Slept between the last post and this. Just took a shower and sat down at the computer. Here’s my brain dump before I move on to projects where I can make more of a difference.

Obama won, but not by a huge margin. The difference is between future and past. McCain looks like Bush, cont’d. I don’t think he will be, unless he vacates the office and Palin takes over, which is a frightening prospect. Still, that’s what he represents. Obama does represent Change, and something more: purge — the need to flush out the last administration and bring in a new one. I think more people want that than don’t.

If Obama wins, the best thing he can do is bring in Bill & Hillary as transition team advisors. They learned a lot of stuff the hard way, and Obama’s gonna need all the help he can get.

If Barack Obama is elected President on November 4th, it will be in large part because of the sophisticated way his campaign has communicated with the American public.

I was in Michigan this past weekend, and drove past the “North Oakland County Victory Office” of the McCain Campaign, just west of Pontiac, twenty miles north of Detroit. A placard near the street read “Get your McCain-Palin lawn signs here!” The building looked like a small bait shop, set back from the road, in the middle of a big parking lot with few cars. No one seemed to be there. On a Saturday afternoon. A month before the election.

This could have been a reaction against the McCain campaign deciding to give up on Michigan late last week. But when compared to what I’m reading about Obama’s organization, the two campaigns are running entirely different ground games. A few examples of what Obama’s been doing:

Here’s an ad that the bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley made in support of Obama. It’s in heavy radio rotation in Virginia:

Here’s a report from the Fulton (MO.) Sun, about the Obama campaign’s use of TTY devices to call hard-of-hearing voters.

Here’s a link to the iPhone Obama Application (pictured at right), which sorts contacts by state (putting battlegrounds at the top), and makes it easy for individuals to find their way to campaign events, make calls on behalf of Obama, or get details on the candidate’s take on particular issues.

The Obama campaign bought a tv channel on the Dish Network. Channel 73 will be playing all-Obama programming through the election.

Here’s some reporting on the campaigns from fivethirtyeight.com; a couple of bloggers have visited both campaigns’ offices throughout Colorado and Missouri. Key section:

Let’s be clear. We’ve observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn’t like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.

The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it’s a whirlwind. People move. It’s a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.

Finally, for those who think Obama’s been too reticent to hit McCain hard: think again. Much of the more aggressive and negative stuff is happening on a subterranean level (although that’s about to change with a national ad on McCain and the Keating Five). Spanish language commercials (radio and tv) are running in New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada tying McCain to Rush Limbaugh, saying he has “dos caras,” or “two faces.” This morning I heard a report featuring a call from a Virginia Obama-supporter to an undecided voter. It began with a reminder that John McCain would be the oldest President ever elected. The caller then brought up the specter of McCain’s death, talked about Sarah Palin’s embarrassing interview with Katie Couric, and then asked the person on the other line if they really want her as their President. In national tv appearances and the debates thus far, in recognition of Obama’s campaign against “politics as usual,” the candidate and his running mate have avoided a negative or derisive tone or even challenging Palin. I think Biden probably could have field dressed Palin last week had he wanted to. Instead, he treated her and her substanceless winking — to paraphrase Garry Shandling– like how “Johnny Carson treated Charo.” (It’s only fair when acknowledging Palin’s winking to also note Biden’s botox. He did, however, answer a few of the questions). At the local level, the Obama campaign has a bit tougher.

There’s a direct correlation between the sophistication of the Obama ground game and the Democratic gains in affiliated voters. In Pennsylvania, registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 486,000 in 2000 and 580,000 in 2004. Now? 1.15 million. In Nevada, four years ago Dems trailed by nearly 5000 registrants. They currently hold an 80,000 voter edge. In Florida, the Democrats have added 130,000 more voters than the Republicans over the past four years. If you’re an Obama supporter, those numbers are very encouraging.

Other factors explain this swing, including the unpopularity of the current administration and the downturn in the economy. But it would be foolish to discount the effectiveness of the Obama machine in organizing its base, supporting voter registration (especially among the young), employing technology, and effectively tailoring its message to particular constituencies. Obama and Biden know who their audiences are, and how to speak to them.

Admittedly, I haven’t been following the McCain campaign as closely as Obama’s, but I’ve seen no evidence that there’s much innovation or energy at its core. Yes, Palin has fired up the Republican base. But has that led to more organizing or a flock of volunteers in key locations? Aside from McCain’s increasingly negative ads and his hope that the economy becomes less central to the campaign, a few yard signs are all I’ve really seen.

* Late update: Ben Smith has a piece in Politico on Obama’s “quiet efforts” to target black voters… subterranean for real.

To riff off Bush/McCain’s mantra until they woke up last week: The fundamentalisms of our economy are strong.

So here’s to some economic heresy.

With Bush, Obama, McCain, and most of the media all urging us not to think there are alternatives to Main Street paying taxes for Wall Street - being economic fundamentalists spouting suddenly bi-partisan, pro-banking dogma - hats off to Lou Dobbs (and I didn’t think you’d ever hear me say that) for giving a solid chunk of time to listen to an alternative “No Bailout Plan” by my old congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon, and Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio.

I’m sorely disappointed in Obama, particularly, for joining the Bush stampede to give $.7 trillion to an egregiously corrupt Wall Street. 1 + 1 always equals 2, but this economic crisis isn’t a math problem with only one solution. Obama should show that, his over $9 million in campaign contributions from the banking industry notwithstanding, he can lead against it when appropriate.

As for McCain? He’s put deregulation first for 26 years - enough said.

So give a listen to these good economic heretics, and consider joining them in urging the Congress not to rush us all into a give-away that may not even solve the problem. See my last post for more.

h/t to Crooks and Liars’ very lively comment thread for tipping me off, way out here in Korea, to this CNN clip:

Thom Hartmann has yet another take on a possible “No Bailout” plan:

How Wall Street Can Bail Itself Out Without Destroying The Dollar

For Grover “Drown Government In The Bathtub” Norquist, this bailout deal will work out very well. At a proposed cost of $4,780 per taxpayer, it’ll further the David Stockman strategy of so indebting us that the next president won’t have the luxury of even thinking of new social spending (expanding health care, social security, education, infrastructure, etc.); taxes will even have to be raised just to pay for the bailout. It’ll debase our currency, driving up commodity prices and interest rates, which will benefit the Investor Class while further impoverishing the pesky Middle Class, rendering them less prone to protest (because they’re so busy working trying to pay off their debt). It’ll create stagflation for at least the next half decade, which can be blamed on Democrats who currently control Congress and, should Obama be elected, be blamed on him.

But there’s another way: Create an agency to fund the bailout, loan that agency the money from the treasury, and then have that agency tax Wall Street to pay us (the treasury) back.

It’s been done before, and has several benefits…..(read on)

I’m no economist. But judging by the inability of the experts to explain their plan’s superiority to other plans, I’m not convinced blindly following their rush to a hand-out is the sensible thing to do. Shouldn’t we at least consider the argument that drastic measures should come only when more moderate, less expensive, and more just ones fail?

http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

If you like this post, please spread it: (But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)

1 Comments

• At October 2, 2008, Penelope M wrote:

  "But judging by the inability of the experts to explain their plan’s superiority to other plans, I’m not convinced blindly following their rush to a hand-out is the sensible thing to do"

  Yes, exactly. I'm pretty disappointed right now.

  Some interesting reading on the economic situation--

  http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/09/maturity-transforma...

  http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/09/where_are_the_m_1.html

A little ice-breaker after my fear-frozen last post: CollegeHumor.com also found noteworthy Matt Damon’s comments about Palin leading the US government and military. But they had fun with it, bless ‘em. Enjoy (and h/t to Crooks and Liars).

(And on an educational note, if any of you have student films that so creatively comment on history or current affairs, feel free to drop a link to them in the comment thread. I’d love to see students given the freedom to make this kind of commentary in the classroom.)

http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

If you like this post, please spread it: (But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)

[Update: To learn more about Palin's ties to a disturbingly extreme, theocratic wing of Christianity, see these articles from the Christian website, "Talk to Action: Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith." They substantiate all claims with sources, and are very fair. This article is a good, comprehensive start.]

From CNN: A Feature on Palin’s Church:

From MSNBC: A Feature on Palin’s Witch-Hunting Guest Pastor:

From Palin’s Church in 2005, the Witch-Hunter’s Theocratic Sermon, Followed by His Blessing of Front-and-Center Sarah Palin:

Speaking in tongues is not gibberish; it is talking to God. Bush knew that was true, that God’s hand directed him to invade Iraq and otherwise lead the United States. Bin Laden is equally certain he knows God Allah. Faith healing works. Witches and demons exist in our world and we must engage in magical warfare against them. Creationism is truer than evolution, and should be taught in science classes. Dinosaurs roamed the world 6,000 years ago, at the same time Adam and Eve did. Books should be banned, and librarians that don’t want to ban books should be fired. God wants oil pipelines in Alaska. God supports American wars. Women impregnated by rape or incest should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. Alaska is a refuge for the Tribulation during the End Times prophecied in the book of Revelation. People voting for Kerry in ‘04 would go to hell. A witch-hunter’s prayer to a Roman Empire god will influence democratic elections in the 21st Century Space Age.

It’s good to see CNN give scrutiny to this, though it’s far less of a media issue than Obama’s pastor Wright. Why? Wright was criticizing America’s history of racism and imperialism, which are issues reasonable people can disagree on. Palin’s 2005 preacher¹ believes in - and hunts - witches, the existence of which reasonable people, by definition, should agree is not supported by any solid evidence.

Does anybody else find it weird that a Hollywood actor - Matt Damon - offers more relevant questions about all of this than the mainstream media does? (h/t to Undiplomatic)

And does anybody find it equally weird that Rolling Stone Magazine, as far as I’ve been able to see, has best expressed the outrage any sensible person should feel? Here’s a clip:

Until the Alaska governor actually ascended to the podium that night [that Palin addressed the Republican National Convention], I was convinced that John McCain had made one of the all-time campaign season blunders, that he had acted impulsively and out of utter desperation in choosing a cross-eyed political neophyte just two years removed from running a town smaller than the bleacher section at Fenway Park. It even crossed my mind that there was an element of weirdly self-destructive pique in McCain’s decision to cave in to his party’s right-wing base in this fashion, that perhaps he was responding to being ordered by party elders away from a tepid, ideologically promiscuous hack like Joe Lieberman — reportedly his real preference — by picking the most obviously unqualified, doomed-to-fail joke of a Bible-thumping buffoon. As in: You want me to rally the base? Fine, I’ll rally the base. Here, I’ll choose this rifle-toting, serially pregnant moose killer who thinks God lobbies for oil pipelines. Happy now?

But watching Palin’s speech, I had no doubt that I was witnessing a historic, iconic performance. The candidate sauntered to the lectern with the assurance of a sleepwalker - and immediately launched into a symphony of snorting and sneering remarks, taking time out in between the superior invective to present herself as just a humble gal with a beefcake husband and a brood of healthy, combat-ready spawn who just happened to be the innocent targets of a communist and probably also homosexual media conspiracy. It was a virtuoso performance. She appeared to be completely without shame and utterly full of shit, awing a room full of hardened reporters with her sickly sweet line about the high-school-flame-turned-hubby who, “five children later” is “still my guy.” It was like watching Gidget address the Reichstag.

– and here’s the rest - well worth the read for both its writing and its diagnosis of a super-power become hellishly frightening.

Don’t believe me? Look at what many parents are doing to their children before they ever enter school:

And America wonders why it has fallen behind the world in science.

What do you think: will this topic be addressed at the VP debate this Thursday? Should it be?

http://www.FeedBurner.com).gif" />

If you like this post, please spread it: (But don't tag it "education." That will bury it.)

1. and yes, he was a regular guest preacher, but we don’t invite unwelcome guests to speak to us

30 Comments

• At September 28, 2008, Jane Nicholls wrote:

  Clay

  It truly is terrifying. At the age of 20 I became a pentecostal Christian. I needed to do something I was on a path of destruction. I had a strong faith, I loved God. But man! The church! What it believed! I finally broke away. The day they said God wanted us all to laugh and there were waves of joy washing over us, the so called "Toronto blessing" I thought, these people are nuts!

  I still have a strong faith. I still love 'God'. For me God means loving people, helping people, being all I can be for me and for others. If I'm not making a difference in other people's lives then I am full of crap. Who cares if you can speak in tongues or manifest strange signs of the 'spirit'. That's not demonstrating God's love to anyone, that is alienating God from everyone.

  I think God would be so sad seeing what is done in his/her name.

  A thought provoking post. It is also sad that American politics means so much to the rest of the world. We have an election here in NZ coming up, bet no one knows who our candidates are or what their beliefs are :)

  Jane Nichollss last blog post..A thought for the day

• At September 28, 2008, Jabiz Raisdana wrote:

  Hey Clay,

  Nice round up of the madness that is the current state of American politics. It truly is a sad state of affairs. I too read the Matt Taibbi article and loved, not only its content, but the style as well.

  I am not sure where we go from here, but as an expatriated American, I see very few reasons to ever go back “home.”

• At September 28, 2008, Miguel Guhlin wrote:

  Clay:

  As I've watched this develop, I have several fears:

  1) That the Republicans will win the election which will affirm the role the Moral Majority has played in blending Church and State, moving us to jihad, American style. And, we will be no different than the Taliban enforcing our religious worldview on a world that God has clearly given the freedom of will.

  2) That the "worldview" that is being preached from the pulpits of America, from the White House, is designed to bring about the End Times (I'm not joking, go listen to Pastor John Hagee and the Israel nut crowd about engaging in pre-emptive strikes against Israel's enemies, all backed up with Scripture quotes and panoramic graphical explanations of how the end of the world will happen). I was under the impression only God would determine this...why are they rushing the process along?

  3) This isn't about God's work but using God's word to impose a vision of what a narrow segment of people believe is His will, when in truth, it is about doing exactly the opposite of what God empowered humanity with--free will and the freedom to make mistakes. It may very well be Satan's work that Republicans are about, simply because they want to control the economy (ouch) and legislate morality...they've failed on all counts. This isn't God's work, but man's...aren't they getting the message, scandal after scandals.

  To forgive is divine...please, if you believe this narrow worldview preached from America's pulpits, turn and be saved.

  To recognize all things work for the good of those who love God means that even when evil triumphs, it loses. So, do your worst Moral Majority. . .but please, let us all try to remember the lesson of the Pharisee in the temple (Luke 18:10-14).

  Let us flee the proud speaking of the Pharisee and learn the humility of the Publican, and with groaning let us cry unto the Savior: Be merciful to us, for Thou alone art ready to forgive.(http://snipurl.com/3wpag)

  Note to Clay: I hope this doesn't freak you out...as I recall, you are an atheist. I just want you to know that not all believers in Christ adhere to the worldview espoused. And, I agree with the questions Mark Damon asks.

  Miguel Guhlins last blog post..AVID Conference Notes Day 3

• At September 28, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Miguel, I appreciate your distaste for this particular slice of your religious pie. What you ascribe to Satan I just ascribe to more probable things: bad education, bad parenting, fear to speak out against such things and so allow them to spread.

  I hear you're an abuddhist, but I like you anyway. And I'll defend your azodiacism against the daily horoscope readers to the death ;-)

• At September 28, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I hear you, Jabiz. Living in "godless"(but Buddhist/Taoist) China for five years cured me of any desire to move back to the States any time soon. China is so sane, in comparison.

  When was the last time you read about a Buddhist suicide-bomber, abortionist-assassin, or holy land-grabber?

• At September 28, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I broke away long ago too. Not due to anything as whacked as the gibbering yahoos rolling on the floor like epilectics and calling it god in the final video above, but simply because I read my way out the other side of the faith. (I like Valentinus and the Thomas Gospel, but that was called heresy when the John camp won the emperor way back when.)

  I do like your take in the above. Nicely put.

• At September 28, 2008, A Must-Read Post about Sarah Palin and Friends « Small Town Mamas (and Papas) for Obama wrote:

  [...] A Must-Read Post about Sarah Palin and Friends Posted on September 28, 2008 by bgblogging Clay Burell gathers some terrifying material about Sarah Palin and her supporters. [...]

• At September 28, 2008, Steve wrote:

  Wow... and I thought this was a place where rational discussion happened. Mocking people's religion (and mostly stretching the truth and decontextualizing the facts). I love how you use YouTube and Hollywood celebrities as your airtight intellectual support for such heady issues.

  I, too, have concerns about Palin, as I do about McCain, Obama, and Biden. But, inasmuch as you would have issues with this type of analysis when it comes to the democratic ticket, I would think that you would approach such important issues while staying above the typical media hype, distortion, and mockery.

  Suggestions that Palin endorses witch hunting or sorcery simply because of a visiting pastor from an African country with substantial differences in culture/religion prayed for her is no more sane than implying that Obama is a terrorist for associating with the Weather Underground (and one might even argue that his relationship there with Ayers and Dorhn is much more concrete than of Palin's with a visiting African pastor).

  Some could even interpret your response to Jabiz's comment as anti-American with communist undertones. But that would be silly, right (and I do believe that)?

  So, please spare us the Hollywood/popular media "analysis-as-entertainment" and rise above the fray, keeping your commentary and analysis of the caliber I have come expect from you.

  Steves last blog post..21st Century Skills Election Mumbo Jumbo

• At September 28, 2008, diane wrote:

  I continue to feel offended that, apparently, Senator McCain thought I'd be so desperate to vote for a ticket with a woman on it that I would cross party lines to vote for Governor Palin.

  I hope that I can be trusted to evaluate issues and vote for the ticket that I feel would best represent my beliefs and vision for America.

  There were many intelligent, competent women McCain might have tapped to be his VP. I don't feel that Palin is one of them.

  dianes last blog post..What our eyes behold

• At September 29, 2008, Penelope M wrote:

  Diane, I'm right there with you. There was a time when I'd have been glad to see McCain as president, but this election has eroded what little faith I had left in him after his pandering to Bush these last few years. How do you pick someone you've barely met to be your vice president and potential successor? I just don't get it.

• At September 29, 2008, Steve wrote:

  Diane, I would tend to agree with you there. Although it would be exciting to be pleasantly surprised by her knowledge and intellect during the vice-presidential debate this week, I am not really expecting much. It certainly seems like his choice for VP was a calculated gimmick... one that is going to backfire, I think.

  Steves last blog post..21st Century Skills Election Mumbo Jumbo

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Steve,

  I'll mock ideas I find outrageous to modern reason and human ethics no matter where they come from. Bad religion gets no free ride because it makes people feel good.

  Hollywood preachers like Rick Warren - he's as rich as most stars - are being taken seriously by America, when they're no more intellectual than you or me. I'm not going to disqualify an analysis from an actor (after all, Reagan was an actor) when its reasoning is sound, and its perspective not voiced by more respected journalistic sources.

  If Palin is a believer in apocalyptic End Times - and there's plenty of evidence she is - then, as Damon says, the possibility that she will have control of America's nuclear arsenal if 72-year-old McCain follows the fate of one third of males his age by dying within the next four years? That possibility is indeed terrifying.

  You know about the radical Christian plots to hurry the Second Coming by blowing up the Dome of the Rock in hopes of instigating the "Final Battle" and such, surely. Palin's church seems to be of that ilk. Palin went to that church from her late teens until three or four years ago, when she entered politics.

  You're welcome to respond with where I stretched the truth. Most of the details in my first paragraph come from interviews with Palin, videos of things said in her church (either by her or in her presence). Whether I find them on YouTube or PBS is beside the point: primary sources are primary sources.

  Palin strongly implied she believes Muthee's prayer for her was instrumental in her election win. It's on tape. She gushes about the witch-hunter as a man her god listened to.

  I'm not anti-American, I'm pro-world. America has influences both good and bad, but more and more bad these days.

  And the Wall Street bailout is evidence that America is pro-communist too, in a backwards way: the role of government is to distribute the people's resources to care for the needs of the wealthiest.

  Your final paragraph misses my point: CNN and MSNBC are my sources above, and they (along with the other big media networks) influence this election more than most by reaching American voters and framing the issues.

  So I won't be sparing anyone more of the same if I think it's worth sharing. I will ask you, though, to rise to the caliber you demand by identifying the specifics of my characterization of Palin and her church that you find unfounded.

• At September 29, 2008, Steve wrote:

  Okay, Okay... here's the deal. Most past presidents have been "religious" and most have been of the Christian faith, in all its glory. Many of the most recent ones have had Billy Graham as their religious guide/mentor. So, to single Palin out because perhaps she has made more of her beliefs known - or that her religious practices have been captured on video - does not make the case against her any stronger, does it? You can compare her (or whomever) to whoever you would like and you can suggest that she would want to blow up the world to advance the Second Coming, but all of that is pure conjecture (and perhaps a bit of biased paranoia). All I was saying was that you have to let the facts speak for themselves and avoid "witch hunts" instigated by decontextualized media snippets that do not tell the whole story or do not paint the whole picture.

  And CNN or MSNBC are no more objective than any other "news" source that treats news as entertainment and prefers to follow an agenda than be objective. Just compare how FOX presents the news as compared to CNN or MSNBC. In addition, anyone's opinion, Hollywood or otherwise, has merit. But opinions are still different from facts.

  As far as giving bad religion a free ride, no one is asking that of you. There is plenty of that to go around. But integrity is an issue that transcends religion. Some can profess religiosity for gain just as easily as some can suppress it for gain (or fear of criticism). I have seen seemingly unreligious political candidates suddenly show up in church to "share" during election time. And, I have seen seemingly religious candidates avoid being seen in situations that could be construed as "politically dangerous". In both cases, I would worry more about their lack of integrity and I would their religious views. You can't really judge what's in someone's heart unless you see a lack of integrity.

  I am in no way saying that we/you shouldn't ask the hard questions. I was just trying to make the point that we need to be careful when we present only half of the facts to tell the whole story... to extrapolate the facts we have to come to conclusions that are no longer founded on fact. As I said in my initial comment, I have concerns about Palin as well. I am not running to her defense simply because I am of the Christian faith. I am as appalled as you are at hypocrisy and deception, regardless of one's world view. But don't for a second think that someone is evil based on their faith alone as captured in media snippets. Being a Christian is no more grounds for instant disqualification than is being a muslim, an atheist, hindu, or a jew (but we both know that 4 of those 5 have little chance of getting elected in this country and would probably have to compromise integrity for the office).

  As for McCain's longevity, the stats are indeed against him... which makes all of this still important to throw around.

  Steves last blog post..21st Century Skills Election Mumbo Jumbo

• At September 29, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Scary stuff. She's scary enough, but seeing how people rally around her scares me even more.

  I once wondered how people in (pick your century) could be so ignorant about (pick any number of idiocies committed by humans).

  And here we are in the middle of it.

  I put my faith in quahogs and horseshoe crabs now. Some days I worry about civilization collapsing, and other days I think it cannot collapse fast enough.

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Thanks for the gentler reply.

  You said,
  

  So, to single Palin out because perhaps she has made more of her beliefs known - or that her religious practices have been captured on video - does not make the case against her any stronger, does it? You can compare her (or whomever) to whoever you would like and you can suggest that she would want to blow up the world to advance the Second Coming, but all of that is pure conjecture (and perhaps a bit of biased paranoia). All I was saying was that you have to let the facts speak for themselves and avoid “witch hunts” instigated by decontextualized media snippets that do not tell the whole story or do not paint the whole picture.

  But this doesn't get my point. There are moderate religious types who balance their ancient book's claims with the findings of the modern world and the principles of the democracy and the Constitution - and there are RADICAL religious types who do not.

  There is ample evidence - and I added a link to the website (Christian, mind you) that does much more in depth documentation of all of my claims above - that Palin spent two decades, ending only 3 years ago, attending a church that participates in the same terrifying Dispensationalist Christianity movement that was featured in the infamous documentary, "Jesus Camp."

  So it's more than "pure conjecture," Steve. It's logical extension of her future leadership, based on her well-documented past, as president and commander-in-chief of the United States.

  John McCain should be ashamed of himself. He didn't spend more than a day vetting her. He probably knows nothing about this.

  But his campaign will keep the media from telling us about this by distracting it with the marriage of Palin's knocked-up teen daughter to her (self-proclaimed) pot-smoking, hockey-playing redneck shot-gun wedding victim-to-be.

  And the media will fall for it. And that will dominate another week before the election, just like McCain's non-suspension of his campaign dominated last week.

  The man's cynicism knows no ends. It's appalling.

  Clay Burells last blog post..Good, Evil, Nature, and the Hero - Backwards: Unsucky English, Lecture 5 (Gilgamesh, cont’d)

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  And to more fully respond: when all is said and done, your comment still avoids answering my original question:

  Since Palin's radical faith is documented, shouldn't we fear her?

  To speak of "media agendas" (arguable meme, by the way, when even CNN and PBS feature conservative experts more than liberal) is a red herring. Again, primary sources are primary sources. Attacking the messengers who reveal them is no argument.

  Clay Burells last blog post..Good, Evil, Nature, and the Hero - Backwards: Unsucky English, Lecture 5 (Gilgamesh, cont’d)

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I'm trying to rid civilization of the barbarous ideas eating at it from within. I think civilization itself is a good idea that's worth a try, if we could ever get there.

• At September 29, 2008, Steve wrote:

  I guess we disagree somewhat here, Clay. I don't see her attendance at her church causing her to destroy the world to meet some controversial biblical agenda if she were president, I don't see her supporting the blowing up of abortion clinics due to her pro-life views, and I don't see her looking for witches in the senate because a visiting pastor from Africa had such an agenda any more than I might see Obama supporting Reverend Wright's outlandish claims and actions. Even he dismisses his "guilt by association" by stating that he "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with". I have a feeling that he finally denounced his old pastor and friend simply because he was running for office and the fire got too hot, not out of personal conviction... and that tells me something about his integrity. But these are just my opinions, too. I certainly agree that McCain's pick for VP is very bizarre. In any event, let's stay tuned as to what happens this Thursday with the debates and lets continue to look for evidence that would deem all candidates unworthy of such high office.

  Steves last blog post..21st Century Skills Election Mumbo Jumbo

• At September 29, 2008, Steve wrote:

  I am not attacking the messenger. Media bias is no secret. Primary sources do not ensure that facts lead to logical or fair conclusions. And isn't any faith in God at all considered radical to an atheist (and vice versa)?

  Steves last blog post..21st Century Skills Election Mumbo Jumbo

• At September 29, 2008, Steve wrote:

  To that, I have no beef. Thanks for a great discussion, Clay.

  Steves last blog post..21st Century Skills Election Mumbo Jumbo

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I subscribe to Bishop John Shelby Spong's newsletter, and I am not a Christian. I do, though, like his brand of Christianity. So no, all faiths are not considered equally radical to any non-theist (and not all non-theists are non-spiritual - Buddhism and Taoism, again, are non-theistic. Americans never seem to credit that religion does not presuppose theism, though this is not aimed at you).

  Last week, I bought an Oxford theologian's reference book about the background of the Bible. I also bought a book about "atheology" by a Parisian philosopher. I also bought a book of scholarship about the history and process of transmitting the biblical texts throughout history called "Misquoting Jesus."

  I'm interested in goodness above all, and truth. Not faith.

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Thanks to you too, Steve :)

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Media bias is a popular meme, but the list of studies referenced at the bottom of this article suggest the truth is more complicated.

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I see the possibility that her beliefs in these fringe theories will influence her decisions in the White House. That alone is reason for McCain to either drop her from his ticket or else for voters to drop McCain.

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  And Miguel, to be less flip (that loaded "A-word" label always distracts me), let me say that I truly appreciate your comparison of the worst fringes of American fundamentalism and the fundamentalist Islamic madrassas. It takes a very honest and secure Christian to acknowledge that they differ very little on anything but which book they fetishize.

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  (And Michael, I think you'll heartily enjoy the RS article linked in the post. The guy's a hell of a writer and observer.)

• At September 29, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Conservatives, including George Will, are also questioning McCain's judgment in this reckless VP choice.

  Maybe there's a god after all.

• At September 29, 2008, Sarah Palin in “Head of Skate” - Fun Little Spoof Trailer | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] little ice-breaker after my fear-frozen last post: CollegeHumor.com also found noteworthy Matt Damon’s comments about the absurdity of a [...]

• At September 30, 2008, linzel wrote:

  The last video of children writhing almost makes me weep. It is intellectual rape. My inability to prevent it makes me feel powerless. Call anything religion and you are given the freedom to perpetuate almost any cult belief. The video is a perfect example of group hypnosis.

  I'll have nightmares tonight and hold my own children in tight hugs to protect them.

  I'm still tingling with fear.

• At September 30, 2008, The VP Debate as the Most Important Test in American History | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] is clearly likable, her policies and beliefs notwithstanding. But by putting herself in line for the Oval Office, we can’t let our [...]

Dana McCourt, over at Edge of the American West, puts today’s campaign shenanigans into a context that any college teacher would understand:

to: john.mccain@maverickymaverick.gov
from: dmccourt@youhavegottobekiddingme.edu [Sent On Behalf Of American Public]

subject: extension?

Dear John,

While I sympathize with the demands of balancing both legislative and campaign issues, I cannot, in accord with historical policy, grant your request for an extension on the debate. Dean’s excuses can only be granted in the cases of health or personal emergencies, and would need to be submitted to me in writing.  A physician’s note is also acceptable.

Regards,
Dana McCourt

---

On Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 12:00pm, John McCain wrote:

sorry to bother you and i know this request is late but i have been really busy and i want to call an emergency meeting with the president and understanding all the material is taking up a lot of my time so i find myself woefully underprepared and i am throwing myself on your mercy. can i get an extension over the weekend on the debate so i can present my best work to you? or should i get a dean’s excuse?

thanks,

john

Sarah Palin said yes, thanks, to a road to nowhere in Alaska, a story in Thursday’s LATimes, is one among countless gotcha!s which in sum comprise a sea of bad news across which Alaska’s governor is obliged to walk like Jesus. So here’s a thought. What if the Gravina Island Bridge, the $398 million “bridge to nowhere”, was not much worse than any other piece of pork — just easier for hand-wringers to target?

I mean, hey, if you were a citizen of Ketchikan, where your whole town depends on tourism for its existence, and where your airport is on an island that can only be reached by sea — and where your whole state has always depended on large sums of federal largesse and involvement — this bridge may not have been pork. It was business as usual, and just your town’s turn to score.

Could it be that Senator Stevens was doing his job, and doing it well? Looks to me like the bridge would have gone forward, and never would have been a Big Issue, had Katrina not wiped out New Orleans and required large efforts to rebuild infrastructure there, highlighting porky projects elsewhere in the country.

In other words, what we’re looking at here is Politics as Usual. That is more than enough to explain Sarah Palin’s initial support for the bridge, her change of position after the winds of popular opinion shifted, and her truth-shading after the fact. More importantly, the whole thing says little about her ability to serve the country as Vice President, or as President in the not-unlikely chance that John McCain will fail to serve out his first term.

I won’t be voting for McCain/Palin. But the governor’s porky political past is not one of the reasons.

I’m not really a big fan of the whole “John McCain is so old he can’t use a computer” line the Obama camp rolled out today.  I think there are stronger, more necessary and relevant attacks that Obama should launch.

That said, the activity level on the two candidates’ Twitter pages does seem to back up the overarching thesis.

Check out these screenshots.

Obama’s:

McCain’s:

(Note the “Location” each has signified.  Obama sharply “outsiders” his online presence.)

ShareThis

We must wonder what part of the meaning of "maverick" can be applied to John McCain's cloning of Bush's education privatization policy. Being mavericky most certainly has nothing to do with independent judgment or dissenting opinion that would cut him loose from his more evil twin, W., even though McCain has dropped the threadbare veil of pretense that the Bushies hung in front of their eight years of machinations aimed to crush the public schools, teacher preparation, and the teaching profession.

Perhaps by "Maverick" he means a kind of rollicking riverboat gambling with children's education and, thus, America's future, in much the same way that McCain and Bush would bet America's retirement on a marked deck dealt by the unregulated sharks of Wall Street.

Here is a clip from Bruce Fuller's take on the Bush, er, McCain education platform from today's NYTimes:

John McCain’s fusion to President Bush’s ideological hip couldn’t be tighter when it comes to education. He is eager to expand taxpayer financed vouchers to aid parents who send their children to parochial schools, to “shake up schools with competition,” as he said Thursday night in his acceptance speech. And he aims to further centralize elements of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind initiative, rather than rethinking how Congress can narrow achievement gaps without micromanaging the daily work of teachers.

. . . .

According to a recent Gallup poll, just two in five Americans support school vouchers. On No Child Left Behind, four in five believe they should be revamped by Congress, to de-emphasize standardized tests. Mr. McCain’s speech alleged that Mr. Obama wants schools answerable to “entrenched bureaucrats,” rather than to parents, yet it’s the Republican candidate who still supports Washington’s maze of rules under the No Child Left Behind legislation.

Mr. McCain’s push to privatize schooling also surfaces in his pitch to have Washington pick after-school tutoring companies, removing this authority from local school boards. These budding corporations, sniffing out a vast new market, see better prospects if they can directly lobby federal officials, not unlike the inside politics of winning farm subsidies.

On early education, Republican leaders have been silent, even though quality preschools pack a strong punch in boosting young children’s learning. Mr. McCain has repeatedly voted against bipartisan proposals to expand and improve Head Start preschools.

In response to my last political post, the subject of High Road vs. Low Road was brought up. One comment suggested that I thought Obama’s was the former while McCain’s was the latter. In fact I was suggesting that both roads were tactics used by both candidates, and that I feared the election would be won and lost, as it usually is, by fighting along the low road to election day.

My current favorite reporting about road-taking comes from the St. Petersburg Times, which keeps up with both campaigns via the Politifact.com Truth-o-Meter. To each statement by each candidate and their campaigns (including emailings by candidates and parties), they sort statements into True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants on Fire. Currently those3 sort out this way :

Some of the rulings are generous. For example, they found Sarah Palin’s claim that she put the state’s jet up for sale on eBay is true, even though it wasn’t sold on eBay.

As H.L. Mencken said, Looking for an honest politician is like looking for an ethical burglar. (More good quotes — all correct — here.*)

For what it’s worth, I favor Obama for two main reasons. One is that I’d rather see the country run on the ethics of empathy rather than those of fear. The other is that McCain and Palin are both warriors at heart (McCain was ready for war with Iraq right after 9/11, and Palin preached that the Iraq war was part of God’s “plan”) — and we’ve had eight bad years of that already.

I also think Obama is more likely to nominate top-notch non-ideological judges and to reform government in general. Also that he is less likely to screw up the Internet, which is the single best thing the world has going for itself. Finally, that he’ll restore the faith of the rest of the world in the sanity of the U.S. electorate and its government.

As for the economy, I think McCain understands the private sector — and the good it does — far better than Obama. If I were voting by my economically consevative and Libertarian sympathies alone, I’d favor McCain. But this election isn’t about that. This election is about throwing the old bums out and trying some new ones.

Back to the War Issue.

A few decades back Penelope Maunsell said of a former employer that “His management style was to find a problem and intensify it”. Same goes for politicians. There are exceptions, but that’s close to a rule.

I don’t doubt that John McCain is a first-rate military man. His experiences as a prisoner of war obviously strenghtened his character and equipped him with a high degree of sympathy for those suffering injustice, as well as for members of the armed forces. But John McCain shared with George W. Bush the urge to solve the problem of terrorism with the use of force, and lots of it. I don’t doubt that this response was exactly what Osama Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders were looking for.

Even if the Surge is working (and I’m inclined to agree that, on the whole, it is), that does not excuse McCain from having supported the Iraq War in the first place. That war has not only killed countless thousands (beyond the counted thousands of our own casualties), but put the country terribly in debt, weakened our military positions elsewhere, and diminished our reputation throughout the world. It was strategically wrong, in a huge way. McCain’s bad judgement on this count alone is reason enough not to elect him.

[Later...] Calvin Dodge points to RedState’s take on FactCheck.org’s take on Palin’s acceptance address.