Wall Street Takes Welfare It Begrudges to Women

By Mimi Abramovitz
WeNews commentator

The bailout of Wall Street is particularly galling for women on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, says Mimi Abramovitz. They've already spent the past 30 years steadily losing ground without anyone seeming to notice or care.

Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's eNews.

(WOMENSENEWS)--Today we sit and watch as the high-rolling gamblers and critics of "big government" take welfare. These are many of the same people who thought it was just fine to deprive millions of women of critical resources and let them fend for themselves.

Even before the catastrophic news out of Wall Street in recent days, women have been worried about their economic security.

Last March a Gallup poll found that in the past two years more women than men said that they worry about the economy (64 percent versus 57 percent). The same holds for health care, crime, the environment, drug use, unemployment, hunger and homelessness.

More...

More men are employed by Wall Street and more men have money invested there. That means the male anxiety meter is probably much higher now that they risk losing their jobs, pensions, portfolios and homes. But women's worries have probably shot up even more.

Women are likely to lead in the economic-anxiety gap because distressing economic events fall harder on people with less. "I don't play the stock market, but it does affect us. It affects me personally. It affects the little guy," a female dispatch supervisor of a limo company that serves investment bank employees recently told the New York Times.

The same holds for all the secretaries and housekeepers who keep investment houses clean and running.

Decades of Lost Ground

But what makes the bailout of the fat tomcats so galling is that women at the bottom of the economic ladder have lost ground during the last 30 years, with very few seeming to notice or care.

From F.D.R.'s New Deal in the 1930s to L.B.J.'s Great Society in the 1970s, the expansion of government programs for the middle class and the poor--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public assistance, as well as health and social services--provided a modest economic backup for women who predominate among recipients.

Great Depression leaders who saw government as the solution to that economic crisis bailed out banks in exchange for tighter regulations to curb speculation. But they also created cash-assistance programs that increased women's purchasing power and protected them against economic hardship.

Those programs redistributed income downward and expanded the capacity of the federal government to kick-start the economy while cushioning consumers and workers from the vagaries of the market.

Beginning with President Carter in the mid 1970s, our leaders changed their tune, blaming economic woes on "big government." Successive administrations relaxed the rules on financial markets and cut funding for the safety net.

Benefits Didn't Trickle Down

Advocates of "less government" promised that benefits would "trickle down" to the rest of us. Instead their laissez-faire strategy weakened government benefits, one of the three interlocking pillars of economic support counted on by thousands of women from all walks of life.

The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that government spending for domestic discretionary programs fell from a high of 4.8 percent of national output, or gross domestic product, in 1978 to 3.4 percent in 2007. That equals billions of dollars in cuts. Except for rising health care costs, spending on entitlement programs--such as Social Security, unemployment insurance and public assistance--also fell from 8.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 1983 to 7 percent in 2007.

During the past eight years, war spending zoomed ahead, bringing us to the present spectacle, where we see U.S. military spending exceeding that of the rest of the world combined.

Meanwhile, Bush tax policies diverted dollars from public services and boosted corporate profits to a record high of almost 14 percent of national income while the share going to wages dropped to its lowest level since 1929. Combined with relaxed government oversight and rampant speculation the way was paved for abusive mortgage practices that turned Wall Street into one big profit bubble waiting to pop.

With these excesses as a backdrop, women saw their other two pillars of economic security weaken as well: marriage to a wage-earner and paid employment.

Falling marriage rates combined with three decades of sagging male breadwinner wages have undercut the capacity of matrimony to provide women with the financial security it once offered.

Wobbling Wages and Work

From 1979 to 2006, the real value of the median weekly wage of men 25 years and older fell steadily to $797 from $807.

The massive entry of women into the work force since World War II--one of the most significant social trends in modern U.S. history--gave them a third pillar of support. But this too is now wobbling.

As male wages stagnated many women went to work--not as a matter of choice, as headlines about women opting in and out might suggest--but just to make ends meet. Between 1970 and 2005 the proportion of married couples with two earners jumped to 62 percent from about 46 percent, Labor Department data show. The U.S Women's Bureau finds wives' contribution to family income rose to 35 percent from 26 percent.

But many of today's 68 million wage-earning women have recently suffered more job losses than men and a larger drop in wages than the general population, according to the Women's Bureau. In 2006 full-time female workers earned an average of $627 week or about $32,000 a year.

While we watch the spectacle of the government channeling untold billions of taxpayer dollars into failing Wall Street giants the three pillars of economic support for women--the safety net, marriage and wages--continue to crumble.

The public bailout of corporate America may be necessary given the risks of a collapse to the global economy. But why is it that the rich and reckless accept "welfare" for themselves while steadfastly rejecting the same for women in need? It's time to take a billion here and there to assist the women raising families on too little income to keep a roof over their heads.

Mimi Abramovitz, the Bertha Capen Reynolds Professor of Social Policy at Hunter College School of Social Work, is the author of "Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Policy From Colonial Times to the Present," the award-winning "Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the U.S." and co-author of "Taxes Are A Women's Issue: Reframing the Debate." She is currently writing "Gender Obligations: The History of Low-Income Women's Activism Since 1900."

Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

Economists Fear Bailout Could Tighten Squeeze on Women

By Allison Stevens
hington Bureau Chief

As policymakers craft a Wall Street bailout, budget experts with women's policy groups worry about the fate of public programs and hail some Democratic provisions. Some activists and pundits, meanwhile, reiterate protests against the Iraq war.

WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--Congress is working at a fevered pitch to rush through a massive $700 billion emergency spending measure to bail out the ailing banking industry and protect the economy.

Lawmakers sparred Thursday over the broad outlines of the bill, and congressional leaders hoped an agreement could be reached in time to schedule a vote on final passage before the end of the weekend.

But women are headed for financial trouble whether the bill wins passage or not, women's rights advocates say.

"It's bad news all around for women," said Vicky Lovell, director of employment and work-life programs at the Institute for Women's Policy Research, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that focuses on women's economic issues. "I don't see anybody predicting that there's a way out of this that's going to be good for consumers or taxpayers in general, or for women."

More...

The proposed $700 billion bailout introduced by the administration amounts to about $150 billion more than has been spent to date on the war in Iraq, according to the National Priorities Project, a research organization in Northampton, Mass.

As lawmakers went back and forth over the details of the banking bailout bill, Joan Entmacher, a budget expert at the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C., took a dim view of the overall economic prospects for women.

Bleak Forecast

If the bill does not pass, and the economy worsens, women will suffer most because they have less wealth than men and are more vulnerable in economic downturns, she said.

If Congress does clear the bill, its high cost will put a fiscal squeeze on government programs that aid low-income people, most of whom are women, she said.

Under the plan debated Thursday, the federal government would assume $700 billion in bad debts of troubled financial firms to help them keep lending spigots open to individual and business borrowers. These measures are expected to help stem layoffs and deeper losses for retirement accounts tied to credit-hungry financial markets.

The high price of the package will have a similar--but potentially more profound--effect on the budget as the war in Iraq and the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, Entmacher said.

Those big-ticket items prompted lawmakers to rein in government health care programs, she said. More likely to live longer and to live in poverty, women--especially women of color--are the main beneficiaries of these programs, Entmacher said.

Women's rights advocates were hoping for the inclusion of two provisions advocated by Democrats earlier this week: helping certain borrowers avoid foreclosure and creating a federal fund to insure money market accounts.

"Because they've been disproportionately affected by predatory lending, this could be especially important to women," Entmacher said.

Despite using credit at rates comparable to men and averaging slightly higher on credit scores--682 versus 675--women have a disproportionate share of the high-priced "sub-prime" loans, putting them at higher risk of foreclosure, according to a 2006 report by Allen Fishbein, a scholar at the Consumer Federation of America, a think tank and lobby in Washington, D.C. About one-third of female borrowers took on sub-prime mortgages compared to about one-quarter of men.

Money Market Funds

A Democratic proposal circulated earlier this week also included an insurance plan for money market funds--low-risk, low-interest reservoirs of capital that invest in safe forms of debt. The plan would be modeled on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which was created in the wake of the Great Depression to insure bank deposits.

That would be especially helpful to women, said Lovell, of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, because women tend to have less personal savings and therefore are more inclined to invest in money market accounts, which have traditionally been viewed as safe havens. Several major money markets have collapsed during the crisis and fears that others could be at risk, however, have spurred the idea of federal insurance.

It was unclear Thursday if these provisions would end up in the final bill when a deal is reached.

Lovell also noted that Democrats' push to curb executive pay at the institutions that received federal aid--initially opposed by the White House and many Republicans as excessive regulation--would affect far fewer women because they hold fewer executive positions.

The guns-and-butter debate that typically emerges in wartime when another major cost arises has yet to rear its head in Congress.

But Leslie Wolfe, president of the Center for Women Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., a research group that focuses on women's human rights, predicted the onset of such discussions. So many people are "shell shocked" by the crisis that they haven't begun to discuss issues beyond the pending legislation in Congress, she said.

Anti-War Protests Revived

But female anti-war activists and pundits who have long criticized the Iraq war mobilized this week.

Code Pink, the anti-war group led by women and based in Venice, Calif., staged protests on Wall Street Thursday, calling on the government to pay for the bailout bill with new taxes on upper-income Americans and on financial transactions.

"They continue to find money for what they need, and borrow it, but they never find money for what the people of America need," said Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

"Welcome to Economic Shock and Awe," Ariana Huffington, founder of the online Huffington Post Web site wrote, comparing the rush to bailout to the Bush administration's rush to war. "Even the amount of taxpayer money being bandied about--$1 trillion--is similar. Think you got your money's worth for the Iraq war? Congratulations--you're about to buy another pricey debacle."

Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women in New York, said women are especially vulnerable during economic downturns because they are more likely to be unemployed than men; as a result they have less money and face longer periods without regular income. If they do have a job they tend to make less, have fewer benefits or have part-time positions, she said.

Women are also more likely to hold minimum wage jobs, to leave the work force to shoulder caregiving responsibilities, and earn less than men in similar jobs, advocates say. Women also save less money and have smaller pensions or retirement accounts.

"We have fewer assets and fewer savings than men and therefore we are very worried about personal financial security," said Debbie Frett, head of Business and Professional Women USA, a Washington-based lobby for businesswomen.

In the last two years, more than 200,000 women have left jobs in the financial sector of the economy, but the number of men employed in such jobs has remained stable, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor. That suggests to Lovell that the bulk of those laid off in the sector have been women.

Allison Stevens is Washington bureau chief at Women's eNews.

Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at editors@womensenews.org.

Thousands Go Online to Rate the Debates

WASHINGTON -- Free Press and the Tyndall Report are teaming up to give thousands of Americans a chance to instantly rate the media's performance during the four upcoming debates. Using the "Citizens Media Scorecard," viewers across the country will provide real-time feedback on how well the moderators' questions reflect the priorities of the nation.

More...

More than 7,000 people have already signed up to participate at www.RatetheDebates.org.

Noted media analyst Andrew Tyndall will use the online ratings to provide instant and meaningful analysis of the public's response. This information will be made available to journalists following the completion of each of the four presidential and vice presidential debates.

"We leave it to the spin-meisters to try to persuade us whether their candidate got his nose in front in the horse race," said Tyndall. "Our scorecard is an exercise in democracy. Which issues were overhyped and which were overlooked? Which leadership attributes of each candidate were addressed and which ignored? How about moderator Jim Lehrer's journalistic performance? Did he truly help us understand what is at stake in this election?"

Recent polling by Harris Interactive found that the economy and the Iraq war are the two issues Americans are most concerned about. There was widespread public outcry after the final Democratic primary debate when moderators from ABC News devoted the first 45 minutes to questions about flag pins, former pastors and personalities before raising a single question about either of those two issues.

"Debates are marquee moments in American elections," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press. "The few journalists selected to participate -- and the media narrative that follows -- will play a defining role in determining our next president. It's up to the public to hold our media -- and through them, our leaders -- accountable."

Andrew Tyndall, Timothy Karr and other Free Press experts are available for comment before and after each debate. To schedule an appearance, contact Jen Howard at (703) 517-6273 or press@freepress.net.

For more information, visit www.RatetheDebates.org.

###

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net

The Tyndall Report has monitored the weekday nightly newscasts of three broadcast networks since 1987. This is Andrew Tyndall's sixth cycle keeping tabs on TV news coverage of the presidential election campaigns. Go to www.tyndallreport.com to follow each day's story rundown and search its database of almost 9,000 network news videostreams, including more than 1100 stories appearing on the network news on Campaign 2008.

This blog was hit again

I was unable to make any posts to this blog since Friday,September 19. Finally this morning I have been able to post to the blog. Unfortunately now, however, the blog has been categorized as a "spam blog", which I'm trying to remove. I can't help but wonder if this is related to the paid bloggers the Obama camp has hired, and the narrowing of the polls in Washington State.

McCain Campaign Blasts the New York Times - TOM BEVAN, Real Clear Politics

On a conference call with reporters just now, McCain campaign senior advisor Steve Schmidt absolutely lit in to the New York Times. Schmidt made his remarks after Rick Davis answered a question from CNN's Dana Bash about today's story in the Times regarding his former work for the Homeownership Alliance, an advocacy group of 19 member organizations which include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Schmidt said:

But let's be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization. It is pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Senator McCain, attacks Governor Palin, and excuses Senator Obama. There's no level of public vetting with regard to Senator Obama's record, his background, his past statements. There's no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150% in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be. But let's not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.
Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective: that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate - in this case John McCain - and to advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.

UPDATE: Here's audio of the entire conference call.

Obama's Social Security Whopper - factcheck.org

He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.

Summary

In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.

More...

Analysis

In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.

What Obama Said

In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:

Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.

Who Would Have Been Affected

As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," released in February 2005:

Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.

It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's.

Disappearing nest eggs?

Also worth noting here:

• The private accounts would have been voluntary. Anybody fearful of the stock market's risk could simply stay in the current system.
  
  
• Obama's reference to "casino culture," disappearing "nest eggs" and gambling with "your life savings" are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little under one-third of any workers' total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 12.4 percent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.)
  
  Correction, Sept. 22: Our original story incorrectly said the rate was 15.3 percent, but this figure included Medicare taxes. We also said what would have gone into private accounts would have been just over one-fourth of Social Security taxes, but the true figure is closer to one-third.
  
  
• Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds.
  
  
• While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush's 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term "Social Security" on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: "No documents were found."
  

Footnote: When we contacted the Obama campaign for comment, spokesman Tommy Vietor defended Obama's remarks as accurate:

Vietor: You don’t have to be retired to rely on Social Security. Millions of people who will one day retire rely on Social Security as they plan their future. Senator Obama's bottom line is absolutely true. If McCain got his way and we had private accounts . . . people who are relying on that money for their retirement would be in a very difficult situation.

We would grant Vietor a point if Obama had made any mention of workers being fearful of their future retirement (although this would apply only to those who had chosen to participate in private accounts, and not to everybody.) But Obama did not say that. Instead, he referred to "elderly women" in danger of poverty. He spoke of families "scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers" a secure retirement – not to families worrying about their own retirement. If Obama did not mean what he said to be a reference to current retirees, he could say so clearly and amend his words.

-by Brooks Jackson

Sources

The White House, "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," Feb 2005.

Dow Jones & Co. "Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Performance" Spreadsheet accessed 20 Sep 2008.

Related Articles

Scaring Seniors

An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!

Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees

Democrats call it a "cut." Compared to what?

False Attacks Over "Windfalls" to Wall Street

We find that brokers netted only 16 cents in fees to manage a $10,000 retirement account under the federal retirement system on which Bush is modeling his private Social Security accounts.

Sarah Palin on feminist issues / Great Website!

Posted at Reclusive Leftist ( a great website), reposted here to share:


Governor Sarah Palin and daughter Piper at Riverbend Elementary School in Juneau.

Sarah Palin calls herself a “pro-life feminist.” Basically, that’s feminism minus abortion rights.
Obviously that puts her at odds with modern American feminism on a crucial issue. But to hear tell from the many feminist writers now publishing furious editorials, Sarah Palin isn’t just out of step on that one issue. She is, according to them, the antithesis of everything feminism means.
Really?

I thought I’d start a collection of Palin’s own statements on feminist issues. I post these for now without comment; that’ll come later. From what I can tell, the feminist writers who are attacking Palin are doing so with an astonishing disregard for the truth. I’m still trying to sort out why. More...

---

Sarah Palin on combining motherhood with a career: “To any critics who say a woman can’t think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I’d just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave.”

Sarah Palin on her ability to govern Alaska while raising children: “My answer would always be … that I’m going to do the job just as well as any male governor who had kids, you know, I think we can handle this.”

Sarah Palin on raising her children to embrace gender equality: “Because I have both boys and girls I have a greater respect for equality and making sure that gender is not an issue and that everyone is treated equally.”

Sarah Palin on being a “pro-life feminist”: “I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life.”

Sarah Palin on contraception and sex education: “I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also.”

Sarah Palin on whether she would support an abortion ban in Alaska if Roe v. Wade were overturned: “It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.”

Sarah Palin on a woman president and endorsing McCain instead of Hillary (March 2008): “But I have to admit a little bit of guilt there for not being able to jump on Hillary’s bandwagon, because I would so love to see a woman president. I think our nation is overdue there. So, I’ve said along, ‘Heck yeah, America’s ready for a woman president.’”

Sarah Palin on being the first female governor of Alaska: “I’m the first female governor in Alaska, so that’s brought with it kind of a whole new chapter in Alaska’s life. Like my husband — up here they refer to him as the ‘first dude,’ not the first gentleman. And Todd… A whole new chapter here when Todd is asked to do things like — and he graciously complies and he has a good time doing it — hosting, as he did a couple of weeks ago down in Juneau, our capital city, the former first ladies tea party. And he does just great at things like that, as well as working in oil fields, with snow machines and in commercial fishing. That’s a dynamic here that’s of interest to others.”

Sarah Palin on Title IX, sports, and growing up with gender equality: “You know I grew up with Title IX, and sports were so big, and in my upbringing very instrumental in shaping my character and a need to compete and really to win. So because of a very athletic background and growing up in a family, a busy large family, where gender never was really an issue there. My dad expected us to be back there chopping wood and snowmachining with the rest of them, hunting and fishing and doing all those things that are quite Alaskan.”

Sarah Palin on sports, scholarships, and the beauty pageant: “Graduating high school in 1982 there weren’t a whole lot of high-school athletes, females going on to college to play sports yet. That’s what I was looking for, a scholarship in athletics. I didn’t get one, the next best thing would be the Miss America scholarship pageant where at least you had to show that you had a talent. I played the flute and was really into music so, you know I won a couple of titles there, and it paid tuition through four, five years of college. So, that was OK, it wasn’t really my thing, I was never really comfortable with it, but it paid for some college, though.”

Sarah Palin on the challenge for Hillary and other women candidates to appear “tough”: “I recognize that Hillary seems to be trying real hard to be tough, but I say, more power to her. I think she’s had to do that. It’s unfortunate that she’s had to do that, but she comes across to me as tough, capable. I can respect that in her, that she is that tough, capable and experienced and all that….I recognize that’s what she’s trying to do and I think it’s unfortunate that maybe a woman candidate feels that she has to go there. You don’t see male candidates doing that.”

Sarah Palin on dealing with the double standard applied to women candidates: “Fair or unfair—and I do think that it’s a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that’s unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you’re getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a women candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don’t think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it’s reality and it’s a given, people just accept that she’s going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate.”

Posted by Violet in Election 2008

Media is Obama's Not-So-Secret Weapon - Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard

When Barack Obama announced his presidential candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, on February 10, 2007, he promised to change the practice of American politics.

This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice--to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not.

Obama told the crowd on that chilly day that he was running "not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation." He was particularly concerned with the way politicians run for office. He decried "the smallness of our politics" and "the chronic avoidance of tough decisions" and politicians who win by "scoring cheap political points." All of this, he said, had led voters to look away in "disillusionment and frustration."

"The time for that politics is over," Obama said.  
Or maybe not.

This past week at a campaign rally, Obama told his supporters to challenge Republicans and independents skeptical of his candidacy. "I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

This is the newer, tougher Obama. The avatar of a new American politics of hope is gone, replaced by a no-nonsense practitioner of the old politics. His campaign is now less the vehicle of your hopes and your dreams than a vehicle of your frustration and your anger.More...

You might think that this walking, talking contradiction would be the focus of intense media scrutiny--hypocrisy being a staple of modern political reportage--but you'd be wrong.

The media line on the new Obama is simple: It's John McCain's fault. Barack Obama would like to win the presidency the right way but McCain won't let him.

According to the press, in recent weeks, the McCain campaign has so distorted Obama's record and campaign proposals that the young senator has had no choice but to fight back with old-school tactics. "McCain's tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns," wrote Politico's Jonathan Martin. "In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical."

And so while McCain's every utterance is factchecked and factchecked again in an attempt to shame him from challenging Obama too aggressively, Obama gets a pass.

Consider two examples.

On August 16, Pastor Rick Warren asked John McCain how much money someone would have to make to be considered rich. McCain didn't answer directly. "I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited," he said.

Then he made a joke: "So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?"
The audience laughed, immediately understanding that McCain was being facetious. Just in case there were any doubts McCain started his next comment by saying "seriously," to underscore the joke. Then he made a prediction.

"I'm sure that comment will be distorted," he said with a shrug of his shoulders.

And it has been. "It should come as no surprise that John McCain believes the cutoff for the rich begins at $5 million," Barack Obama's campaign said in a statement. "It may explain why his tax plan gives a $600,000 tax cut to the richest 0.1 percent of earners." At a campaign appearance two days after McCain made the comments, Obama himself mocked McCain. "I guess if you're making $3 million a year, you're middle class," Obama said.

Some news accounts noted that McCain was joking and others even reported that McCain predicted his words would be twisted and used against him. In an August 18 article in the Los Angeles Times, Greg Miller actually did both and noted that McCain aides had made clear their boss was joking. "Even so," Miller wrote, "the remark highlighted the candidates' disparate outlooks. Analysts who study income distribution said the answers appeared to reflect shifting political calculations more than economic reality."

So Miller, writing under the headline, "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama have very different definitions," used McCain's facetious answer as if he had meant it. (Miller also speculated that Cindy McCain's family money may have shaped McCain's views of what constitutes rich.) Not only was Obama not called on his misuse of McCain's comment, reporters piled on. Is it any wonder that the line has made regular appearances in Obama speeches over the past month?

"Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans," Obama said in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. "I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year?"

Then there are the absurd lengths to which some reporters are willing to go to protect Obama and attack McCain. Last week, the McCain campaign released an ad accusing Obama of being too close to Fannie Mae executives. In particular, it claims Obama took advice on housing and finance issues from former Fannie Mae chairman Franklin Raines. The Obama campaign protested, saying that Raines was not an adviser and had not given Obama counsel in any capacity. The McCain campaign defended the claim by citing an article that ran in the Washington Post on July 16, 2008. That article noted that Raines had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."

Last Friday, the Washington Post "factchecked" the McCain ad and concluded that the campaign had been "clearly exaggerating wildly" in order to link Obama to Raines and that the "latest McCain attack is particularly dubious."

Factchecker Michael Dobbs wrote that McCain's evidence that Raines had advised Obama was "pretty flimsy"--not a description that probably endeared him to Anita Huslin, the reporter who wrote the story this summer. But Dobbs did talk to Huslin. Here is his account of their conversation:

Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues.

Got that? Huslin stands by her reporting--that Raines had given advice to the Obama campaign about mortgage and housing policy matters--and yet the McCain campaign is faulted by the Washington Post for relying on information that comes from the Washington Post.

More amusing, though, is that in the rush to accuse the McCain campaign of lying, Dobbs glosses over a major discrepancy between the story that appeared in his paper and that of the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton claims that the campaign "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter." It is possible, of course, that Raines simply made up the conversations he described to the Post reporter. But it seems more likely, given the toxicity of Raines, that the Obama campaign would simply prefer that those conversations had never taken place.

Dobbs concludes: "I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply."

That's reassuring, since Dobbs has already decided that the McCain campaign has been dishonest. Two things are clear with six weeks left in the presidential race. Barack Obama will practice the old-style politics that he lamented throughout the Democratic primary. And the media will give him a pass.

Hope, Change, & Lies: Orchestrated "Grassroots" Smear Campaigns & the People that Run Them - The Jawa Report

Extensive research was conducted by the Jawa Report to determine the source of smears directed toward Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Those smears included false allegations that she belonged to a secessionist political party and that she has radical anti-American views.

Our research suggests that a subdivision of one of the largest public relations firms in the world most likely started and promulgated rumors about Sarah Palin that were known to be false. These rumors were spread in a surreptitious manner to avoid exposure. (Click here to read the article)

Double Indemnity - M Corrigan, SavagePolitics.com

An article for those whose gut tells you not to vote for Obama and yet your loyalty holds you to the DNC’s choice.  (Click here to read the  article) 

Dems Dilute Their Message - Purple People Vote

The political ads for local and national races have started running in New Hampshire, and I had no idea how many ‘George Bush clones’ were out there. It’s a line of attack that has shown some success, but is now being overused to the point of silliness. One rep that they’re trying to paint as a ‘Bush clone’ hasn’t even been in office the last two years. If this is the strategy throughout the country, hopefully the Dems keep it up. The argument had some power when just one or two people who appeared to be ‘Bush-like’, but now that everyone with an (R) after their name is being labeled the same way the argument fades to background noise.More...

The Obama campaign has decided to reach further with its comparisons saying that Senator McCain is tied to Rush Limbaugh. This is laughably false. During the primaries as it became evident that Senator McCain was likely to win Rush Limbaugh pitch a huge fit along with Ann Coulter about how horrible a McCain nomination would be. The Limbaugh show has never been friendly to Senator McCain and when asked about his show Senator McCain stated, “I don’t listen to him very much. There’s a certain trace of masochism in my family, but not that deep.”

Does McCain Have A “Stealth Vote?” - American Sentinel

The Obama campaign and its media boosters have adopted this election’s litany of defeatism.  It goes like this: “If Barack Obama wins, it is because he is a charismatic leader with an enlightened vision for America; if he loses, it’s because of racism.”  This is a variation on the usual Democratic theme - - if they win, it is because their candidate got the Democratic message across on the issues; if they lose, it is due to “swiftboating” by the “Republican Attack Machine.”  This arrogant nonsense is par for the course in this Presidential election, but it does raise the question, does John McCain have a “stealth vote” which the opinion polls miss?

The answer to this question is, quite likely, yes, although probably not based on racism.

On the face of it, the current polling leaves little in the “undecided/other” column, but this appearance may be misleading. Polling organizations have two general methods of allocating undecideds:  by “leaning” and by “forced choice.”  The predominant “leaning” method is used by, for example, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac; this type asks respondents who declare themselves to be undecided whether they lean to one candidate or the other and the “leaners” are then allocated to arrive at a probable vote for each candidate.  Occasionally a pollster will ask the question, “if you were forced to choose between A and B, which one?” Others do not allocate undecideds at all.  Sometimes it is impossible to tell, since not all polls publish underlying data or a full statement of methodology.More...

Looking at the polls reported during the past week, it is apparent that polls which allocate undecideds are reporting much lower numbers of undecideds than those which do not. The “undecided/other” category in Rasmussen state-by-state polls is running from 3% to 5%; Survey USA and Marist are reporting slightly higher percentages.  However, the “undecided/other” factor in non-allocating polls tends to be much higher.

Here are a few examples.

- - Survey USA’s latest Ohio poll reports 6% undecided and Marist reports 8%.  In Florida, Survey USA and CNN/Time both report 4% undecided.  In Virginia, Survey USA and FOX News both report 4% undecideds.  The un-leaned National Journal results for these same states are:  Ohio, 17% undecided; Florida, 12% undecided; Virginia, 11% undecided.  Also in Virginia, the CNU Virginia Poll put undecideds at 13%.

- - In Alabama, Survey USA reported 2% as undecided, while a USA Polling Group (Press-Register) poll had 27% undecided.  In recent Michigan polls, Rasmussen had undecideds at 3%, Marist at 5%; in contrast, EPIC-MRA (Detroit News) put undecideds at 15% and Insider Advantage had 11%.

On the whole, the poll results indicate that there is still a very substantial “undecided/other” factor in this election.  One possible explanation for this is the “spiral of silence” theory, which holds that a person is less likely to voice an opinion perceived as unpopular or in the minority, due to fear of isolation or reprisal. This explanation makes sense in the context of this election, in which the mainstream press has clearly cast Barack Obama as the majority or popular choice.  In addition, there have been both threats and reprisals directed against those who do not support Obama - - witness the recent hackings of Sarah Palin’s e-mail account and Bill O’Reilley’s Web site.

The undecided factor therefore is likely to include a substantial “stealth vote” in favor of McCain-Palin.  This “stealth vote” is not necessarily the result of racism, as the Obama folks want to believe.  To a large extent, it results from the bullying tactics advocated and used by the Obama campaign - - such as Obama’s own plea that his supporters “get in the faces” of non-supporters.

Biden UNDER the bus: This just in...;)

I don't know the validy of this post, but I thought I'd share it:




















(source)


Mark your calendars. The Obama/Biden ticket is about to "change." I think you all know that I get information from all sorts of places. ;) The following was in an email sent to me by a source I trust totally. They have "cred":

"On or about October 5^th, Biden will excuse himself from the ticket, citing health problems, and he will be replaced by Hillary. This is timed to occur after the VP debate on 10/2. [This will avoid Hillary having to bear an hour of unflattering side-by-side comparison to Sarah Palin.]"

For weeks now, we have all watched as Joe has demonstrated repeated symptoms of that common ailment, foot in mouth disease. We have all seen how 'sick' he has been. But now, it seems poor Joe is having heart problems - specifically 'aneurysm' - or at least that is going to be the official line. That gem comes "from excellent sources within the DNC." More...

Are YOU going to buy that line? I am so not. I am sure that Obama's VP selection committee thoroughly checked into the medical history of any would-be VP contenders. Given Joe's advanced age and all, (lol) I am thinking that his records may have comprised about 70 pages also..(And yes - after Senator McCain's records being released, does anybody REALLY believe the line that Governor Palin is a "heartbeat" away from the Presidency. Puleeeeeeeze. John McCain will outlive a lot of his dimdem opponents - trust me on this. But I digress.) So, what this latest change is, is Obama and his minions "hoping" that the American people will not look closely into more of the smoke and mirrors that IS their campaign against the American people. Yes, I did say "against."

I have to ask what Joe Biden has been promised for him to fall on his sword. Seriously though, Obama is probably doing Joe a BIG favour removing him from the Obamaland future landscape. THAT is probably better for Joe's heart....

And then we have Hillary. Can we say: "Don't do it, Hillary!!!" Anyone who has watched Hillary and Bill over the years, knows what a political animal Hillary is. When Obama and his committee (of 2 was that? lol) chose Joe instead of Hillary, I kept saying that Hillary was nowhere near shrinking off into the background...
Everything any of us think we know about Hillary, told me that Hillary was nowhere near done on the VP/Presidential trail. So now we have Obama throwing Joe under the bus, scared out of his wits of Sarah Palin. I could rehash all the shenanigans we have seen from the cynical, RACIST (yes, they ARE the racist ones!), CRIMINAL, (Logan Act just for one...)sexist, lying...( about McCain's record on Fannie Mae for just one example.) manipulating, 'in your face' - add your own adjectives - efforts to hoodwink the American public into believing a brand new dawn is upon America.

Don't you buy into this upcoming piece of theatre put on by the Obama boys and girls. I could tell you - again - everything that is wrong with this. I'll spare you, except to ask you to imagine what will happen when America's representative, sent by Obama, goes to 'chat and have tea" wth any of the despots of the planet. Halfway through pouring tea, ("will you be 'mum'?" - a Brit will get the humour there.lol) Obama yanks the rep, and replaces them with another. "Uh, uh , um, oh, let me clarify. What I really mean was..." That'll add to the American credibility worldwide. No wonder places like North Korea are thrilled at the prospect of Obama moving into the White House.

This American election season reminds me of the plot twists and turns of a soap opera. If only the consequences were not so serious. However, I have faith that Americans are smart enough to refuse to accept the cynical political manipulations being foisted upon them at a dizzying pace.

The end of the email I received has a couple of gems that I have to share with you.:

Question: Does this maneuver fall under the category of

Change! Change we can believe in!
Change we can hardly believe!
Change - because Sarah's whipping my ass!
Change - because picking that Old White Lifelong Liar Guy was a boneheaded blunder!
All of the above?

---

So is this the traditional "October Surprise"? I can just imagine what deals the Clintons are getting - in writing - to go along with this scam! At least her campaign debt will be paid off, - probably with a bonus. Probably Bill gets to be SecState after all. Maybe Chelsea gets to fill Hillary's Senate seat. The possibilities are mind-boggling!
But given what happens to the friends of the Clintons, - Obama should ask for a lot more Secret Service protection!
Ain't Democracy fun!?!

Oh, and just for the record? Don't bother asking me who my source is. And I don't use yahoo mail.

Stay tuned.

"And the wheels on the bus go round and round..." Sing along with me, now!

Posted by The Brat at 3:09 PM

Barack Obama-A get-rich-quick infomercial

The Obama campaign’s latest email sounds like one of those too-good-to-be-true-get-rich-quick schemes. Here are the highlights.More...

This week, the economic troubles that have long been simmering on Main Street boiled over to Wall Street, putting our entire economy in danger.
Barack laid out a plan to address this crisis and offered strong, practical solutions for American families.
Here are some key elements of Barack’s plan:

• A $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families with high fuel costs right now while putting $50 billion into job creation to get our economy back on track.
• Families making less than $250,000 a year will get a tax cut three times larger than under John McCain’s plan and will face absolutely no tax increases.
• While John McCain has voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times, Barack would raise the minimum wage and set it to rise automatically with inflation.
• Invest $15 billion a year in green energy research to reduce our economy’s dependence on foreign oil and create 5 million American jobs a year.

There’s a big difference between the change we need and the Bush-McCain politics we need to leave behind.

Didn’t they get the memo that US taxpayers are now on the hook for nearly $1 trillion in bad mortgage debt? According to Obama, we need to expand the government even more.
Where will the $1000 per family to heat our homes come from? Where will the $50 billion come from to create these magical mystery jobs? How can they afford to triple a tax cut to anyone? Who is going to fork over $15 billion per year for green energy research?
And let’s not forget his promise of free health care and the global poverty tax. I don’t think there are enough patriotic rich people left in America to pay for all of his goodies.
My parents always taught me that if something sounds too goo to be true it’s a bad deal. Barack Obama’s deal for America will be downright dangerous.

Palin draws crowd of 60,000 in The Villages - AudacityOfHypocrisy.com

THE VILLAGES — Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin told wildly cheering, flag-waving, chanting supporters that John McCain is “the only great man in this race” and promised Sunday he will fix the nation’s economy if voters give the GOP four more years in the White House.

“He won’t say this, so I’ll say it for him,” the Alaska governor said in an almost confidential tone at the close of her first Florida stump speech. “There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you. John McCain wore the uniform of his country for 22 years — talk about tough.”

The Villages, a vast, upscale planned community north of Orlando, has about 70,000 mostly adult residents — many of them military retirees — who vote reliably Republican in statewide races. Tens of thousands inched along roads into the picturesque town square of the complex, where they stood in sweltering heat for about four hours as local GOP officials and a country band revved up the crowd.

“Sa-Rah! Sa-Rah!” they chanted at every mention of her name, applauding loudly and waiving tiny American flags that were distributed — along with free water bottles — by local volunteers. The fire chief estimated the crowd at 60,000.

Admiring throngs mobbed the Palin family’s arrival and departure, snapping souvenir pictures. Autograph seekers thrust campaign signs, caps with the McCain-Palin logo and copies of magazines with her face on their covers, and the Palins responded warmly.

Positive Signs for the McCain Campaign

1. Base united and energized with Palin pick.

2. Strong support from both Independents and Democrats.

3. Obama’s money advantage is shrinking. Party money combine with campaign money makes the money race extremely close.

4. During primaries Obama tended to poll better than he performed except in blowout situations. McCain tended to perform better over even with polls.  

5. The youth vote is fickle, the senior vote is not. While no one knows who will turn out in the end, stats say the person who has consistently voted over the years will show up on election day, while first time voters don’t have a strong turn out record. More...

6. The debates are coming. Question and answer is McCain’s strong suite, and not Obama’s.

7. Volunteer efforts are improved. State volunteer info - Phone from home volunteer info.

8. Energy - Winter’s coming and as Dems stall on the energy bill, and people have to pay for heating oil, gasoline, and electricity; the ‘do everything’ approach of Republicans, already popular, will likely gain more traction as the days get shorter and colder.

9. McCain is a closer. Looking at the primaries as a guide McCain was behind almost the entire election except for election day. Obama, on the other hand, had a burst at the beginning, but had trouble closing out the race even when the numbers were decisively in his favor.

10. The VP picks. Palin brings excitement and energy, no one pays any attention to Biden except when he sticks his foot in his mouth.

---

Clinton Supporter Member of Dem Platform Committee Voting McCain/Palin

Another strong interview from De Rothschild.

New Hampshire News Site Hits Obama for Mudslinging Politics and Dishonesty

Posted at Right Werds, reposted here to share:

Are the Media finally hitting Obama for the obvious fact that he's just another Chicago-style politician?  If only other Media sources would at least admit it even if they still support him.  No one is saying McCain is not a typical politician, but it is disingenuous to claim Obama is of a different sort.  The New Hampshire Union Leader writes on this very topic:More...

Obama in the mud: So much for honesty

When Barack Obama first began campaigning in New Hampshire in early 2007, many voters swooned. We watched him speak to retirees in Claremont one snowy February day that year. Not a single voter we talked with before he spoke planned to vote for him. Afterwards, many said they would. The word that spontaneously came from the lips of multiple attendees: sincere. They couldn't remember a politician who spoke with such sincerity, they said. And many of them had been voting since World War II.

We wonder what those same voters think of Obama's sincerity now. In the past few weeks, Obama has thrown so many false accusations against John McCain that just keeping track of them has become difficult. And these aren't innocent errors. They are deliberate distortions of the sort Obama has always said he reviles.

On Thursday, Obama said of McCain, "He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis." That's entirely untrue.

As The Washington Post pointed out in an editorial on Friday, McCain in fact has supported many new regulations of financial institutions, including some that Obama opposed. "In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent," The Post wrote.

Obama attacked McCain for having a top financial advisor who supported a deregulation bill a few years ago. Yet two top Obama financial advisors, with whom he met on Friday to help him form his response to the current troubles on Wall Street, supported the same bill, which was signed by President Clinton.

Also last week, Obama released a Spanish-language ad that portrayed McCain as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic and tried to link him to immigration policies that were not his own as well as some choice Rush Limbaugh quotes that appeared to insult Mexicans.

Anyone who has followed the immigration debate knows that McCain is the most pro-immigration Republican on the national stage and that he is not in the least anti-Hispanic. To pull quotes from Rush Limbaugh, who has completely different immigration views than McCain and who opposed him on that issue for years (and still does) is completely disingenuous. 

The ad is so bad that even The New York Times called it "misleading."

Obama's campaign also accused McCain of lying when McCain's campaign ran an ad saying that Obama supported sex education for kindergarteners. But the bill in question, which Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate, did indeed change state law to allow sex education for kindergarteners.

Obama has said that he won't attack John McCain's motives, only his policies. But he has repeatedly attacked McCain's motives, suggesting that he has been bought off by oil companies and lobbyists.

Obama's greatest strength as a candidate, aside from his oratorical skill, has long been his apparent sincerity and decency. Voters attracted to him think of him as that rarest of things: an honest politician. He has claimed himself that he would never engage in the sort of deceptive politicking that he says has tainted Washington for so long.

Yet here he is violating his own professed standards. This is not the Barack Obama so many voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere thought they knew. But it is the real Barack Obama. For despite his rhetoric, he is in fact campaigning so dishonestly that even The Washington Post and The New York Times have called him on it. Which means that he is in practice no different from those regular politicians against whom his entire campaign has been built. (09/20/2008)

So much for a new kind of politics.

The incredible shrinking Obama - REX MURPHY, Globe and Mail

How's Barack Obama's narrative going?

Journalists used to tell stories, now they plumb narratives. Narrative is a pretentious borrowing from the abstraction-clotted world of academic criticism, where texts are interrogated, authors are dead and high-toned fatuousness is king. I'll see your postmodern and raise you a meta.

Mr. Obama's campaign, however, has renewed narrative's trendy fizz. It is the very Perrier water (or is it San Pellegrino now?) of the better campaign reportage. Take no hike up Pundit Mountain without it.More...

From the moment, the Obama surge took forceful shape, everyone - reporters, the scholars of blogland, the partisan howler monkeys of cable-news cage matches - has chattered on about Mr. Obama's narrative.
Trouble is, most of the story of the campaign isn't so much coming from the candidate himself as it is created by all those who, most in worshipful terms, have talked, written and reported on or about him. The Obama campaign is one great text generator, the grand fable of his fans.

In one sense, this is not surprising. He has a quicksilver quality. Even after two autobiographies, Mr. Obama remains something of a floating, uncrowded presence. His story (and he is so impressively self-aware as to have made the most acute comment on it) is temptingly open-ended, very much a page to be written on. He himself has written, most memorably: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

That is as bold a statement as it is an insightful one. Bold, because it is a remarkable confession from a presidential hopeful. Insightful, because it matches the facts. There are not many personalities so fluid or vague on which an attempt to "project" a storyline would take hold. Imagine, for example, projecting a "rewrite" of Donald Rumsfeld. There's too much of Mr. Rumsfeld already there to offer hospitality to new material.

Mr. Obama, however, has a kind of welcoming emptiness. Eager acolyte or stern observer, both find it difficult not to add, or project, the most flattering, even jubilant, fill-ins. The Obama candidacy, in its rocket-blast phase when he outsoared Hillary Clinton, drained the dictionaries of every superlative. The great "O" had them swooning in the stands. Why?

True, Oprah had passed her potent wand over him, but even the afternoon regent of a thousand therapies has stays on her sorcery. Mainly, his was very much a candidacy constructed by those who were drawn to him. If there was any meaning to that fortune-cookie poeticism that "we are the ones we have been waiting for," it was that his campaign was a feedback loop. People saw what they came to see. Mr. Obama was the slate; the crowds brought their own chalk.

This is the nature of Mr. Obama's particular kind of charisma. People project their best wishes on him, they fill in the blank of a very attractive and plausible outline. His is not, emphatically, a charisma of deeds. For what has he done, save run for president? He is an accommodating vessel - cool, smart, biracial and "unfinished." This is the Gatsby quality of him that others have noted. Like Gatsby, he is a receptacle of others' glamorous invention.

People see in him, or wish to see, the last great ideal of the American polity fulfilled, a final and full racial accommodation. That should he be elected president, America will have achieved, by his singular persona, the perfect emblematic demonstration of having exorcised at last the great stain of its racially riven origins.

Mr. Obama's charisma is, in this sense, external, something extended to the candidate. And it follows that that which is given may equally be taken away. The sparkle has, in fact, dimmed. He travels now in a lower orbit, closer to Earth - which is to say, he grows more mundane. The great word "hope" sounds less frequently now. He picks a running mate thick with the dust and rancour of many long years in Washington.

His acceptance speech in the Olympic-style stadium could not gather the inspirational energy of his earlier arias. Of late, the flash supernova of U.S. politics is seen "competing" with a second-on-the-ticket female governor of a remote state. There's more than a gap between the "audacity of hope" and "lipstick on a pig." The mouth that spoke the first phrase should not be capable of the second.

He has shrunk into a combative partisan. He crowds his own screen, leaves less space for projection. Others are not writing his narrative now - he's inscribing his own.

A candidacy that leached so much of its energy and drive from the imagination of others, Gatsby-like, is shedding its gift. The narrative stage is over. It's all tactics from here on in.

Latest State Polls / Why Ohio is still up for grabs

• Florida: McCain +2, McCain +1
• Ohio: McCain 48, Obama 42
• Iowa: Obama 53, McCain 39
• Alabama: McCain 52, Obama 25

Why Ohio is still up for grabs - James O'Toole, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

VIENNA, Ohio -- Election night, 1960. The Buckeye State is slipping into the column of Richard M. Nixon. John F. Kennedy, watching the returns in his Hyannis Port home, displayed a hand and forearm scratched and swollen from countless handshakes.
"Ohio did this to me,'' he said.

The episode, recounted in Theodore H. White seminal campaign chronicle, "The Making of the President 1960," would not be the last time that Ohio's voters frustrated a Democratic candidate.

Four years ago, Sen. John F. Kerry rolled up big early margins in Cuyahoga County and Franklin County, the counties that surround Cleveland and Columbus, and down through the Mahoning Valley, the product of one of the most effective turnout operations in the state's history.More...

"If you had told me the day before the election the kind of margins Kerry would get [in Democratic areas], I'd have been celebrating," said Jim Ruvalo, a veteran Democratic consultant and former chairman of the state Democratic Party.

But President Bush benefited from an even more potent get-out-the-vote drive elsewhere in the state. After a long night of counting, the Republican ticket was ahead, 51 percent to 49 percent, enough to deliver the state, the nation and a delayed concession speech from Mr. Kerry.

A state that has been part of the electoral vote majority for every successful Republican presidential candidate would seem ripe for a Democratic candidate this year. Its unemployment rate is 7.2 percent, well ahead of the national rate of 5.5 percent after years of losses of manufacturing jobs. The faltering economy has forced the new Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, to cut nearly $1.3 billion from the state's budget this year. Mr. Strickland led a political resurgence for his party in 2006, as Democrats captured the governor's mansion, a Senate seat and a U.S. House seat.

But Ohio is again a bellwether for the nation as the site of an extraordinarily close battle between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, one that has the potential to again determine the next occupant of the White House. Reflecting that status, both sides have poured money and candidate time into the state.

And in their no-stone-unturned competition, both hope to prevail in part by poaching votes from regions within the state that normally favor the other party.

The Mahoning Valley is one of them. With his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, Mr. McCain appeared here again this week, lavishing his attention on a working class corner of the state that's normally a reliable cache of Democratic votes.

"He's been here as many times as he's been any place in Ohio,'' former Sen. Mike DeWine, Mr. McCain's Ohio chairman, said over the din of workmen clearing away the debris from his candidate's rally Tuesday. "John McCain believes he is competitive in the Mahoning Valley. I don't think there's any place else he's been three times.''

Counting this week's appearance, Mr. McCain has spent all or part of 18 campaign days in Ohio since securing his nomination. According to his campaign, Sen. Barack Obama has visited the state eight times since he locked up the Democratic spot.

The imbalance is a little deceptive, however, since Mr. Obama campaigned in the state extensively before its March 3 primary. But it's clear that few states have had so much collective attention from the campaigns. On Thursday, hot on the heels of the opposing ticket, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. was in Youngstown, at the end of a cross-state bus tour.

Edge in polls to McCain

 

In the weeks since their nominating conventions wrapped up, the two campaigns have spent roughly $800,000 each on Ohio television, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Advertising Project. For the McCain campaign, that spending trailed only Pennsylvania and Florida. In the same period, Mr. Obama spent more only in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and Virginia.

The result, according to a variety of polls, is a state very much up for grabs less than seven weeks before the election. Here, as nationally, the McCain-Palin team bounced up in the days following the Republican National Convention. But in recent days, the numbers moved back to near even.

Just last week, a CNN/Time survey put Mr. Obama ahead, 49 percent to 47 percent. A Fox/Rasmussen survey had it the other way, 48 percent for Mr. McCain and 45 percent for the Democrat. The common denominator in almost every one of the slew of surveys this past week was that the difference between the candidates was within the polls' margins of error.

Aggregating the results, the web site Pollster.com saw a McCain lead of 47 percent to 44.6 percent. Realclearpolitics.com sees a similarly close race, with Mr. McCain up in its polling average by 1.2 percent.

Mr. Strickland, who represented a congressional district that covers part of the Mahoning Valley and the state's traditional manufacturing communities has expressed incredulity that Mr. McCain would even seek votes in the area. These communities, he argues, were battered by the trade policies of the Bush administration.

Four years ago, Mr. Kerry carried Trumbull and Mahoning counties, the sites of the unusual attention from the McCain campaign, with more than 60 percent of the vote.

The race issue

 

But the governor is also among a handful of Ohio Democrats who have spoken out in recent weeks expressing concern that some traditional Democrats in these and other Ohio comminutes will balk at voting for Mr. Obama because of his race.

In an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer earlier this summer, the governor referred to the racial issue as "the elephant in the room,'' that many voters and commentators would rather ignore.
"There are good people, who won't vote for Obama, because he's a black man,'' Mr. Strickland said at another point.

"Anyone who doesn't think race is an issue has their head in the sand," said Mr. Ruvalo. "Is it an issue that will be determinative? I don't know."

Mr. DeWine eagerly anticipates McCain making inroads with working-class white voters, but he dismisses the suggestion that race is the motivator.

"I think people are mistaking the race issue for other things,'' he said. "Obama is too much like John Kerry. People have a hard time relating to him. And like Kerry, he has a hard time relating to the average person, the average guy."

Of his own candidate, the former Republican senator said, "I think on some gut issues, he's much closer to where people are in the Mahoning Valley, someone along the Ohio River, someone in Parma. I think on some gut issues, he's much closer to where people are ... guns, abortion, marriage, the things commonly referred to as the social issues. I think you'll find that's true for much of the state."
Every Ohio survey, however, finds the economy as the prime issue in the race. David Leland, another former state Democratic chairman, sees that as the key to an Obama victory.

"Ohio is ground zero in terms of what's been happening to the national economy," he said. "[Mr. Obama] needs to connect with the Mahoning Valley, with southern Ohio ... on an economic message. But you do have people who have never voted for an African-American. ... That's a challenge not just for Barack but for every Ohio Democrat.''

Mr. Obama has one key asset that neither Mr. Kerry nor former Vice President Al Gore enjoyed in their close but unsuccessful attempts to capture the state's 20 electoral votes. That's the support of an incumbent governor.

Pennsylvania shares more than a border with Ohio. Among their demographic similarities are their ethnic mix, with German the most common ancestry followed by Irish. African-Americans represent about 11 percent of Ohio, just about 10 percent of Pennsylvanians. Their urban-rural proportions are an almost identical -- 77 percent to 23 percent. But their political characters are different. Republicans have traditionally been stronger in Ohio compared to the more seesaw relationship of the parties in Pennsylvania.

Democratic surge

 

The recent past has been tough on Ohio Republicans. The economy, opposition to the Iraq War and financial scandals battered the GOP prior to the 2006 elections, which brought major gains to the state's Democrats, Mr. Strickland's landslide victory for governor chief among them.

Mr. Strickland was firmly in the camp of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during the primary that she won handily over Mr. Obama. By then, Mr. McCain had already wrapped up the GOP race.

Now, Mr. Strickland is lined up behind Mr. Obama. His former campaign manager, Aaron Pickrell, directs the Obama effort in the state, one that Democrats describe as potentially the most robust ground game in the state's history. Mr. Pickrell was also the political director of former Sen. John Edwards's Iowa organization, an effort that produced a strong second-place showing against Mr. Obama.

Throughout the primaries, the Obama campaign cultivated a reputation for their grass-roots prowess in states across the country. In Ohio, that's melded to the homegrown apparatus that produced for Mr. Strickland.

"I think it has an impact that we finally have a Democratic governor,'' Mr. Ruvalo said. "He has an organization; he knows how to win. We haven't had that in 16 years.''

The operation includes a network of offices across the state.

Pointing to the unprecedented turnout that the Bush campaign produced in the state's rural and exurban communities, Mr. Ruvalo said, "Democrats have learned that we can't concentrate on the same eight or 12 counties. The Obama campaign has opened offices everywhere, not that you are going to win everywhere, but you can get votes everywhere; you can hold down the margins."

Mr. DeWine dismisses the suggestion that the GOP will be out-organized in the state.

"What is true is that they have a more extensive paid organization,'' he said. "I think we have the better organization, and we've done it before. We're building on what we did four years ago and eight years ago."

The Republican campaign, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, is quarterbacked by Jon Seaton. A veteran of the White House office of political affairs, Mr. Seaton was national field director of the McCain campaign last year before the financial implosion that nearly ended the senator's White House bid. He went on to head Mr. McCain's Iowa operation before signing on as regional campaign manager for Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"We had a late start," Mr. DeWine acknowledged, "but it's kicked in hard in the last month. ... I can tell you we're ahead in phone calls from where we were four years ago. They may have more paid people but we have more Ohioans on the ground."

Post-Gazette politics editor James O'Toole can be reached at jotoole@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1562.

Conservative Female Abuse on the Political Left

 Posted at American Power, reposted here to share:


My good friend Gayle from Dragon Lady's Den left an insightful comment at my earlier essay, "Demon Trolling on the Political Left." It's worthy of a post:

What gets me especially is the women's groups. They believe equality is only for liberal women. The rest of us are supposed to stay in our kitchens barefoot and pregnant. But of course we should have abortions, especially if there is any evidence of a defect! The very fact that Sarah carries around, or has one of her daughters carrying around a baby she actually gave birth to knowing he had Down's Syndrome (GASP!) is just too much for them. It is a reminder that many of them have aborted perfectly healthy babies. HOW COULD SHE??? Well, to the liberal women I say "your chickens are about ready to come home to roost, sweeties. Better get used to it!" LOL!

More...

Michelle Malkin indicates that the left's campaign of political violence against Sarah Palin can be identified as "Conservative Female Abuse":

There’s something about outspoken conservative women that drives the Left mad. It’s a peculiar pathology I’ve reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democrat circles, and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can’t help themselves.

Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an “R” by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As Republican officeholders and conservative public figures who are women have grown in number and visibility, the progression of Conservative Female Abuse has worsened. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.

Read the whole thing for Malkin's progression of stages, from infantilization to dehumanization.

It doesn't take long to find women leftists attacking Palin, with as much venom as when she first burst on the scene upon selection as vice-presidential running mate.

Here's Kathy at Commments From Left Field:

Can someone put duct tape over this woman’s mouth? Her ill-considered, ahistorical, utterly ignorant public statements are a threat to national security.

Kathy's engraged at Palin's firm comments on standing up to Iran, comments that came in response to the Democratic Party's effort to muzzle Palin from speaking at a protest against Tehran in New York next week.

Meanwhile, yesterday Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, escalated Iran's bellicose stance toward Israel, announcing that the Israeli people themselves "are combatants at the disposal of Zionist operatives" and are enemies of Muslim states of the world.

That's extremely warlike language. Considering Khamenei called out Israel on the same day Palin issued her warning against Iran's push to launch a "second Holocaust," left-wing attacks on Palin's "lack of foreign policy experience" are looking increasingly naïve, if not malevolently ignorant.

Image Credit: Scooter's Report

Posted by Donald Douglas at 12:10 PM