Join 3,503 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Obama just got endorsed by The Economist.
October 30, 2008 12:05 PM   Subscribe

Obama just got endorsed by The Economist. Yes that Economist. My favorite economic publication and often noted for its pragmatic conservative-centrist approach. Good stuff here.
posted by Lacking Subtlety (131 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite

 
Holy freaking crap. That's pretty incredible.
posted by mathowie at 12:06 PM on October 30, 2008


Well, the economy is black, after all.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 12:07 PM on October 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Ah yes, The Economist... that well-known socialist rag.
posted by scody at 12:10 PM on October 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


I'm a little shocked. I was expecting they'd run down McCain and then pick him anyway, IIRC as they did with Bush.
posted by Artw at 12:11 PM on October 30, 2008


If Hitler were alive today, Hilter would endorse Obama! He's that good!

Whoops. Maybe I'm not helping.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:11 PM on October 30, 2008 [12 favorites]


Yeah right, since when has reason and intelligence EVER helped anyone? I mean come on!

Who wants a Big GulpTM?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:13 PM on October 30, 2008


Well they did endorse Kerry, but they held their noses while they did it. Not this time:

"The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly".

Damn right.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 12:16 PM on October 30, 2008


Those big fat socialist bastards. I'm going over to Foxnews to find out how this is part of the liberal media conspiracy. I'm pretty sure I know how it will go:

Reading, A Liberal Media Conspiracy.
posted by ewkpates at 12:17 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


It's been pointed out that the Economist always backs the candidate from the non-incumbent (excumbent?) party - Clinton in 19, Dole in 96, Bush in 2000, Kerry in 04.
posted by flashboy at 12:17 PM on October 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


"Clinton in 19"? In 92, obvs.
posted by flashboy at 12:18 PM on October 30, 2008


got the nod from the FT too... and seed - for science! (and the humane society - for wolves :)
posted by kliuless at 12:22 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


A picture is worth....
posted by thread_makimaki at 12:23 PM on October 30, 2008 [18 favorites]


My theory is that the economic car is already way out of control, so the oligarchy wants to prop Barack up in the drivers seat so when the pissed off electorate comes up to the window to ask for license & insurance in 2012, the GOP gets a landslide victory. I may be wrong though. I wonder if the economy right now is the same one that Carter got in 1976.
posted by crapmatic at 12:25 PM on October 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


OOOOO(pantpantpant)BAMA!!!!!!!!!!
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 12:25 PM on October 30, 2008


They backed Kerry in 04 mostly because of one issue forced them to (the cost of iraq). This is more an across the board criticism of the republicans complete, total, and utter failure to balance the budget or show any kind of fiscal responsibility.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 12:26 PM on October 30, 2008


But don't they know he just wants to spread the wealth around and tax Joe Everyman? You would think they would think of what Obama would do to the economy with a name like theirs!
posted by cjorgensen at 12:27 PM on October 30, 2008


The Economist is my favorite "I'm not reading I'm just holding it to look smart" publications.

Did Wired endorse Obama yet? I'm assuming they'd pull a graphic design half nelson assault on the eyes while they were doing it.

If I remember right, Feild and Stream magazine decides who you, the subscriber, should vote for (read: NeoCon gun nuts) and prints the names alongside the subscriber info, right on the magazine cover. Not just national candidates, but local ones based on the address of the subscriber. Pretty neat/Fucking scary.
posted by hellojed at 12:28 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was just mentioning to a friend that my Economist hasn't caught up with my forwarding address yet, and I am sorely missing its US election coverage right now. Cool.
posted by crush-onastick at 12:28 PM on October 30, 2008


That's Field and Stream....
posted by hellojed at 12:28 PM on October 30, 2008


crapmatic wrote:

I may be wrong though. I wonder if the economy right now is the same one that Carter got in 1976.

This isn't the economy Carter inherited, not even the one that Roosevelt inherited. It's more like the one Martin Van Buren inherited
posted by any major dude at 12:30 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


But Some Douchebag has endorsed McCain. Take that!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:32 PM on October 30, 2008


Well, surely the Economist's endorsement will convince all those undecided swing voters in suburban Ohio and rural West Virginia.
posted by dersins at 12:36 PM on October 30, 2008 [6 favorites]


Hey great, another vote of sanity for Obama. I'm all for that. But...
...it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein.
I don't really see how this argument holds water. The great spreaders of hate in the Islamic world rail against us as Capitalist Pigs and Supporters of the Hated Jews. I don't really think they care too much what color our president is, or what his name is.

I'm optimistic that an Obama presidency will make great strides towards marginalizing the underlying arguments that make Islamic extremists hate the US. I just don't think it's going to end up having much to do with what he looks like.
posted by Brak at 12:36 PM on October 30, 2008


Colbert endorses Obama
posted by inconsequentialist at 12:36 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


When Obama wins, I want him to take the mic and say, well, y'all elected me, and you think I'm a socialist, so all I can do is assume you want socialism.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:37 PM on October 30, 2008 [9 favorites]


It's been easy to see this endorsement coming; most of the news coverage in The Economist has been pro-Obama the past few months. It's hard to underestimate just how liberal "conservative" means in Europe. The Economist rags on Obama for his anti-trade stance, but other than that he's pretty much in line with the "conservative" Economist.

What's with The Economist in the US, anyway? I've noticed a lot of my friends suddenly are reading it. Granted, we're a bunch of leftist San Francisco elitist intellectuals, but still it's a bit of a commitment to actually read the thing. I started reading it because the New York Times had failed me and I realized once a week was enough for news, anyway.
posted by Nelson at 12:38 PM on October 30, 2008


My favorite economic publication and often noted for its pragmatic conservative-centrist approach.

Am I completely off base in my assumption that the Economist was a fairly Lib Dem periodical? Wouldn't that make Obama their natural candidate?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:40 PM on October 30, 2008


What's with The Economist in the US, anyway?

You considered the state of international news coverage in this country? It's about the only weekly that consistently takes the time to look at the international stories. They had a number of stories about Georgia's internal squabbles BEFORE their foolish August war.

I think the Christian Science Monitor in weekly form is going to give the Economist a run for its money here in the US, though.
posted by dw at 12:44 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I don't really think they care too much what color our president is, or what his name is.

Especially one who says his support of Israel is "non-conditional" but hey, we all know the most hardcore anti-Israeli proponents will see past his policy and say to themselves, "Well, he does say he fully supports Israel, but ... his middle name is Hussein! One of us! One of us!"
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:49 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


> When Obama wins, I want him to take the mic and say, well, y'all elected me, and you think I'm a socialist, so all I can do is assume you want socialism.

When Obama wins, I want him to rip off his mask at the inauguration to reveal that he's really Newt Gingrich, followed by peals of maniacal laughter.

But I've been accused of being twisted before....
posted by Brak at 12:49 PM on October 30, 2008


What's with The Economist in the US, anyway?

The reason the Economist is so good is it stays away from non-declaratory sentiment. It's wonderful at identifying trends, offering devil's advocate opinions (in a non-aggrandizing way), and really seems to operate independent of politicization. Most economic publications which aren't politically independent strike me as awfully laisse faire or socio-economically focused, but the Economist keeps a firm grip on macro-economic sensibility.

Think of the non-declaratory sentiment as sweeping in and saying "hold on now fellas, let's not start sucking each others Popsicles just yet." In economics I consider that cautiousness as being rather important.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 12:51 PM on October 30, 2008


Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

Wow. Chris Buckley, Powell, the Economist, the slew of conservative newspapers, the Economist . . . A lot of thoughtful, rational conservatives have jumped ship on this one. I'm painting with broad strokes here, but it seems like it's the fearful and angry who remain with McCain.

When going door-to-door last week, I had a conversation with an "undecided" (I believe that this is often code for, "I support McCain but I don't want you to lecture to me, thanks very much"). After first saying he didn't want to vote for Obama because of his inexperience, then because of his middle name, he sheepishly admitted, "Well, you know, I've never voted for a black guy before." These people are TERRIFIED.

So here's what I'm wondering: Is this the beginning of the end that agglutinative hodgepodge we call neoconservativism? I mean, fiscal conservatives (the Economist) and hawkish conservatives (Powell--debatable, but let's say his saber-rattling at the UN makes him hawkish) are splintering off. They seem to be unravelling, right? No?

It feels like they're endorsing Obama on the grounds that reasonable people can disagree on important issues. For instance, I disagree with Christopher Buckley's social conservativism, but I imagine I could have it out with him and learn something, and probably get a point off in the process. Discourse. But the people shouting "terrorist," and "socialist" at Palin rallies . . . well, there's no discussion there. And thinking conservatives are leaving their ranks, more ready to embrace a reasonable ideological opponent than a wrong-headed, ignorant ally. Discuss, or MeFi mail me if that'll derail us here. I want to know if the wheels are falling off the neoconmobile.
posted by andromache at 12:56 PM on October 30, 2008 [19 favorites]


I thought Obama secured the "people who can read" vote weeks ago.
posted by Shepherd at 12:58 PM on October 30, 2008 [8 favorites]


Chris Buckley, Powell, the Economist, the slew of conservative newspapers, the Economist

Note that I've mentioned the Economist twice because it's SUCH A A BIG DEAL
posted by andromache at 12:59 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Well, surely the Economist's endorsement will convince all those undecided swing voters in suburban Ohio and rural West Virginia.

Yes.

It might surprise you to learn that we suburban Ohioans can read and that several of us (even independents!) enjoy thinking about and debating politics.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 1:00 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


What's with these 11th hour endorsements, anyway? Are we to believe that the Economist is the magazine equivalent of the "undecided voters" who don't make up their minds until they're in line to vote? What were they waiting for, exactly?

(Also, wow that cover. Love him or hate him, Obama will be the slam-dunk coolest-looking President ever.)
posted by rokusan at 1:03 PM on October 30, 2008 [11 favorites]


As a combat veteran, I'd like to ask everyone to vote. That's the essence of what I ended up fighting for: the right of our citizens to cast a vote, to make their voices heard, to influence our destiny going forward. For all those soldiers who have fought and died, or who have fought and lived, or who have served their country during peacetime -- please go vote, if you haven't already. I'm not going to ask you to vote for this candidate or that candidate -- I'm just asking that you exercise your right to vote, regardless of who gets that vote. There is *nothing* more satisfying to me as a soldier than to see long lines of people exercising their right to vote. Don't take that right for granted, and don't waste it. Please.
posted by jamstigator at 1:05 PM on October 30, 2008 [80 favorites]


“cack-handed”? Wow that’s a neat term. It one of those normal terms that sounds really dirty and shameful.
Hey! Are you cack-handed in the bathroom in there?
I don’t want you getting cack-handed in my car!
etc.
Bush is cack-handed... Sounds pretty accurate really.

“A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and outfought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.”

He also outbopped the buzzard and the oreole.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:09 PM on October 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


Of course, lest everyone spend too much time sitting around sucking economic popsicles, I feel the need to draw your wide-eyed attention to this stomach-flipping headline on CNN's front page today:

Voting machine glitches being reported.
posted by rokusan at 1:10 PM on October 30, 2008


Pablo Volarie has given his endorsement. Rue this day, oil monkeys and tycoons.


thx fivefreshfish!
posted by maryh at 1:11 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


It might surprise you to learn that we suburban Ohioans can read and that several of us (even independents!) enjoy thinking about and debating politics.

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that people in Ohio and / or West Virginia are incapable of reading the Economist. What I did mean to imply is that still-undecided voters seem highly unlikely to be readers of the Economist.
posted by dersins at 1:11 PM on October 30, 2008


hawkish conservatives (Powell--debatable, but let's say his saber-rattling at the UN makes him hawkish)

yeah I wouldn't call Powell hawkish. He never was before that episode. In fact he was pretty adamantly against Iraq and the bush team around him really, really, really forced his hand. There was no one else who could sell the war to the UN. So he did it. Reluctantly. Little did he realize just how much it would blow up in his face. He knew it wouldn't go well. He just didn't realize it would be a disaster. And so he left the Bush Admin and here he is endorsing a rational democrat.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 1:15 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


It might surprise you to learn that we suburban Ohioans can read and that several of us (even independents!) enjoy thinking about and debating politics.

But are you an undecided swing voter that reads the Economist? I would doubt it, but I guess you never know. (I considered it a knock on undecideds more than OH or WV ...)

Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.

"The truth is that Saint Reagan expanded entitlements, grew the federal government -- including a $165 billion bailout of Social Security -- and raised taxes."

The Republican Shipwreck.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:16 PM on October 30, 2008


Voting machine glitches being reported.

Which says:
The state of New York still votes largely by mechanical lever machines -- those curtained relics from the 1960s
Yeah! The sound those things make when you pull the big lever is democracy, my friends; freedom.

These electronic voting machines terrify me.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:17 PM on October 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


Judging from that cover, Obama is the ‘some guy on some other job’ or ‘Mr. Black’ Big Joe was speaking of to Mr. Pink.

*plays ‘Little Green Bag’*
Yep. Works.

(plus since we’re getting all Tarantino in here...)

I don’t know about the voting machine thing. I mean, you can bend some of that a little. But I suspect Obama is going to win massively. Essentially that’s saying “I call” to that little scam. If they push it too hard, it’s going to break. I mean if exit polls show 83% in favor of Obama (say) but McCain wins...kind of a big magilla sitting there.

And you want to see Obama fight? He will eat their lunch on this. He came up in Cook County, man, where even the dead vote twice. This stuff is romper room in contrast to what you have to do to get a fair election here.
(Actually Dave Orr is pretty square. Nice change really.)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:21 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


I wouldn't call Powell hawkish. He never was before that episode. In fact he was pretty adamantly against Iraq and the bush team around him really, really, really forced his hand.

That's fair. I guess it's just remarkable that the man was a cabinet member of the current administration and is now siding with the other ticket, before his old team is even out of office. Are there precidents for this kind of thing?
posted by andromache at 1:26 PM on October 30, 2008


"Well, you know, I've never voted for a black guy before."

Have you had the opportunity to vote for a black guy (or lady) before?

My wife's grandmother said she was voting for McCain, because she worried that if a black man were president, "the other blacks would get uppity." She said "uppity." When my mother-in-law noted that Grandmother sounded like her mother (great-grandmother), she was a bit taken back. And when it was pointed out that there weren't a whole lot of blacks in her neck of the woods, the uppity factor got a bit less worrisome.

And from the voting machine glitches article: With early voting under way in 31 states, these problems have already surfaced. In recent weeks, voters in West Virginia, Colorado, Tennessee and Texas have reported that touch-screen machines registered their votes, at least initially, for the wrong candidate or party.

Awesome.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:30 PM on October 30, 2008


And more on the topic of voting machines: Maryland and Virginia Plan to Ditch Electronic Machines, Part of a Rapid National Reversal. Maryland will scrap its $65 million electronic system and go back to paper ballots in time for the 2010 midterm elections -- and will still be paying for the abandoned system until 2014. In Virginia, localities are moving to paper after the General Assembly voted last year to phase out electronic voting machines as they wear out.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:32 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


I was prepared to come in here and call this post out for not being any more worthy of a link on the front page than the already deleted New York Times endorsement FPP, but jamstigator's comment made it worth it for me. I'll be voting, jamstigator, and I'll think of you when I do.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:33 PM on October 30, 2008


Am I completely off base in my assumption that the Economist was a fairly Lib Dem periodical? Wouldn't that make Obama their natural candidate?

Here's a quick rundown of their recent endorsements.
posted by Bizurke at 1:37 PM on October 30, 2008


Breaking news: Obama is awesome
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:38 PM on October 30, 2008 [41 favorites]


Yeah! The sound those things make when you pull the big lever is democracy, my friends; freedom.

These electronic voting machines terrify me.


Vote suppression/vote tampering should be punished with mandatory 20 year federal prison terms and there should be a well funded federal agency with police powers that investigates all reports of same. I know voting laws/procedures reside with the individual states but it's high time that Americans take a look at how that's going for them.

And yeah man, I love me that mechanical voting machine boy, that's a sweet sound.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:39 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


And thinking conservatives are leaving their ranks, more ready to embrace a reasonable ideological opponent than a wrong-headed, ignorant ally. Discuss, or MeFi mail me if that'll derail us here. I want to know if the wheels are falling off the neoconmobile.
posted by andromache at 12:56 PM on October 30 [2 favorites +] [!]


I think conservative America is changing certainly... but that's also because the party has a history of a constantly changing identity. The Democrats have had a pretty similar viewpoint for about 35+ years now (same strengths same weaknesses really), whereas the GOP constantly seems to be shaped around its party leaders.

With Bush there's been a change for certain. The rise of the new religious right, etc. and now there are many dissatisfied members where their specific issue seems in jeopardy. McCain isn't energizing the religious right (some religious Christians I know are adopting Obama because of his devotion to his christian faith). The Bush Admin has out of control spending and refuses to raise taxes to help balance the budget. You're right on about the fiscal conservatives abandoning the NeoCons (to a degree). And with the war in Iraq, I look toward the libertarian movement as something being integral too (side note: libertarianism has major, major problems but that's another issue).

That being said, the Bush NeoCons really were a temporary identity. We were so quick to identify "red states and blue states" and thinking this was the new direction of the country I think we failed to see the conditional nature of those two elections. It really was bush specific who kind of created a perfect storm of "religious" and "corporate" and "everyman" and "go america!" and "not all that bright".

In Bush's wake we had candidates who symbolized those things but only one at a time: "religious" "everyman"/Huckabee , "corporate"/romney, "everyman"thompson?, "Go america!"/mccain, and "not all that bright" Juliani.

And once their guy lost, they weren't really interested in anyone else.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 1:40 PM on October 30, 2008 [7 favorites]


Obama's also got the "support" of Tom Metzger, the director of White Aryan Resistance, and Rocky Suhayda, chairman of the American Nazi Party (link goes to an Esquire article, not hate sites):

Metzger: "The corporations are running things now, so it’s not going to make much difference who's in there, but McCain would be much worse. He’s a warmonger. He’s a scary, scary person -- more dangerous than Bush. Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists. I’ve got the quote right here: ‘I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s white race.’ The problem with Obama is he’s being dishonest about his racial views. I’d respect him if he’d just come out and say, ‘Yeah, I’m a black racist.’ I don’t hate black people. I just think it’s in the best interest of the races to be separated as much as possible. See, I’m a leftist. I’m not a rightist. I hate the transnational corporations far more than any black person."

Suhayda: "White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals -- basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women -- when usually negroes who have ‘made it’ immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize -- that’s the kind of negro that I can respect. Any time that a prominent person embraces their racial heritage in a positive manner, it’s good for all racially minded folks. Besides, America cares nothing for the interests of the white American worker, while having a love affair with just about every non-white on planet Earth. It’d be poetic justice to have a non-white as titular chief over this decaying modern Sodom and Gomorrah."

My befuddled conclusion: these are strange times we live in.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:44 PM on October 30, 2008 [76 favorites]


Have you had the opportunity to vote for a black guy (or lady) before?


I thought about addressing this in my original comment but it seemed tangential. Anyway, I've voted in a single election before, and in that one I voted straight down party lines . . . so I'm not sure the colors of all the people I voted for. But I'm psyched to be doing it this time, and as I-forget-who said in that bombass post on Charles meeting Barack, I'm black on November 4th (full disclosure: I am not actually black).

My wife's grandmother said she was voting for McCain, because she worried that if a black man were president, "the other blacks would get uppity."

This happened to me too. A friend of mine, who had never ONCE shown the slightest racist streak, said he sort of hoped Obama would win, but, man, he was dreading the celebration that black people would have if he got elected. He was worried about the "uppity" thing, even though he didn't couch it in those terms. I was speechless.

And then I remembered he's a Canadian citizen, so fuck it.
posted by andromache at 1:45 PM on October 30, 2008



Am I completely off base in my assumption that the Economist was a fairly Lib Dem periodical? Wouldn't that make Obama their natural candidate?

Nah they're centerist/conservative. People think that because they tend to approach things from a macro-economic standpoint. And doing that is often labeled unfairly as being "liberal" because you're trying to think of system corrections when the strange-as-heck republican mantra is "the system is fine, so leave it alone". That's really not fair since most of their solutions/opinions are nothing more than traditional conservative economics.

Micro-economics are the driving force of economics no doubt about it, but looking at a whole economic system with micro-economics is like driving with blinders on.
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 1:45 PM on October 30, 2008


Here's a quick rundown of their recent endorsements.

The Economist endorsed Harper's Conservatives? Fucking fascists.
posted by GuyZero at 1:47 PM on October 30, 2008


This is no different than the way the press and pundits usually line up behind the Republicans: everybody loves a winner.
posted by serazin at 1:51 PM on October 30, 2008


The Card Cheat just broke my mind.
posted by fleetmouse at 1:58 PM on October 30, 2008


When Obama wins, I want him to take the mic and say, well, y'all elected me, and you think I'm a socialist, so all I can do is assume you want socialism.

When Obama wins, I want him to rip off his mask at the inauguration to reveal that he's really Newt Gingrich, followed by peals of maniacal laughter.


When Obama wins, I want him to go up to the mike and say "I just want to take a moment to thank Allah for the blessing that he has bestowed upon me . . . nah I'm just messing with you."
posted by ND¢ at 2:19 PM on October 30, 2008 [22 favorites]


As a combat veteran, I'd like to ask everyone to vote. That's the essence of what I ended up fighting for: the right of our citizens to cast a vote, to make their voices heard, to influence our destiny going forward. For all those soldiers who have fought and died, or who have fought and lived, or who have served their country during peacetime -- please go vote, if you haven't already. I'm not going to ask you to vote for this candidate or that candidate -- I'm just asking that you exercise your right to vote, regardless of who gets that vote. There is *nothing* more satisfying to me as a soldier than to see long lines of people exercising their right to vote. Don't take that right for granted, and don't waste it. Please.

Thanks for writing this.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:21 PM on October 30, 2008


Breaking news: Obama is awesome

Okay, wow. That story is really, really awesome.
posted by lunit at 2:35 PM on October 30, 2008


Douchebag of the Day.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 2:36 PM on October 30, 2008 [18 favorites]


Douchebag of the Day.

I'm speechless. Is that what they're reduced to now? Tapping their nose and saying 'You know who I'm talking about, eh, eh?'

I mean, what? Who is he talking about? Voldemort?
posted by Happy Dave at 2:42 PM on October 30, 2008 [18 favorites]


Obama got endorsed by The Economist......McCain got endorsed by The New York Post. 'Nuff said.
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:42 PM on October 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


As a combat veteran, I'd like to ask everyone to vote. That's the essence of what I ended up fighting for: the right of our citizens to cast a vote, to make their voices heard, to influence our destiny going forward. For all those soldiers who have fought and died, or who have fought and lived, or who have served their country during peacetime -- please go vote, if you haven't already. I'm not going to ask you to vote for this candidate or that candidate -- I'm just asking that you exercise your right to vote, regardless of who gets that vote. There is *nothing* more satisfying to me as a soldier than to see long lines of people exercising their right to vote. Don't take that right for granted, and don't waste it. Please.
posted by jamstigator at 1:05 PM on October 30 [22 favorites +] [!]


First, I deeply thank you for your service to this country. It means a great deal to me.

Second, I'm wondering if it is also fair to extend the "act of voting" even further: That is to being an educated voter. To me there is no difference between the two and to take on responsibility of voting you take on responsibility of understanding what you are voting for or against. I say this because I've noticed in the last eight years a group of undecided voters going into voting completely blind because they felt it was just something they were supposed to do. This all purely anecdotal mind you. I'm sure there's articles and statistics about the subjct but I get the sensation that might be just as misleading as any anecdote I'd give you. But the question remains. These are people I know who don't read anything, don't care, or even know what the questions on the ballot are. Some others are simply intimidated by the complexity of some of the issues. They feel everything they do get is a kind of misinformation. They're weary of the entire situation. I worked with a lot of inner city adults who simply said "I just can't understand politics and I don't want to just vote for the one I like better" and refrained from voting.

And so I guess this is just a general kind of question to ourselves. Where do our responsibility to vote and our voting responsibly intersect?
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 2:44 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


With Bush there's been a change for certain. The rise of the new religious right, etc. and now there are many dissatisfied members where their specific issue seems in jeopardy.

You can thank Reagan for that one, actually. Political evangelicals were welcomed with open arms and lived their golden age during those 8 years. Since then, the Moral Majority has disbanded, the Christian Coalition has been splintering, and evangelical voters have actually been declining in numbers. And that's when W decides to adopt the Reagan strategy of using these people for fund-raising and vote gathering.

Many conservatives were willing to forgive Reagan's marriage to the Talibaptists (though not Goldwater, God bless him) because they still considered him a fiscal conservative who defeated communism.* Bush, on the other hand, has bloated the government to insane proportions and has committed the unforgivable sin of getting us in not one but two unwinnable wars. So the seemingly moderate McCain seemed like a breath of fresh air to these people ... until he nominated Palin. Now they're fleeing in droves. Is neo-conservativism dead? It is in its present incarnation, to be sure.

And by the by, I think "hawkish conservative" is a somewhat accurate description of Powell, insofar as he's constantly advocated humantiarian interventionism, his feelings about Iraq before and after the anthrax vial notwithstanding.
*I don't agree with either assessment of the man; I'm just reiterated the meme.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:46 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Douchebag of the Day

Wow. That was pathetic.
posted by inconsequentialist at 2:49 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


[Reagan] conservative who defeated communism.*
*I don't agree with either assessment of the man; I'm just reiterated the meme.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:46 PM on October 30 [+] [!]


Haha yeah. I think we could contend that title should be "president who was around when the eastern European satellites through off the shackles of the soviet bloc"
posted by Lacking Subtlety at 2:49 PM on October 30, 2008


I mean, what? Who is he talking about? Voldemort?

Seriously, WHO?

Someone must know what this guy is trying to imply - is this one of those evangelical dog whistle things? Or was the guy just totally bluffing?
posted by peep at 2:57 PM on October 30, 2008


omfg
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:58 PM on October 30, 2008


I think we could contend that title should be "president who was around when the eastern European satellites through off the shackles of the soviet bloc"

. . . after the Soviet Union bankrupted itself in a 10-year war in Afghanistan while simultaneously trying to maintain adminstration of the rest of eastern Europe, even as Lech Walesa got the ball rolling in 1980 and internationally embarrassed the communists, exposing them for the incompetent beauracrats that they were. That one guy deserves more credit for the fall of communism than Reagan.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:59 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]


Seriously, WHO?

Reverend Wright. He can't say it though cause McCain made him off limits.
posted by ND¢ at 3:00 PM on October 30, 2008


Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running

That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.


thank god someone else finally said it!

At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

oh right, it's still the Economist. christ.
posted by shmegegge at 3:02 PM on October 30, 2008 [4 favorites]



Reverend Wright. He can't say it though cause McCain made him off limits.


Nah, that guy didn't have anyone in mind. He was stumped so he tried to play it off. Sleazebag.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:04 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


The Republican Shipwreck.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:16 PM on October 30 [+] [!]


W.T.F. Salon, Quit Stealing My Joints!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2008


Incidentally, Metzger and Suhayda's endorsements would probably carry more weight if they had any relevance with the supremacist/separatist movement. Metzger is a joke, and has been since his son John got choked on Geraldo in 1988. Suhayda is regularly mocked as an idiot by "mainstream" separatists like Vanguard. Naturally, I won't link to the various forums where he's ridiculed by the people who supposedly share his views, but don't expect Stormfront members to be marching to the polls chanting, "Yes we can!"
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:08 PM on October 30, 2008


omg. Now I remember that name (Metzger getting choked on Geraldo). Daytime tee vee has stunk for a long long time.
posted by dog food sugar at 3:25 PM on October 30, 2008


EMRJKC: Breaking News: Obama is Awesome

OK this? right here? this is something else.

I'm actually fascinated by how much reading this has shifted my image of who Obama is (and I'm very much a supporter). When I got to the paragraph where the reporter details the contents of the letter he wrote, I felt the sort of warm flush to the face you get when somebody does something so nice that it actually sorta kills you.

There's something about the gentleness and generosity in this gesture that substantially changes how I percieve him as a person. It doesn't necessarily make him a better leader (but maybe it does? personality is important for diplomacy), but it gives him an aura of warmth that only throws McCain's grumpy anti-aura and Palin's creepy jedi-trick into relief.
posted by LMGM at 3:44 PM on October 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


"southern-fried moralism"
I like that.
I'm going to have to work that into a conversation.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 3:45 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I mean, what? Who is he talking about? Voldemort?

He means that Obama goes back in time to hang out with Hitler, duh. Because even wingnuts agree that Obama is awesome enough to have the power of time-travel.
posted by scody at 3:51 PM on October 30, 2008 [3 favorites]


Good article, though. Thanks!
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2008


Breaking News: Obama is Awesome

One of the coolest things about that is the effect it'll have on that seven-year-old kid:

Aron's mom said she and her husband rarely talk politics at home, but Aron is very interested in the election. He constantly asks questions, she said, inquiring about such things as how she knows who to vote for.

I'm really glad Obama wrote back in such detail - we need more politicians acknowledging young people who want to get involved and be active citizens.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:57 PM on October 30, 2008


He means that Obama goes back in time to hang out with Hitler, duh. Because even wingnuts agree that Obama is awesome enough to have the power of time-travel.

Obama's indisputable power to bend space and time aside, Goldfarb didn't have to mean anybody. When he said this, with this knowing air, he basically allows the viewer to fill in the blank themselves with their own preconceptions without him ever having to say anything that he might have to defend. I do this all the time.

Someone: "I've been thinking of seeing Juno. It did win an Oscar, after all."
Me: "You know why that movie won an Oscar, right?"
Someone: ". . . No . . .?"
Me: "Oh, come on ... you know."
Someone: ". . . Ooh. Right."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:01 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


I mean, what? Who is he talking about? Voldemort?

I think this is a race card angle. In my opinion, he's trying to make voters think less of Wright and more of Farrakhan. Farrakhan has the double advantage for the Repubs of being both anti-semitic and a leader of the Nation of Islam.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:01 PM on October 30, 2008


Someone: "I've been thinking of seeing Juno. It did win an Oscar, after all."
Me: "You know why that movie won an Oscar, right?"
Someone: ". . . No . . .?"
Me: "Oh, come on ... you know."
Someone: ". . . Ooh. Right."


Nope. Still drawing a blank.
posted by Bookhouse at 4:14 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


“Breaking news: Obama is awesome”
If you’re black, and you can get an endorsement from a white supremacist, man...

Obama’s sounding more and more like “Prez Rickard” from Joe Simon (and Gaiman ’s work)

Funny how that troubles me tho’...
I haven’t been geared for political optimism for some time I ‘spose.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:22 PM on October 30, 2008


Hey, I set the kerthunk for democracy precedent, I'll have you know. Now where are my cookies?!
posted by dame at 4:23 PM on October 30, 2008


MetaFilter: Still Drawing A Blank
posted by spirit72 at 4:50 PM on October 30, 2008


I think he really wanted to imply Rev. Wright, but when the interviewer didn't fall for his oh-so-crafty Jedi Mind tricks, he left himself twistingin the wind.

Nothing has infuriated me mor in this election cycle than the steady parade of pundits who don't have the basic question answering skills. You're not arguing a case in front of the supreme court. You're a political hack. It's not rocket science. Just got your talking point torpedoed? Move on to the next talking point.

The Man may be morphing into some sort of lizard alien right before our eyes, but at least James Carville knows how to fill his 2 minute satellite uplink like a professional. Some of theses bozos need to take notes.
posted by billyfleetwood at 4:50 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


Douchebag of the Day.

Wow, what an asshole. Figured that couldn't be overstated...
posted by Pantengliopoli at 4:53 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


> I mean if exit polls show 83% in favor of Obama (say) but McCain wins...kind of a big magilla sitting there.

Well, first of all, Obama isn't going to win by 83%. Let's stick to reality here. Since polls are the only thing we have to go on (making them de facto best source of information), we're looking at him winning key swing states -- the only places that matter -- by at best 5%. That is all you would need to suppress, and much of that can come from caging rather than outright rigging the results. And if another 1% needs to come from changing results, that's still within the margin of error. Democrats will call foul, no doubt, but McCain would likely become the next President either way.

People really need to worry about this. It frankly doesn't matter how well Obama is doing in the national polls if he only has a small lead in the states that matter. Voter suppression by the Republican party is real and thoroughly documented.
posted by cj_ at 5:18 PM on October 30, 2008


(As a side note, I'm worried about this, but optimistic. I really don't think they have the ability to pull such a coup off this time, especially with Obama's army of lawyers fighting it already)
posted by cj_ at 5:20 PM on October 30, 2008


I really don't think they have the ability to pull such a coup off this time, especially with Obama's army of lawyers fighting it already

I don't think they have the ability to pull it off, either, due mostly to sheer incompetence.
* In Indiana, for instance, a Superior Court judge declined to support a GOP bid to shut down early voting centers in Democratic-leaning cities in Lake County, and the state Supreme Court chose not to immediately intervene.

* In Wisconsin, a suit brought by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen -- which he later admitted had been requested by the Republican Party -- seeking to force the state election board to re-confirm all newly registered voters was thrown out by a county court.

* In Ohio -- perhaps the most high-profile example of voter-suppression this cycle -- the state GOP sued to force Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to provide local election officials with the names of new voters whose registration information didn't match other government documents. Brunner resisted, arguing, it appears correctly, that the information would be used to challenge large numbers of voters and cause chaos at the polls. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with Brunner. (The Department of Justice deserves some of the credit here, too, for declining a request by the White House to intervene.)

* In Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller denied a request from the state GOP to require voters to cast provisional ballots if they fixed mistakes in their voting information at the polls.
And et cetera. They really suck at this. This sort of bumbling gives fascism a bad name.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:39 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


There are three things that give me hope for the voter suppression (or diebold tricks) to not work. Firstly, Obama has a nice bit of padding in most polls in enough places that any massive changes would be more noticeable than in the previous two elections. While the Republicans have definitely been taking vote suppression steps (like trying to purge the rolls), they'll probably be less likely to try anything that's definitely illegal, as it'll be more visible than if the polls were close.

Secondly, many Republicans (especially Bush's people) aren't huge fans of McCain. While they don't want Obama either, they're less likely to take risks for the Maverick than they would have Bush.

The third thing is that if the Republicans had systematic methods of just swapping votes, the 2006 election probably would not have went the way it did. It's possible that they do have the ability, but allowing Democrats to take a majority risks that the Senate or House will take a close look at vote tampering activities. While the basic republican might think that Obama will make us switch our drapes to Muslin, the high
posted by drezdn at 5:42 PM on October 30, 2008


My favorite economic publication and often noted for its pragmatic conservative-centrist approach. Good stuff here.

I would hardly consider the Economist hewing a pragmatic line; they are, in the best sense, an ideological publication. They have some fairly clearly expressed values, and they tend to follow where they lead. It's actually the best thing about the magazine - I recall them having an editorial endorsing gay marriage some time in the 90s, under the headline "Let Them Marry". Not because the Economist has any special love for gay rights, but because the Economist generally has a (self-described) 19th Century liberalism that makes the spectre of the government being in the thrall of religious conservatives as aberrant as they find the government noodling around the marketplace overmuch.
posted by rodgerd at 5:44 PM on October 30, 2008 [2 favorites]


So did the Financial Times, but I don't see them getting a post.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:48 PM on October 30, 2008


If McCain wins though, the Republicans better have an airtight explanation for how it happened.
posted by drezdn at 5:50 PM on October 30, 2008


scody: The Economist... that well-known socialist rag.

political cartoonist Nick Anderson on liberal media bias
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 5:51 PM on October 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


(As an aside, what Obama should do is take a leaf out of Helen Clark's book; after a bitter, vicious campaign where the local righties were dragging out homophobia and racism, while claiming to represent "mainstream New Zealand", Clark celebrated a narrow win by standing up and saying, "Thank you mainstream New Zealand." Obama ought to thank "real Americans", should he win, and watch Palin's head assplode.)
posted by rodgerd at 5:57 PM on October 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated.

ahh, I see, so it was Voldemort!
posted by mannequito at 5:59 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


My two major news sources are NPR, and The Economist. I subscribe to the Economist, and read it cover to cover. I do find that their reporting is objective, the in depth sections are well done, and I feel the same way about NPR. I also like that they present the news from a different perspective than what we get here in the USA. Plus, I hear about things that don't get reported like the Georgia contretemps that was mentioned earlier. I'm glad they've endorsed Obama, though I'm honestly not all that surprised. This year the choice is so obvious, that it's painful. Everyone I know that has any critical thinking skills has made the same choice. The people that I know who support McCain only care that he has an R after his name on the ballot, and can't think beyond that, nor can they give any objective reason for their choice. I voted already here in Colorado, and there were no issues with the voting machine I used, and this is the first time that I've really felt good about voting for president since I started in 1984. I would say that Obama has restored my faith in the system, but I don't think I ever had any faith to begin with...
posted by Eekacat at 6:09 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Out of all the endoresments I have read, this seems the most even-handed yet. I mean, you can't argue with The Economist's measured tone here:

"the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead."

posted by Seekerofsplendor at 6:27 PM on October 30, 2008


This is nice:

Speaking on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show," Obama said, "I think they're a lot of Republican voters out there, self-identified, who actually think that what the Bush administration has done, has been damaging to the country."
...

"The Republican Party (has) been kidnapped by a incompetent, highly ideological subset of the Republican Party," he said, which "means I can still reach out to a whole bunch of Republican moderates who I think are hungry for change, as well."


Nothin' like a little reaching across the aisle with an open hand...so folks can feel comfortable putting votes in it.
posted by snofoam at 7:16 PM on October 30, 2008


When I subscribed top that magazine I learned that there were many countries I never knew existed. And that they were in trouble like the ones I knew existed. The writing is about as good as it gets for a magazine, and the special sections often of interest. Sections on arts and science books very fine, though limited in coverage, but a solid if stodgy conservative paper (they call themselves that) and it has been around for a very long time. A lot of what is in their mag can be read online, free.

Nice that they endorse but after all then most of the world endorses in one or another way Obama. He will d much better in a world-wide vote than he will in our elections, though he should do very well here.
posted by Postroad at 7:17 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Douchebag of the Day: We all know who Number Two is.

I'm pretty sure it's Robert Wagner (but Rob Lowe played Young Number Two in The Spy Who Shagged Me).
posted by kirkaracha at 7:25 PM on October 30, 2008


I think conservative America is changing certainly... but that's also because the party has a history of a constantly changing identity. The Democrats have had a pretty similar viewpoint for about 35+ years now (same strengths same weaknesses really), whereas the GOP constantly seems to be shaped around its party leaders.

That's funny. I've heard the opposite case many times, the idea that Reagan (or maybe even Goldwater) set out a vision for the Republicans which has more or less been the same ever since, and that the Democrats had to reinvent themselves after Vietnam with Clinton, only to emerge as a big money party that was more centrist than liberal, and very big machine, top-down politics. They got whipped during the post-Johnson, anti-war McGovern-Carter era and beyond, up to '92. Clinton is more about him than the party, and although he revived the Democrats and is a brilliant politician, his was a cult of personality and unable to sustain its gains against a Bush administration. Bush, however, was definitely a departure for the Republicans on many fronts. It was more neocon than con, at least for several years.

But labor is dead, is the main reason this happened. That, and the Southern Strategy. The Dems emerged on the right side of the race issue but the wrong side of the labor issue, and besides, who's union anymore? So why bother, right? The corporations have way more money anyway. Well, that means a major plank is gone. Obama's not so much a labor guy, per se, but I think he gets it more than Clinton. I'm not sure how the party will emerge under Obama, but I think it will have a much stronger foundation, mostly because I think the grassroots efforts will continue long after election day. Then, the Democrats really will have a platform again, but it's going to take a little more time to build it. I'm all for it, particularly if people can start getting beyond the hot button politics for a while and get some stuff done for all of us. I had to walk away during the Clinton years, and I'm willing to come back if we're all in it together (and maybe if we could diminish the DLC a tad ...).
posted by krinklyfig at 7:28 PM on October 30, 2008


You know, if you wanted to sum up where both campaigns have come to in these final days - I mean this yawning gap between the basic level of intelligence and human decency on display - I think you could do a pretty good job simply by pointing out that Obama bought 30 minutes of primetime network TV to calmly explain what he stands for and what he plans to do, and McCain's got some guy with an ur-douchebag smirk on his face inviting CNN viewers to fill in the blank with the bogeyman of their choice to smear the bla- . . . uh, Musl- . . . uh, social- . . . the, uh, anti-American Democratic candidate.
posted by gompa at 8:28 PM on October 30, 2008 [1 favorite]


Reverend Wright. He can't say it though cause McCain made him off limits.

I gotta call bullshit on this one. McCain certainly didn't decree that the name "Reverend Wright" is not allowed to pass the lips of any Republican--I mean, how stupid is that? To honestly believe that a slime like Goldfarb would sit there in silence like a complete and total putz for fear that he might offend someone by mentioning Wright when he's talking about Obama's anti-Semitic pals...well, that just defies belief.

I think that the thing is that the Republicans have become so accustomed to being able to just spout whatever crap they want without being called on it that when someone actually calls them on it, they're stunned into silence. (Or, in the case of Sarah Palin, would be better off sitting in stunned silence than making up whatever crap comes into their heads at the moment.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:28 PM on October 30, 2008 [5 favorites]


I was at a meeting last night where David Rennie, the Economist's Europe Correspondent explained why they backed him; Self link to post with audio
posted by quarsan at 11:33 PM on October 30, 2008


Brak: "Hey great, another vote of sanity for Obama. I'm all for that. But...
...it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein.
I don't really see how this argument holds water. The great spreaders of hate in the Islamic world rail against us as Capitalist Pigs and Supporters of the Hated Jews. I don't really think they care too much what color our president is, or what his name is.

I'm optimistic that an Obama presidency will make great strides towards marginalizing the underlying arguments that make Islamic extremists hate the US. I just don't think it's going to end up having much to do with what he looks like.
"
I think it's a very strong argument. Realize: the Islamic world is not a monolithic bloc of extremists.

The real, decisive battle being fought in the Middle East is not between the USA and terrorists, not between "Western Civilization" and Arabs, but between moderates who want peace and prosperity and extremists who will do anything to gain power and impose their will on their neighbors. The extremists' greatest weapon is the idea that the USA is The Enemy, hates Islam, and wants to destroy their society, so that anyone who opposes them is a traitor and that any action against the USA is justified, even if it is against the tenets of Islam (any of this sound familiar?).

Unfortunately, for the past few years, we haven't given the moderates enough support, and we've given far too much ammo to the extremists.

Elect someone named Hussein, however, who's said that he will stand with the Muslims... well, it will do more for the situation in Iraq than a billion dollars' worth of weaponry.
posted by alexei at 12:58 AM on October 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


Cack-handed? Cack-handed duggy. That's my new favorite insult.
posted by bumbleintuit at 1:26 AM on October 31, 2008


Have you had the opportunity to vote for a black guy (or lady) before?

Yeah. I voted for Bradley.
posted by lapolla at 1:37 AM on October 31, 2008 [2 favorites]


Reverend Wright. He can't say it though cause McCain made him off limits.

It really doesn't matter though. Bill Ayers became a proxy for Jeremiah Wright. McCain made a pledge not to bring up Wright (and a man of honor doesn't go back on a pledge), but he said nothing about Ayers. So, everything they have said about Ayers over the past six months, is meant to apply also to Wright. The equivocation of course, is that if you harbor strongly critical views of the American mainstream, which Wright is not shy about, YOU ARE A TERRORIST. McCain found a loophole in his own character, as it happens.

The tragic irony lost in all of the poo-flinging, whatever you think of Wright's and Ayers's core beliefs, they have both produced far more positive change in their communities (Wright's being the South Side and Ayers's being education) than any 50 Republicans I can think of.
posted by psmealey at 1:38 AM on October 31, 2008


That Goldfarb guy deserves a kick the the balls. I seriously don't frequently advocate violence but watching that clip just pushed me over the edge. The McCain campaign is morally bankrupt, and the idea that any Jewish person (I am speaking as one) would fall for this horseshit really bums me out. Happily the polls are saying that almost 80% of Jews are voting Obama this year, which makes me feel a little bit better. The faster we can move forward from the hate speech being spewed by the McPalins the better.
posted by miss tea at 3:37 AM on October 31, 2008


got o'reilly's support :P and colbert's endorsement!
posted by kliuless at 4:28 AM on October 31, 2008


That one guy deserves more credit for the fall of communism than Reagan.

Forget Poland, all it took was a 19 year old in a Cessna to show that the great Soviet Union was a bunch of hot air.

When he said this, with this knowing air, he basically allows the viewer to fill in the blank themselves with their own preconceptions without him ever having to say anything that he might have to defend.

This is exactly what he's doing. He's allowing the viewers own fears and -isms to fill in the blanks. The worst part is that those viewers, the same ones filling in the blanks, would probably not vote for a Jewish candidate because of all the things going on in their heads.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:06 AM on October 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


a man of honor doesn't go back on a pledge

And MCcain is an honorable man. "Throughout his life John McCain has held himself to the highest standards and he will continue to run a respectful campaign based on the issues."
posted by kirkaracha at 7:36 AM on October 31, 2008


Well, paranoid racism is an issue.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:47 AM on October 31, 2008


Nature endorses Barack Obama.
posted by cashman at 8:06 AM on October 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


Obama's even got the support of some Republicans in Nova Scotia.

Now let's see where else in the world people have put Obama or McCain signs.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:21 AM on October 31, 2008


Cashman, thanks for that Nature link. This is beautifully put:
But science is bound by, and committed to, a set of normative values — values that have application to political questions. Placing a disinterested view of the world as it is ahead of our views of how it should be; recognizing that ideas should be tested in as systematic a way as possible; appreciating that there are experts whose views and criticisms need to be taken seriously: these are all attributes of good science that can be usefully applied when making decisions about the world of which science is but a part. Writ larger, the core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment in many forms, not the least of which is the constitution of the United States.
posted by scody at 10:36 AM on October 31, 2008


cj_: Well, the trouble with that kind of analysis is that McCain is in a deep hole, a really deep hole, a hole so deep that winning all of the current battleground states won't be enough. Winning all of the battleground states and PA where Obama leads by 8 points won't be enough. McCain needs to win the following:

1: Every state where Obama's projected margin is less than 5%.
2: States like Indiana and Georgia where Obama might possibly win an upset due to unprecedented early voting.
3: And score big upsets where Obama has a clear lead.

And he has to do this with huge disparities in funding and volunteer staffing. That's why I think that voter suppression this year isn't going to be as severe as 2000 and 2004. The tables have turned, and McCain doesn't the army of volunteers that helped Bush.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:45 PM on October 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


"We all know who Number Two is."

Yeah, we all know Obama hung out with Mussolini. C'mon guys, get with it, it's all ball bearings now.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:03 PM on October 31, 2008


"We all know who Number Two is."

Yes, but who is Number One?
posted by scody at 9:21 PM on October 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


You are, Number Six.
posted by rodgerd at 9:42 PM on October 31, 2008 [1 favorite]


I am not a number, I am a free man!
posted by scody at 12:13 AM on November 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA
posted by Eekacat at 10:34 AM on November 1, 2008


McCain needs to win the following:

1: Every state where Obama's projected margin is less than 5%.
2: States like Indiana and Georgia where Obama might possibly win an upset due to unprecedented early voting.
3: And score big upsets where Obama has a clear lead.


It's not quite that bad. McCain's primary path to victory requires two things:
1. Pennsylvania;
2. Every single state that's listed as a tossup or has a small lean to Obama: OH, FL, NC, GA, IN, MO, NV; plus one of ND, MT

The good news for McCain is that he's had a second favorable poll in PA showing the lead down to Obama +4 (and a stunning 10% erosion in Obama's Democratic support). The bad news is that even if he manages to catch and pass Obama in PA by Tuesday evening, if he loses ANY of the states listed above except MT or ND, it's over.

If he can pick off PA by tomorrow, then he can give VA a shot. In that scenario, McCain would then only need to hold OH, FL, and then hope to land the right combination to get 270 (probably by holding MO, IN, and GA, then either picking up NC or NV/ND/MT). But that means he'd need to close by 2 points today to get inside MOE then coast over the line while he's absolutely pointing VA senseless.

And if things really did look bad, Obama would be in Philly Monday afternoon and Pittsbugh Monday evening rallying the troops one more time while Hillary's drinking Yuengling, Bill's on a walking tour of the Blue Line, Michelle's in State College, and Biden's on stage with the Office cast in Scranton.

McCain and Palin are finally making it interesting, but they've spent the last two months playing so poorly it's amazing they even have a glimmer of hope.
posted by dw at 4:03 PM on November 1, 2008 [1 favorite]


dw: all fair enough, but once you account for the cellphone factor (which has been shown to move poll results an additional 5-points in obama's favor), things start to look even worse than advertised for the mccain ticket. still, if you're on the obama side, it's no time to get distracted from the real contest on november 4th.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:11 AM on November 3, 2008


Wow. Quite a thing they told about Obama. While they say that 'it's a risk to vote for Obama', they also mention that 'Obama is most promising'. Now that Obama is nonetheless elected, it seems the US has taken the risk any way. We only look forward to what's gonna happen.
posted by susanharper at 1:02 AM on November 26, 2008


« Older Lovely Package: The leading source for the very be...  |  The phenomenon of homemade roa... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments