Also, there are some states that truly do appear to be "must-wins" for McCain. In each and every one of the 624 victory scenarios [out of 10,000 possible] that the simulation found for him this afternoon, McCain won Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana and Montana. He also picked up Ohio in 621 out of the 624 simulations, and North Carolina in 622 out of 624. If McCain drops any of those states, it's pretty much over.
But about Khalidi -- he's a fierce partisan of the Palestinian cause, of course, and in my conversations with him, and in his writing, I see that his sympathies frequently cause him to distort Middle East history. But an anti-Semite? I don't think so. In fact, Rashid Khalidi is one of the rare Palestinian advocates who argues, as he has with me, that Arabs must study Jewish history, including and especially the history of Jew-hatred, in order to better understand Israel, and to reach a compromise with it.
SANCHEZ: Now, is the -- I need to parse this out as best I can from you, Michael. The fact that John McCain's organization gave $448,000 to this group that was founded by Mr. Khalidi, is there no reason for some to be critical of as well just as some might be critical of Barack Obama for being at a meeting with some girl read a poem for example?GOLDFARB: Look. You are missing the point again, Rick. The point is that Barack Obama has a long track record of being around anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric.
SANCHEZ: Can you name one other person besides Khalidi who he hangs around that is anti-Semitic?
GOLDFARB: Yes, he pals around with William Ayers.
SANCHEZ: No, no, the question I asked you is that can you name one other person who he hangs around with who is anti-Semitic? Because that is what you said.
GOLDFARB: Look, we know there are people who Barack Obama has been in hot water--
SANCHEZ: Michael, I asked you the name one person. One.
GOLDFARB: Rick --
SANCHEZ: You said he hangs around with people who are anti-Semitic. Okay. Khalidi and name other people that we all know about?
GOLDFARB: And rick, we both know who number two is.
SANCHEZ: Who? Would you tell us?
GOLDFARB: No, Rick, I think we all know who we are talking about here.
SANCHEZ: Somebody who is anti-Semitic that he hangs around with.
GOLDFARB: I think we all know who we are talking about.
SANCHEZ: Say it.
GOLDFARB: I think we all know who we're talking about, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Well, you say that his policies differ from Barack Obama and many other people, and either way, we have the leave it at that.
Now, Senator McCain has served this country honorably. And he can point to a few moments over the past eight years where he has broken from George Bush. Just this morning, the McCain campaign put out an ad that showed me praising him and Senator Lieberman for their work on global warming – as if there's something wrong with acknowledging when an opponent has said or done something that makes sense. I think we need more of that in Washington. I don't disagree with Senator McCain on everything, and I respect his occasional displays of independence.
"Ok guys, the Ayers thing doesn't seem to be panning out. The socialist argument is passable, but I keep forgetting to use the flashy thingy so people don't remember I voted for the bailout. I like the Joe the Plumber angle, but he's getting kinda cocky, isn't he? Didn't show up for the rally yesterday - made me look like an idiot. He won't even return my phone calls...you know what, let's move on. I tried the Democratic triple threat argument, but apparently people want that. I've said maverick so many times even I'm starting to twitch when I hear it. And the experience thing went out the window when I picked Sa... oh, hey Sarah. Didn't see you there. Wait...wait a minute. I think I've got it. Do you think we can find footage of Obama complimenting me? Oh, we have some?? Perfect! I think we've got him now...ha ha...ha ha ha ha...AH HA HA HA...HAAAA HAAAA HAAAA... hack...cough...cough..."
After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.
The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street. "People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."
Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."
When you're watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises. Senator Obama signed a piece of paper committing to public financing of his campaign. Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn't mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn't mean a thing. He is the first candidate since Watergate to abandon the public financing system, and his campaign is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations. His campaign has directly profited from his broken promise and because of that, the American people have to ask: what does the broken promise behind tonight's infomercial say about the value of his other commitments?
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
"Obama, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a constitutional professor or a constitutional scholar. In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutional professor. He studied the Constitution, and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the Constitution, he thinks it is flawed, and now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he?" Limbaugh later added, "I don't see how he can take the oath of office" because "[h]e has rejected the Constitution."
OBAMA [audio clip]: I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
LIMBAUGH: That's not even true. Even if you refuse to call it a fundamental flaw -- just remove the word fundamental -- he is saying, seven years ago, this country has made no progress whatsoever on the official status of black citizens going back to the days of the founding. That simply is not true. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died. The Constitution was a document set up to fix itself, to allow itself to be repaired in the area of individual liberty, and it has been far more than anybody would have ever dreamed back in the days of the founding.
OBAMA: The original Constitution, as well as -- as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not -- first of all, they weren't African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as [program co-panelist] Richard [John] said, it was a nagging problem in the same way that, these days, we might think of environmental issues or some other problem that, where you have to balance, you know, cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth. AND, IN THAT SENSE, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day. [emphasis added]
Despite the way the blogs and the Democratic party are spinning it, I never called all liberals anti-American, I never questioned Barack Obama's patriotism, and I never asked for some House Un-American Activities Committee witch hunt into my colleagues in Congress.
. . .
It's like a political version of the children's game of telephone. I make a statement in an interview. Chris Matthews distorts it -- as he is paid so well to do. The liberal blogs contort it even more. The speaker of the House and aother Democrat leaders utter absolute lies about what was said in the interview. Then the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee picks it up and runs with it, buying $1 million for negative ads so that they don't have to talk about the issues.
And it's the issues that the voters in Minnesota's 6th District want to talk about. Everywhere I go, people ask about the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and they want to know why we're saddling taxpayers with generations of debt to opay for risky decisions by Wall Street financiers. There's a clear distinction between my position on this bailout -- I opposed it both times it came before the House -- and that of my opponent, who saysa he would have supported it.
MATTHEWS: So you think Barack Obama may have anti-American views?I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's the same as questioning their patriotism. Now I don't know how Matthews distorted what she said, I don't know what Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them said about it, and I haven't seen the ads that the DCCC is running, so I don't intend to defend them. But for Bachmann to somehow assert that she didn't say what she did say is the height of absurdity.
BACHMANN: Absolutely. I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views.
In 1994, Mrs. McCain dissolved the charity after admitting that she had been addicted to painkillers for years and had stolen prescription drugs from it. She had used the drugs, first given for back pain, to numb herself during the Keating Five investigation, she confessed to Newsweek magazine. “The newspaper articles didn’t hurt as much, and I didn’t hurt as much,“ she wrote in an essay. “The pills made me feel euphoric and free.”
The scandal broke just as her husband had been trying to rehabilitate his reputation. He had no idea his wife had been an addict, he told the press.
"As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse. During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama. As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better."
The Obama campaign responded by saying that "Senator Obama does not believe that John McCain or his policy criticism is in any way comparable to George Wallace or his segregationist policies." However, they did agree with Lewis's assessment of the increasingly negative and angry tone of McCain and Palin rallies. McCain brought the situation back up during the third presidential debate, accusing Obama of not repudiating Lewis's comments."Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Gov. Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Sen. Obama's record and positions could be compared to Gov. George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign. I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track. I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe" -- here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers -- "We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."
She continued: "This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom."
Full post and comments here...Finally, McCain had this exchange about his campaign's skeevy robo-calls this weekend on Fox:
WALLACE: ... and you said the following [after the South Carolina primary campaign in 2000], "I promise you, I have never and will never have anything to do with that kind of political tactic."Now you've hired the same guy who did the robo calls against you to — reportedly, to do the robo calls against Obama and the Republican Senator Susan Collins, the co-chair of your campaign in Maine, has asked you to stop the robo calls. Will you do that?
MCCAIN: Of course not. These are legitimate and truthful, and they are far different than the phone calls that were made about my family and about certain aspects that — things that this is — this is dramatically different, and either you haven't — didn't see those things
Legitimate and truthful? I supposed that's why Susan Collins, one of McCain's closest friends in the Senate, criticized him for this trashball tactic. Oh, and the "same guy" Wallace was referring to is none other than Warren Tompkins, whose name was a synonym for satan among the McCain inner circle in 2000. I can imagine John breaking the news to Cindy, "Hey, honey, great news! Remember that guy who was involved in spreading the rumors about your addiction to pain killers and Bridget being an illegitimate interracial child? Well, we've got him doing that same sort of high-minded stuff for us!"
"I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
McCain raised a similar charge at the last debate. It's still false. Obama’s plan, which is posted on his Web site, specifically says, “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.” Obama hasn't defined exactly what he means by "small" but he seems to think Joe would qualify; he repeatedly referred to Joe’s “small business” during their exchange. Obama's health plan does mandate that children have health coverage. If Joe doesn't provide insurance for his kids, he would face some unspecified penalty.
McCain used this charge during the second debate as well. We found it False then, and it's still problematic now.
Here's the outline of Obama's plan: It expands health care coverage for those who don't have it by a number of strategies, such as creating national pools for individuals to buy their own insurance. It increases eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. And it aims at reining in costs for everyone by streamlining medical record-keeping and emphasizing preventive care. Obama's plan does not mandate coverage, except for children.
Obama's plan says that employers who don't offer their employees insurance will be required to contribute to the national pool, what McCain calls a "fine." But Obama's plan specifically exempts small businesses from contributing to the pool. The plan does not define what's a small business and what's not. We can't say for sure whether plumber Joe would be considered a small business under Obama's plan or not. But generally, Obama does not fine "small businesses." They are specifically exempt. We rate McCain's claim False.
So small businesses are actually a subset of those who file Schedules C, E, or F. In other words, to reach his figure of over 50% of small businesses, McCain is actually including people who do not actually own small businesses. CNN Money goes on to present the true percentage of people who would be affected:To make its claim, according to a McCain spokesman, the campaign counts as a small-business owner any taxpayer who files a Schedule C, E or F - the forms used to report gains and losses from business ventures and farms. Using that definition and citing IRS data, the campaign notes that "56.8% of total small business income is earned by businesses in the top two rates, which Barack Obama has pledged to raise."
But most people who file those forms don't run a business for a living: Those forms are also used to report income from freelance and consulting work, real-estate rentals, and most other non-salary sources. For example, McCain and Obama both file Schedule C returns, thanks to their book royalties - but they hardly should be considered small business owners. In 2005, there were 21.5 million Schedule C returns filed, according to the IRS. A more realistic definition of small businesses turns up far fewer firms. The Small Business Administration estimates that there were 6 million small businesses in 2005, as measured by those with fewer than 500 employees and with staff on the payroll other than the owner.
Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise. That's because the lion's share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.To recap: Obama's tax plan will only affect 2 - 3% of small business owners (this based on McCain's own definition), and not half of them as McCain has been claiming.
...even if you're one of the rare business owners making enough money to be affected by Obama's proposed tax increases, you still won't see a big hike in your tax bill. McCain's claim that Obama "will increase taxes on 50% of small business revenue" - the line he used in the second presidential debate - is incorrect because of how income is taxed.
"While Obama does favor raising the top two rates, the quote is not true because not all the small business income of those in the top two rates is taxed at the 33% and 35% rates," said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
According to the New York Times, Mr. Wurzelbacher says that he is planning to buy a plumbing business that has profits of between $250,000 and $280,000 a year. While this income would put Mr. Wurzelbacher above the threshold where he could expect to pay higher taxes under Senator Obama's tax plan, the increase in his tax bill would be relatively modest. Under Senator Obama's plan, the tax on income above $250,000 would increase by 3 percentage points from 33 percent to 36 percent. This means that Mr. Wurzelbacher could expect to see his tax bill rise by between $0-$900, assuming that this plumbing business would be his entire taxable income. If he has additional taxable income, then he would see a larger increase in his taxes.
I don't want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other. But I've had a few glimpses of this man at his best and I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It's not for nothing, but he's inspired many folks in his own party and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult. Today is a world away from the cruelty and prideful bigotry of that time - and good riddance. I can't wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.Full post and comments here...
Obama's mission is simple. Kill the clock. Act Presidential. Hope nothing happens. He's winning.If McCain can pull this off, it'll be a strong finish to what has been a poor showing from him as far as these debates are concerned. The only question is what will independent and swing voters care about more: the new and improved McCain Version 7.0, or the fact that there have already been 6 other, more annoying versions? Full post and comments here...McCain's job is harder. He's up against the wall and time is quickly running out. My advice, as usual, is probably the opposite of what his people are advising him. I say ignore Obama. The whole idea that McCain can score some zinger driven moment where Obama curls up in a sobbing ball and admits he isn't ready to be President is ridiculous. Presidential debates don't work like the last act in a courtroom movie. McCain doesn't need an insult zinger, he needs a clear rationale for his candidacy. McCain's once formidable "brand" has been so damaged by his campaign that his real problem isn't creating more doubts about Obama, it is erasing the many doubts voters now have about him. Tonight is his last unfiltered chance to repair that damage.
McCain should borrow a technique from the Palin playbook and look mostly into the camera, directly addressing the home audience. He should imply a gentle mea culpa; the stakes for America are so high and this election is so important that he found himself doing things to win it that he has spent his political life fighting against. That is now over and he will stand or fall on making his positive case directly to the American people. He should talk about being the tough sheriff Washington needs to slam back the special interests in both parties and lead a bi-partisan Washington that will fix the economic crisis at home and protect us abroad. A President not allied to one party, but to our national purpose. He shouldn't sneer and mock Obama; praise him instead as good hearted and ready to mightily assist in this great mission but not yet prepared to lead it. Sell bi-partisan balance versus a one party Washington without checks and restraint. Gently imply that Obama's problem is his weakness, his need to please rather than lead. Leave the nasty snarls locked up in the green room. Forget earmarks and small policy. Talk big and lead big.
Over the last few days McCain has finally begun trying to turn his campaign back in a direction that suits him and his cause. I think the polls will now start slowly moving in McCain's direction. The question is, can they move enough? Tonight's debate is McCain's last chance to reverse his downward course. The odds are long and the advantage is now clearly with Obama. Only the real McCain can spark a comeback.
Woman at rally: I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab.
Sen. John McCain: No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. That's what this campaign is all about. He's not, thank you.
I think when most of us read about this incident or saw the video (also included in the post) we walked away thinking, "Yeah, that's right - Obama's not an Arab." But then I paused. Had I just done exactly what I've been so angered at others for doing? So what if he was of Arab descent? Being "an Arab" or of the Islamic faith does not equal being a terrorist, right?
And she's not the only one who thought the exchange was a bit bizarre. America's most trusted news man, John Stewart, also tackled the tough issue of race and radicalism last night - let's watch...There are more than 1.2 million Arab-Americans and about 7 million Muslim-Americans, former Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, successful business people, normal average Americans from all walks of life.
These are the people being maligned here, and we can only imagine how this conversation plays in the Muslim world. We can't tolerate this ignorance -- not in the media, not on the campaign trail.
Of course, he's not an Arab. Of course, he's not a Muslim. But honestly, it shouldn't matter.
Indeed, he just snatched the microphone out the hands of a woman who began her question with, "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..."Let's hope Gov. Palin gets the "Respect in the Workplace" memo this time. Still, too little too late?"No, no ma'am," he interrupted. "He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."
Well, and that's what concerns me, Dennis, because when I was in the State Senate and statehouse of my state, if someone had voted against the entire state budget because it had too much money for corrections, all of us would have, you know, strained our necks to find out who is this because that would have been a very extreme position, basically saying to a law enforcement officer as I was or my son was a state trooper, "you know, you make an arrest, you risk your life, for nothing" because we're going to make sure that person doesn't go to prison even though the laws of the state require it. So, that puzzles me. Just he ought to admit, "you know, I've got to be honest with you. I was a guy of the street. I was way to the left. I used cocaine. I voted liberally, but I'm back at the center." I mean, I understand the big picture of America. But he hasn't done that...
Posts
All Comments
