local papers.  I began painting them with the same brush I used on the guard.  And that absolutely ruined my day.

A few weeks later, I was still brooding.  But then I realized something.  Yes, I'd had a bad experience with a white man.  Yes, he deserved to be called out on his racist behavior.  But that was no reason to believe that all white people were similarly motivated.  I thought back to how the school reacted to my incident - the faculty actually sent a letter of apology to our principal.  And I realized that maybe the guard wasn't the only one operating on assumptions and misconceptions. 

I allowed one idiot to make me hostile toward an entire group of people, when their behavior as a whole gave me no reason to do so.  I allowed that because I had an underlying assumption that all whites had certain racial prejudices.  I came to realize, though, that one's behavior is the only thing on which one can fairly be judged.  And I became more open and understanding as a result.

What I see in this campaign is that many people are struggling with two things - reality and predisposition.  On the one hand, I've come to believe that most people are essentially good and decent, and ultimately want to do positive things.  But I also believe that most people - especially Whites - have preconceptions based on stereotypes.  And, while stereotypes are generally unfair, they do grow out of some basic truths.

Watch your local news sometime.  The lead stories are almost always negative - and many of them involve crime, squalor and death.  Blacks have a starring role in a disproportionate percentage of these stories in Pittsburgh, and my experience in Chicago and St. Louis says that's not abnormal.  Does the media owe equal time for White crime?  Do Whites commit less crime than Blacks?  Do Whites hide their crimes better than Blacks? 

I don't know the answers.  But everyone who thinks past their noses has probably asked themselves some variation of at least one of these questions.  Most of the time, when we can't - or don't want to - find an answer, we simply create one.  Then, that answer becomes a prism through which we filter our experiences.

My phonebanking and canvassing work has led me to believe that many people are experiencing a fundamental disconnect when they try to process Barack Obama.  That disconnect is related to the images they see on the news, in movies, on ESPN, and on the streets where they live.  I think Joe and Jane Six-Pack are suspicious of Obama - despite the fine-tooth comb that's been taken to his life - because they haven't ever really *seen* anyone like him.  Yes, there have been accomplished and educated Blacks.  None, though, had really made a strong case to be PRESIDENT.  These people would have an easier time accepting Snoop Dogg than Obama.

We have had 43 Presidents.  42 of them have been White Anglo-Saxon Protestant men.  Think about that for a second.  We've only had one President - the Catholic, John F. Kennedy - who didn't fit that exact mold.  So, when many American voters think of a President, they just don't think of a Black man.  That's why it's so hard to be first.  And that's why Obama has to do so many things that we wouldn't expect a Presidential candidate to do. 

On an infinitesimal level, I understand why Obama holds his tongue at some of the most slanderous stuff, why he picks and chooses where and when to punch and counterpunch.  If I'd blown up at that guard years ago, I could've found myself in real trouble, regardless of whether I deserved it.  The only thing I could do was hold my temper. 

All Obama's trying to do is convince over 100 million voters that he's not a drug-using, service-dodging, White-hating, wealth-taxing, socialist, liberal, elitist, Communist-Muslim atheist who advocates safe sex for kindergarteners.  If that's not enough chainsaws to juggle, he has to do all that while riding a unicycle of unity and explaining to people that he's really a devoted Christian husband and father who has given his life to serving others and who has the temperament, judgment and intellect to lead our tattered nation and a combustible world.  Every single word and deed is fraught with the danger of upending this remarkable juggling act. 

And yet, disbelieving ears still refuse to hear, and lying eyes still refuse to see.  The people I describe still repeat the same smears and lies.  After all, "Jerome Corsi said it, and Fox News reported it, so it must be true."  (I've gotten that response more than once in phonebanking.)

I personally find Barack Obama to be a remarkable man, who has retained his composure in the face of scandalous attacks on him, his record, his faith and his family.  Any red-blooded man - myself included - who had to face the hundredth part of what Obama has faced in this election would probably have long since started busting the heads of his attackers.  And not one of those men would last a day in the Oval Office, because there isn't a day where the President of the United States isn't burned in effigy somewhere. 

The moment Obama blows up at someone - just imagine him publicly having any of the profane tirades that have somehow become the gloss on John McCain's "maverick" myth! - he'll become nothing more than another caricature, permanently disqualified from being President.

I've made the comparison between Obama's candidacy and Jackie Robinson's major league debut before.  As you read the various histories that have been written about Robinson, you come to understand that he had a great deal of inner anger about the way he was treated at the start of his career with the Dodgers. 

Of course, he had every right to be angry.  But the whole reason Branch Rickey picked Robinson to break the color barrier in baseball wasn't just because of Robinson's playing ability, which was unquestioned.  Rickey picked Robinson because he believed Robinson would be able to endure being spat on by fans, openly cursed by other players and defamed by the press, and keep playing without complaint.  Robinson excelled, even with all that negativity towering over him. 

It's now been 61 years since a Black man hit the big leagues, and Blacks have come a long way since then.  We've seen Black billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, entertainers, moguls, movie stars, designers, entrepreneurs, professors, activists, race car drivers, jockeys, and politicians.  But never have we seen a truly viable Presidential candidate of color before now. 

So, when I go out canvassing, I keep all that in mind.  When I talk to an undecided voter or a hostile voter on the phone, I remember that we're working against virtually everything in our nation's relatively short history to get this man elected. 

I hold my anger at the injustice.  I hold my despair at the seemingly irreversible backward thinking and illogic.  I hold my horror at the idea that this man, so uniquely qualified for this time in our history, may not have a chance to do what so many of us so desperately want him to do - lead this country.

I carry hope - not just Obama's hope, but my hope, and the hopes of my family.  The oldest girls actually talk about politics - with knowledge, no less!  It's all I can do to keep from keeling over in shock whenever they talk about electoral votes or Sarah Palin's latest lie.  My five-year-old son shakes me and says, "Daddy, look!  It's Barack Obama!" whenever he sees Obama's face on TV.  And my wife registered to vote this year for the first time - then promptly contacted a field office and planted an Obama sign on our lawn.

And, above all else, I do what so many of all colors have always done when confronted with injustice.  I dig in, and I work.  I work against the tide.  I work in places where conventional wisdom says Obama can't win.  I volunteer to call southern Missouri.  I call South Carolina.  I call central Pennsylvania.  I canvass in West Virginia.  I canvass in southern Ohio.  I go to the places where "Obama" is one of the seven words you can't say on television.  

Then, I silently say a prayer of thanks whenever I encounter racist reaction in my election work.  For me, it only adds fuel to my urgency in getting Obama elected.