McCain Advisor Calls Palin a "Whack Job"

Better late than never to wake up, I suppose:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, on a “demoralized” McCain campaign: “Palin is going to be the most vivid chapter of the McCain campaign's post-mortem. … Those loyal to McCain believe they have been unfairly blamed for over-handling Palin. They say they did the best they could with what they got.”

***In convo with Playbook, a top McCain adviser one-ups the priceless “diva” description, calling her “a whack job.”

November 5th is going to be fun. And nobody deserves it more than the GOP.

Not Just a Warmonger -- A Hatemonger

John McCain has descended fully from someone who was once better than the average politician in terms of character, to arguably the most dangerous major party candidate in history.

His campaign is, tragically, becoming all too reminiscent of how fascist dictators have gained power
in decades past.

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan echoes the disgust being felt by everyone but McCain's fellow mobsters:

There was always going to be a point of revolt and panic for a core group of Americans who believe that Obama simply cannot be president - because he's black or liberal or young or relatively new. This is that point. As the polls suggest a strong victory, the Hannity-Limbaugh-Steyn-O'Reilly base are going into shock and extreme rage. McCain and Palin have decided to stoke this rage, to foment it, to encourage paranoid notions that somehow Obama is a "secret" terrorist or Islamist or foreigner. These are base emotions in both sense of the word.

But they are also very very dangerous. This is a moment of maximal physical danger for the young Democratic nominee. And McCain is playing with fire. If he really wants to put country first, he will attack Obama on his policies - not on these inflammatory, personal, creepy grounds. This is getting close to the atmosphere stoked by the Israeli far right before the assassination of Rabin.

For God's sake, McCain, stop it. For once in this campaign, put your country first.

Oops, I Overestimated the Competence of the McCain Campaign Again

Last night I mentioned Obama's raising of the Keating Five scandal, and predicted the "response from McCain: a combination of his usual fake indignation, and an attempt to tug at the heartstrings of the stupid by talking about how that was all "in the past" and that it helped shape McCain's current "maverickitude"."

That would have been the sensible approach, but it appears that sense has now completely fled from his entire crew. Instead of playing this down and trying to turn it into a strength, they have chosing to lie about the matter, pretending that it wasn't really that important, it was a political smear job and that McCain did nothing wrong.

Of course, by doing this, they have:

• Directly contradicted McCain's own well-documented words;
  
• Undercut much of McCain's image as a "maverick" who became a reformer because of past transgressions; and
• Worst of all, made this old scandal into news by trying to rewrite history, thereby ensuring thousands of more people learn about it.
  

When this campaign is over, Schmidt and his goons will be lucky to get hired by a high school junior running for student body president.

Phony "Maverick" McCain Can't Even Run His Own Presidential Campaign

He doesn't make the big decisions, Steve Schmidt does. And this is why McCain is no longer the man he used to be -- he has put winning the election as his only priority, and sold himself out to a fairly evil man to try to do it:

Retained in a summer shake-up intended to right McCain's faltering campaign, Schmidt, 38, quickly put his stamp on the operation, aggressively attacking Democratic nominee Barack Obama, often with biting ridicule, and vying to dominate every day's news cycle.

...

The effort peaked with the choice of Palin as McCain's running mate. Convinced that McCain needed a dramatic gesture to make the race competitive, Schmidt pressed McCain to pluck the Alaska governor from obscurity.

Other than the candidates, no one in the operation has more riding on that decision than Schmidt. And no one has worked harder to turn the decision into a success.

...

Under Schmidt, the campaign is a tightly run operation. Previously, McCain allowed reporters almost unfettered access. Under Schmidt, the candidate went 40 days without a news conference.

Schmidt's hard-nosed determination to control the slightest detail is irksome to some members of McCain's staff. One senior aide referred to Schmidt as "message Nazi."

Americans are tired of puppet leaders like John McCain who are controlled by "message Nazis". And that's why McCain is going to lose.

The Last Resort of the Desperate -- Character Assassination

John McCain has clearly lost this election on the merits. Arguably, he never really tried very hard, because it's been abundantly obvious that he really offers nothing to entice people to vote for him, so much as an option to vote against Obama. But now he seems ready to give up even any pretense of offering himself as a positive choice. He's just going to spend the last month of the campaign trying to tear down Obama.

Just one more way that Americans are being given a clear opportunity to either accept the destructive politics of the past, or to move forward. The history of this campaign, I'm pleased to say, suggests that this will be McCain's final shark-jumping. Having the silly lightweight Sarah Palin launching attacks on Obama will, I think, backfire especially badly.

For his part, Obama is pre-emptively launching ads trying to illustrate this contrast, even showing an image of the top of the article referenced above.

"Free Palin"? Give Me a Break.

First they said Palin was being hidden because she needed time to prepare. Then they blamed the "big bad media". Then some said it was part of a grand plan to "trick" people into having low expectations for her.

Well the new Republican "strategy" with Palin, apparently, is to claim that she's really a great smart and informed gal who came across poorly because she was being too "restricted" by the campaign, and that she's going to "revive" the ticket. Whatever.

Frankly, I think the entire thing is exceedingly lame. Palin is an empress with no clothes, but that's besides the point. McCain is on the top of the ticket, and he is the one who needs to "revive" it, not Palin.

Will McCain's Feet be Held to the Fire on the Bailout?

Many folks, including me, have expressed concern that the Republicans might try to ram this bailout package through, then have McCain blame the Democrats for "selling out the taxpayers" or whatever. (Cynical and stupid, but then what hasn't been in McCain's campaign?)

Anyway, seems there is at least a good chance that Congress isn't going to let this happen:

"If McCain doesn't come out for this, it's over," a Top House Republican tells ABC News.

A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no -- that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along.

McCain, taking questions from the traveling media today for the first time in 40 days, said he doesn't yet know how he will vote on the bailout.

But when he was asked by ABC News' Ron Claiborne what he would do if the fate of the bill was in his hands, he said Senate Democrats should not use his vote as the determining factor on the success of the bill.

"This issue should be - and their vote should be determined in how we can resolve this crisis and get America going again," McCain said.

...

Some senior Democrats on Capitol Hill have voiced concern that McCain will continue to oppose the Bush administration's plan as a way to position himself as a critic of Wall Street and the Bush Administration.

If McCain doesn't vote for the legislation, other Republicans might follow suit, leaving the Democratic-led majority to fight in Congress to pass the risky bailout plan.

However a Democratic congressional leadership source tells ABC News' Jake Tapper that Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain "won't be a problem" -- in other words that McCain will vote for the proposal.

Wow, maybe the Dems really are wising up.

John McCain's Latest Chameleon Act: Suddenly He's a Champion of De... Oops... Regulation

If there's been one consistent theme in John McCain's campaign this year, it would have to be its inconsistency. He has shown not only a willingness, but an eagerness, to completely change his entire message on a moment's notice based on polling or what he thinks he needs to do to compete.

He made a big deal about "honor" and "clean campaigning", then tossed it all aside by hiring the same Rove hitmen who went after him in 2000, to go after Obama.

He spent months mocking Obama's change message, then one day we all woke up to find McCain saying he represented change.

He spent months trying to knock Obama's lack of experience and saying how critical that is because of foreign policy issues, then picked a clueless rookie for his VP, whose sum total of foreign policy experience appears to be "You can actually SEE Russia from Alaska! Hee hee!"

Bill Clinton was criticized for changing positions based on polls, but he's got nothing on McCain. His latest chameleon act? After spending years fighting for deregulation in Washington, now we're supposed to believe he's the guy who's going to "clean up Wall Street" -- a mess that McCain and his close policy advisors helped create. This morning's Washington Post tackles this issue head-on; some excerpts:

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.

...

In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand."

...

Yesterday, Obama seized on what he called McCain's "newfound support for regulation" and accused his rival of backing "a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy."

In a speech in Golden, Colo., Obama blamed the economic crisis on an "economic philosophy" that he said McCain and President Bush supported blindly.

"John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," he told a crowd of about 2,100 at the Colorado School of Mines. "So let's be clear: What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."

...

As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for more than a decade, McCain did not have direct oversight of the financial sector. But he sat at the center of arguments between telephone, cable and satellite companies, almost always pressing for more competition.

"I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal in March. He added: "I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated."

I'm not buying this bull -- are you? I don't think many others will either, except for maybe McCain's "base" -- so-called "low information voters" who will swallow any swill he spits at them. But they're pretty hopeless anyway.

"Thump, Thump" -- "Mind the Tires, Carly"

I pointed out just last night Carly Fiorina's rather silly gaffe about the qualifications of her own ticket to run a large company. It wasn't too hard to predict that the McCain campaign wouldn't take too kindly to her comments, but the reaction came even faster than I expected:

A top McCain official contacted by CNN said, on condition on anonymity, "No big deal, but not how you get on the surrogate all-star team. Very Biden-like."

“This campaign source said Fiorina would be discouraged from additional media interviews.

Another top campaign adviser was far less diplomatic.

"Carly will now disappear," this source said. "Senator McCain was furious." Asked to define "disappear," this source said, adding that she would be off TV for a while – but remain at the Republican National Committee and keep her role as head of the party’s joint fundraising committee with the McCain campaign.

Fiorina was booked for several TV interviews over the next few days, including one on CNN. Those interviews have been canceled.

As with Palin, the key point that intelligent observers should take from this has nothing to do with Carly Fiorina and everything to do with John McCain: it's all about his judgment and his decision-making process. If John McCain can't even run a tight ship on his election campaign, how can he expect Americans to believe he will run a tight ship in a presidential administration?

My personal opinion: Carly Fiorina's biggest problem is that she's simply too honest to be on John McCain's campaign. I also wouldn't be surprised if she felt a bit resentful at being passed over for the VP pick by McCain, given that -- whatever her faults -- she is likely far more ready to be president than Sarah Palin. (But then again, who isn't?)

McCain's Golden Parachute Rhetoric Malfunctions

Boy, doesn't it seem like it was not so long ago that McCain and Palin were firing on all cylinders and everyone was questioning Obama's campaign strategy? Of course, that was back when McCain and his Wunderkind Bobblehead VP didn't have to deal with anything of substance. Now that they do, we get a daily dose of this sort of stuff:

"We will stop multimillion dollar payouts to CEO’s who have broken the public trust. We will put an end to running Wall Street like a casino. We will make businesses work for the benefit of their shareholders and employees. And we will make sure that your savings, IRA, 401k and pension accounts are protected,” McCain said.

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, echoed McCain's comments almost verbatim as she campaigned on her own in Golden, Colo., Monday.

"John McCain and I we're going to put an end to the mismanagement and abuses and on Wall Street that have resulted in this financial crisis," Palin said Monday. "We are going to reform the way Wall Street does business and stop multi-million dollar payouts and golden parachutes to CEOs who break the public trust."

And then later in the same article:

McCain's top economics adviser Carly Fiorina, a McCain campaign surrogate who made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows this past weekend and appeared on CNN Monday speaking for McCain, herself benefited from a multimillion dollar payout.

Fiorina was dismissed as the CEO of Hewlett Packard in 2005 after a merger with Compaq floundered, stock prices plunged 50 percent, and 20,000 people were layed off. Fiorina walked away with a $21.4 million severance package.

I've never understood why McCain picked Fiorina as a surrogate in the first place. Was it just another example of cynical gender-pandering? I don't think it's really that impressive to have a female CEO speaking for you when she is widely considered to have been a poor female CEO. Does he really not understand this? And Fiorina herself has on more than one occasion made embarrassingly stupid remarks on the trail... more on that in a bit.

McCain Campaign Continues to Stiff-Arm Truth and Integrity

Again, it seems the McCain campaign is not only happy to lie to try to win the White House, they are unashamed of doing so. They are actively and openly telling Americans they will do whatever they have to do to win. If anything, these people have reached new lows in dirty campaigning, worse than anything even Bush did:

“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”

In other words, they tried to run on substance and convince people that John McCain would be the better president. Americans didn't buy this when they told the truth, so now they are just going to lie to win the White House.

They are daring Americans to penalize them for this, betting that we have become so shallow and unethical that even brazen liars can win the White House. And so far, at least, it's working.

Is the Obama Camp Just Waiting?

There are SO many things they could be telling us about McCain and Palin. I don't want them to tell people McCain is old and out of touch -- they already know, and most don't care. Why aren't they telling folks about his lousy vet voting record, for example? As for Palin, why do so few people know about her radical anti-choice views, her lies about her record, her charging rape victims for evidence kits and so forth?

I hope they are just holding this stuff back. Because if they don't start doing a better job of telling people about these two clowns at some point, they deserve the loss they will earn.

This Is How You Stick It To Lying Republican Hacks

Enough is enough. No more being nice, no more saying "half truths", no more "twisting". Call these bastards out on their lies. Do it every time. Do it loudly and do it often.

Obama Campaign: McCain "Would Rather Lose His Integrity Than Lose An Election"

This is More Like It:

Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

And when they bring up the "John McCain was a POW so blah blah blah", DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! It doesn't matter if you were honorable in 1968, it matters what you do NOW.

Sarah Vanilli Wins the Grammy!

Milli Vanilli was a 1980s pop band consisting of singers Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus, who took the European music world by storm. They quickly landed a record contract with Arista Records, who released their U.S. debut album, Girl You Know It’s True, in 1989. The album spawned five hit singles and propelled Morvan and Pilatus to stardom; in 1990, Milli Vanilli won the Grammy for Best New Artist. Morvan and Pilatus had it all: fame, fortune, adoring fans.

But then they went on tour.

All went well until a live performance recorded by MTV in Connecticut, when a technical glitch resulted in some odd-sounding repetitions in the vocals of the title track of the group’s album. Critics started to wonder if something strange was going on, and began to ask questions. Due to the group’s high profile, Milli Vanilli came under increasing pressure as suspicions began to arise that the group wasn’t what it appeared to be.

Finally, the real force behind the group – German singer-songwriter and music producer Frank Farian – confessed to reporters that Morvan and Pilatus didn’t sing on any of the tracks of the album that shot them to fame. Farian had started the project with several different singers, but they didn’t seem “marketable” enough to him. So he recruited Morvan and Pilatus, who were good-looking models and dancers, to front the group. They had been lip-synching in all of their concerts, and it worked fine until the Connecticut show, when the recording jammed. Four days later, Milli Vanilli’s Grammy was revoked, lawsuits were filed, the group’s reputation crashed, and all the rest of what you’d expect in such a circumstance.

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?

Like Milli Vanilli, Sarah Palin’s candidacy and current image is built entirely on marketing, media manipulation, performance and deceit. The American public has been subjected to a brilliant PR campaign that has painted Palin in a light favorable to the McCain campaign, while Palin herself has done little more than the political version of lip-synching: reading someone else’s speeches over and over again (lies and all). To ensure that the image is maintained, she is meticulously controlled by McCain, and reporters are not allowed to ask her questions. And as with the pop group, Sarah Palin is “winning the Grammy” – moving the electorate – based on what she appears to be, not what she is.

But like Milli Vanilli, Sarah Palin will also eventually have to “go on tour”.

She will have to face her critics. She will have to address her scandals. She will have to participate in debates. She will have to talk to reporters – and not just ones that treat her with “deference”. If she doesn’t, that too will, at some point, make even the most easily fooled Americans start to wonder what the deal is.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that Sarah Palin has lied about her back-story; she is the equivalent of the singers Morvan and Pilatus here: a well-marketed symbol. The dishonesty is coming from the McCain campaign, which is playing the role of Frank Farian. They are riding high right now almost entirely on the basis of a very false impression that they have painted of Palin in the minds of the public, which simply doesn’t know all the facts about her.

Those facts will come out, despite McCain’s efforts. The truth nearly always does; even the Gibson interview is opening some eyes (despite him not being tough on her at all, Republican whining notwithstanding.)

When people have to decide if they like Palin on the basis of who she really is, rather than just listening to her lip-synch along to a fraudulent image that the GOP is peddling, I think we’ll have a very different election on our hands.

Obama's "1982" Ad Could Have Come from a 1982 Presidential Campaign

Okay, I watched Obama's so-called "attack ad" again.

It's bad. Embarrassingly bad. So bad that if I were McCain and Schmidt and the rest of the Forty Thieves, I'd be rolling in the aisles laughing. This crap is not going to change anyone's mind about anything.

Whoever made this ad needs to be fired -- out of a cannon, if necessary.

Either stop with the negative ads or get someone who knows how to write them. They should be sharp, stinging, incisive and still accurate. They should cut to the heart of an important matter. They should be memorable.

Why didn't they continue with the "lipstick on a pig" meme? Because it got under McCain's skin? What's the problem -- it worked too well? It was too concise? People actually remembered it and could identify with it?

Where are the ads on McCain's AWFUL veterans' affairs record, while he is wrapping himself in the flag?

Where are the ads rightly scaring women about voting for a right-wing ticket that wants to outlaw abortion?

Where are the ads showing his true cluelessness? The video of him saying he doesn't understand the economy, for example?

For God's sake, Palin as mayor of Wasilla was charging RAPE victims for kits used to investigate their own rapes! Why doesn't EVERY person in America know about this?!

Are they holding this stuff back to spring it later? I sure hope so. These ads are so bad that I can only hope this is a feint to make McCain feel overconfident. Maybe it is.

It's September, and I'm not panicking by any means, but I am getting a little frustrated at Obama seeming to bring not even a knife to a gunfight, but a plastic spoon.

P.S. Yes, I know there was no presidential campaign in 1982. :P

Obama Campaign Comes Out Swinging - Sort Of

Obama's campaign came out swinging this morning, sort of, launching two new ads and campaign manager David Plouffe has sent out a stinging memo about gearing up for the rest of the campaign.

In new ads out Friday morning, the Obama campaign makes fun of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) because he “can’t send an e-mail.” And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) insists in a personal appeal to voters: “This year, change has to be more than a slogan.”

It’s part of a new aggressiveness by the former frontrunner, who’s suddenly scrambling to contain an insurgent McCain-Palin ticket.
...
Eager to regain momentum, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe cast the recalibrated campaign as a relaunch for the final 53 days: “Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign.”

Obama has been all about change, and polls show this is a change election. But starting at last week’s Republican National Convention, McCain tried to eat Obama’s delicious lunch by claiming to be the real candidate of change – someone who would do it, not just preen about it.

In a memo to reporters and supporters, Plouffe is vowing to seize back that mantle of change after what he called a series of Republican “smears, lies, and cynical attempts to distract from the issues that matter to the American people.”

“We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people,” Plouffe wrote. “We will not allow John McCain and his band of Karl Rove disciples to make this big election about small things.”

Obama also released two new 30-second ads - "Still" and "Real Change" - that, as the campaign put it, explain “What Change Is and What It Isn’t.”

The first ad tries to put meat on the bones of change by urging viewed to “Read the Obama plan for REAL change – Barackobama.com/issue.”

Obama says into the camera: “We’ve heard a lot of talk about change this year. The question is, change to what? To me, change is a government that doesn’t let banks and oil companies rip off the American people. Change is when we finally fix health care instead of just talking about it. Change is giving tax breaks to middle class families instead of companies that send jobs overseas. Change is a president who brings people together. I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message because this year, change has to be more than a slogan.”

In the second ad, an announcer says: “Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn’t. He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an email. Still doesn’t understand the economy. And favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class. After one President who was out of touch, we just can’t afford more of the same.”

In a July interview with The New York Times, McCain said aides “show me Drudge,” but said he didn’t e-mail: “I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself.”

Some Democratic strategists were surprised that Obama was on camera responding to the McCain campaigns attack over the “lipstick” remark, and Plouffe’s memo suggested that Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) will be playing the traditional running mate’s role of doing the attacking.

“Senator Biden will be integral to that effort, both in pushing back on the lies that we’ll continue to see from our opponents, and in keeping the debate focused on delivering for everyday Americans,” Plouffe wrote.

On further reflection, I'm sorry guys, but this is not enough.

First of all, the negative ad from Obama, sucks. Seriously. If they are going to do negative ads they need to get someone who knows how to do them. I doubt anyone really cares if McCain can use a computer. This is not going to convince voters of anything.

Second, talking to the camera is fine, but the people who aren't idiots already know that McCain is a fraud. The GOP is beating Obama at the emotional level, and a silly ad about 1982 and computers is not going to change it.

I'm really trying to give David Plouffe continued benefit of the doubt, but man, he's making it hard.

Obama Should Make "Lipstick on a Pig" the "You're No Jack Kennedy" of 2008

Back to the 1988 election again, and another famous incident, this time in the VP debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen. Raising the same experience issues that are dogging Sarah Palin, Quayle pointed out that he had the same amount of experience that John F. Kennedy had when he ran for the presidency. Bentsen famously replied:

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Over the last 20 years, this has become the archetype not only of the classic debate zinger, but of a meme that takes on a life of its own.

Obama has that opportunity with "lipstick on a pig". Whether he intended it or not, it got under the skin of the McCain campaign. It is short, concise, to the point and easy to understand -- something the cerebral Obama has had trouble with in connecting to some voters. And McCain has used the phrase himself when referring to Hillary Clinton, so his complaints over it are not going to stick.

But most importantly, it perfectly summarizes the entire joke of a campaign that McCain has run into four words. It starts with the central theme that he is something new when he isn't, then adds other valuable imagery: the stupidity of the Palin pick and her vapid self-description; all the pork that Palin claims to be for when she isn't; and the mud-slinging that McCain is so fond of.

Say it early, say it often: "lipstick on a pig".

The McCain-Palin Lies and the Neil Armstrong Principle

Paul Begala voices some of the frustrations that many of us are starting to feel about the joke that this election is rapidly becoming, thanks to the shameless SOBs running the McCain campaign, the toothless wonder that is today's press, and the incredible sucking sound coming from between our electorate's collective ears:

"But facts ought not be debatable. The media have an obligation to point out when a politician is lying about a matter of fact, but the right-wing attack machine has so cowed some of them you can almost hear them moo. Steve Schmidt, McCain's top dog, is a brilliant and audacious strategist. His candidate has had the most favorable press coverage of any politician of the last century -- fawning, adoring, sycophantic press coverage. And yet he is brutalizing the press, waterboarding them into pretending that whether Gov. Palin supported the "Bridge to Nowhere," or hired an Abramoff-connected lobbyist to secure massive earmarks are somehow debatable.

The real debate is over whether the media will be vigilant watchdogs, sounding the alarm when McCain and Palin lie, or fall back to the role they've played for most of McCain's career: lapdog.

The press is so damned worried about appearing "fair" that they're going to hand a bunch of serial liars and scumbuckets the White House on a platter made from their own obeisance. And if we the people don't do something about it, we will soon get four more years of the government we deserve.

Obama is Clever... But Is He This Clever?

NOTE: The scenario laid out below is entirely a hypothetical one. Remember that while it could happen, I am not saying it will happen, and in fact I think it probably won't happen.

--

It’s been a tough few days for some of the Obama faithful, who are getting increasingly anxious about a combination of their team’s dip in the polls, McCain choosing a fringe right-wing vice-president, and Obama’s slow, steady approach to campaigning when they want him to lash out. I’ve already weighed in on this subject, saying clearly that I think there’s nothing to worry about, but it continues to be a concern for many.

In fact, some Democrats have gone so far as to suggest that if Obama doesn’t take the lead back from McCain soon, that he should consider dumping Biden and asking Hillary Clinton to join the ticket. You won’t be surprised to hear me say that I doubt this will happen – it’s simply not Obama’s style to make this sort of a panicky move, and I doubt he would betray Biden in that manner unless things got truly grave (which they are not).

But what if it wasn’t a panic move at all?

Who Suckered Whom?

As McCain’s fortunes have turned in recent days, I’ve read quite a few sneering comments from his more rabid supporters, suggesting that McCain suckered Obama by tricking him into not taking Clinton, so that McCain could then choose Palin. This allowed McCain to take some of the Hillary supporters and other women voters, while simultaneously shoring up his base among evangelicals, and in their view, means Obama has “blown the election”.

Why would this be a trick? Most observers felt that McCain would only choose a woman running mate if Obama did not pick Hillary Clinton. Why? Whatever differences I may have with Senator Clinton, it is undeniable that she is a formidable campaigner, and there simply isn’t anyone on the right at the moment who has her profile or experience. Yet if Obama had chosen Clinton, he’d have brought with her not just her supporters but her baggage: lots of media gossip about possible power struggles within the ticket; Republicans trotting out old scandals and attacks; mockery from the right about him “having to choose Clinton to avoid losing”; and of course, Bill would come along for the ride. In some ways, it was a no-win situation for Obama.

Or maybe it wasn’t.

A confluence of events – the laments about Hillary needing to join the ticket, the wording used by Biden on a Sunday talk show, the meeting between Obama and Bill Clinton this Thursday, among others – put my imagination into overdrive. What if it wasn’t McCain tricking Obama, but the other way around? What if the Biden selection was a ruse from the very start, designed to get McCain to pick a weak female running mate against whom Hillary could campaign more easily?

It’s So Crazy, It Just Might Work

I suppose you might call this the Hillary Screen Pass; it would be analagous to the play in football of the same name where the idea is to get an aggressive defence to attack the quarterback, who then throws a short pass over them to a receiver. A move like this would certainly be risky, and there would definitely be some drawbacks – that Clinton hate machine is still alive and well in the GOP. But the more I looked at it, the more I became convinced that if Biden were to drop out in late September and Hillary were to join the Obama ticket, this would be a game-changer of staggering proportions.

First of all, the flip side of a “boring” pick like Biden who doesn’t give you a boost in the polls is that if he withdraws, it doesn’t hurt you either. On the other hand, bringing Clinton onto the ticket would draw millions of women who were voting for McCain because of Palin. Furthermore, where many of the new voters for Palin seem to be just making red states redder, Clinton would have major appeal to moderates, and could really impact some key battleground states. Michigan and Pennsylvania, two essential states for Obama, would likely go solid blue, Florida would be a real race, and Ohio could become a problem for McCain again.

The big change would also completely knock the wind out of the whole Palin story. She would go from being the big story to yesterday’s news overnight.

The entire political chivalry issue that the Republicans are trying to use to hogtie Obama and Biden would also go straight out the window: it would be woman against woman and Clinton could go straight for the jugular with no whines about sexism. The VP debate would be one for the ages.

As for McCain, his hands would be tied. He gambled on Palin and got a boost of votes, enthusiasm and donations out of the deal; if he tried to dump her, he’d have an even bigger revolt on his hands than if he had just gone with Lieberman. Also, I believe that after the convention the VP cannot be forced off, only convinced to withdraw, and I wonder if Palin would do so now that she’s tasted the national limelight.

Somewhat Random, Somewhat Relevant Observations

So what got me thinking about this in the first place? Just a few things I noticed:

First, Obama and his team have never seemed to lack in confidence throughout the general. It could be my imagination, or maybe they just have nerves of steel, but it’s always seemed to me like they knew they had an ace in the hole. Of course, it could be anything.

Second, Joe Biden’s characteristics make him the perfect ruse for this sort of move. As mentioned earlier, he’s “boring”; this means he wouldn’t cause any shockwaves either by being selected or dumped. Choosing him would also have been a greater temptation for McCain to choose someone younger and less experienced than, say, if Biden had picked Bayh or Warner. Using Biden preserves some of those “stars of the future” for a later contest. Finally, his depth of experience and reputation for running at the mouth at times would both reduce the chances of him committing any sort of harmful gaffe.

Third, Biden is on the record as saying he didn’t really want to be VP. I don’t know Biden well, but his scrappy personality suggests to me that even if he didn’t want the VP job, this sort of political trick is something he would love to be a part of! Consider the answer he gave Tom Brokaw this past Sunday when asked why he accepted the job despite saying he didn’t want it:

“Well, I told you exactly what I thought, and it was true. I, I was very satisfied in the job I had as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I thought I could help the ticket that way. And – but Barack asked me to do it and I had committed to him, and if he wanted me – whatever he wanted me to do, I'd do, because I think this election is so critical.” (Emphasis mine.)

Hmm...

Fourth, a plan like this could be a reason for Hillary Clinton’s solid but unspectacular speech at the DNC. It could also explain why she has been somewhat subdued in her campaigning for Obama so far, and especially, why she hasn’t been going after Palin. Maybe she’s saving her best punches for later?

Fifth, Obama and Clinton have been negotiating over this and that over quite a long period of time, and Obama and Bill Clinton are meeting again this Thursday. Of course they could be discussing anything, but...

Sixth, as pointed out by a reader, Andrew Sullivan has been wondering for a while about why Joe Biden hasn't yet released his medical records.

And last but not least, I personally think the whole primary season “Clintobama Melodrama”, as I call it, has been grossly overplayed by the media. I further believe that the more fringe supporters of each candidate hate each other far more than Clinton and Obama themselves do. Obama is one cool cucumber and Hillary Clinton has been around the block a few times. It’s also been pointed out many, many times that they have nearly identical policy views. Given all that, I feel pretty confident that they could come up with a plan to share power that would work, if they really wanted to.

Okay, You Can Put Away Your Tin-Foil Hats Now...

Anyway, it’s only a crazy theory from an overactive imagination; like I said before, I am not saying I think this will happen, nor do I even necessarily want it to. From what I have seen so far, Joe Biden is an excellent campaigner who is doing great work for the ticket, and I don’t think Obama needs to throw any Hail Mary passes. But Obama is just clever enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if this were in the cards all along.

And boy, would that VP debate be fun! :)