Somehow I missed this yesterday, but the inimitable Kathleen Parker’s latest outside-the-tent look at the election is really worth reading (full article here). Some choice bits:

Among the hidden factors is the so-called Bradley Effect, meaning that whites lie to pollsters about their support for a black candidate. It is cited as the reason Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost to George Deukmejian in the 1982 California governor’s race, despite polls showing him up to seven points ahead.

But equally significant this time may become known as the Reverse-Bradley Effect: whites who would never admit to voting for a black man, but do. And, expanding the definition somewhat, Republicans and conservatives who would never admit to voting for a Democrat, especially one so liberal. …

I’ve received too many e-mails and had too many conversations that began, “Just between you and me,” and ended with, “I wouldn’t want anyone at work to know,” to believe that this is an insignificant trend.

Sitting quietly at their desks are an unknown number of discreet conservatives who surprise themselves as they mull their options. Appalled by McCain’s erratic behavior, both in dealing with the financial crisis and his selection of an unsuitable running mate, they will quietly (and with considerable trepidation) vote for Obama.

Are they are worried about higher taxes, a premature withdrawal from Iraq, and Obama’s inexperience in matters executive? You betcha. But they do not want to vote for a divisive, anti-intellectual ticket headed by a man who, though they admire him, lately has made them embarrassed to be Republicans. [bolds mine-R]

I sense the same thing, speaking with coworkers and acquaintances who walk into the coffee shop. Even some very close members of my family, who heretofore have had nothing but bad things to say about Democrats in general and whose philosophies are right out of the GOP platform, are having a hard time envisioning themselves pulling the lever for John the Candidate. This is why, weeks ago, I started telling people that not only was Obama going to win, but in terms of electoral votes he was going to dominate. The polls followed my prediction (although some have since gotten much tighter), and I’m putting my chips on a 2-to-1 electoral margin.

Meanwhile, in the “salt in the wound” category, Parker spices up her “McCain’s bound to lose” column with another potent (if all too rare) criticism of the McCain-Palin camp’s painting Obama as terrorist:

“Palling around with terrorists,” as Sarah Palin said of Obama, gets to an underlying xenophobic, anti-Muslim sentiment. Using surrogates who strategically use Obama’s middle name, Hussein, feeds the same dark heart. … To McCain’s credit, he has tried to correct his audience — when, for example, a woman said she couldn’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab. Gosh, wonder where she ever got that idea? But the McCain-Palin bad cop-good cop routine is what it is. The hot babe lathers the crowd; the noble soldier hoses them down. This isn’t a campaign; it’s a sideshow. [bold mine-R]

Everything’s out of whack this year. It’s Democrats who are supposed to be second-guessing their candidate’s strategy and lamenting of his imminent loss, right? More evidence that Obama’s “change” has arrived — to the modern presidential campaign, at least, if not to our actual government.

For a long time, “liberals” have seen their label turned into a four-letter word… its synonyms include “extremist,” “socialist,” “gay,” “weak,” “anti-American,” “elite.” Most have stopped using the word as a self-description — going instead with the rather vague “progressive” — though it’s blisteringly invoked by the opposition. “Conservative,” meanwhile, has experienced something of a resurgence. Seen in the ’70s and early ’80s as “old-fashioned” or “prudish,” conservative has come to mean “common sense” and “with the people.” (Note, please, that none of these “synonyms” really reflects the political histories and deep meanings of these two terms, and I endorse none of them.)

In the wake of a hypothetical likely Obama victory, however, it may finally be time to return these words to their rightful places in history — and, subsequently, to leave them there and come up with some that work. “Liberal” is already out except as a slander; “conservative” now has no relation to its previous meaning and will likely fall out of common use except for a few brainiacs and purists. This was foreseeable in the GOP primaries, when Ron Paul continually explained that HE was the “real” conservative — the guy calling for an immediate end to war in Iraq and American occupations in general; a return to sound financial principles and abolishing not only the IRS, but also the Federal Reserve; a cease-and-desist on warrantless wiretapping and torture and secret military tribunals. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, did his best (which was not very good) to stand as the Reagan caricature, while Mike Huckabee tried to revive the “compassionate” conservative label that George Bush shed as soon as he took office. John McCain, once the nomination was mostly locked up, stepped in and claimed that he was a Reagan “foot soldier” and a great conservative, until he got to the general election and instead took to calling himself, once again, a “maverick.”

(more…)

This is worth watching… whoever wrote these scripts is a lot better than whoever writes Leno’s. VODPODDED AT RIGHT IN TWO PARTS. —>>

(P.S.: 11:30 p.m. EDT tonight, McCain makes it up to Letterman by appearing on the show… I hear it’s pretty good.)

Johnny and Barry: A tale of two three-piece suits. (Photo by Charles Dharapak/AP)

John McCain brought the heat — but Mr. Freeze wouldn’t melt.

Certainly the most interesting of the three debates, this one made me laugh. (For more laughter, I point you to this hilarious retelling by third-party conservative Daniel Larison.) For one thing, the split screen on MSNBC would’ve been great even with the sound off: Obama with his toothy smile every time McCain urged him to “repudiate” this or “explain” that, McCain with his bizarre facial expressions. As an actual guide to voting, however, it (like the others) left something to be desired.

It wasn’t Schieffer’s fault: He gave the candidates plenty of time to explain and re-explain various points, and asked some great questions (“Why would your vice president make the best president if he/she had to take over?”). But both elephant and donkey preferred to bicker — often, admittedly, at McCain’s continually-interrupting behest — and spent way too much time pandering to Joe the Plumber (more on this sudden political phenom here).

High points: McCain’s quick rebuke to Obama, “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should’ve run four years ago”; Obama’s snappy retort, “If I get you two confused, it’s because…”; Obama’s observation that McCain’s suggested “spending freeze” would necessarily negate a lot of the other things he talks about doing; McCain’s pointing to his own participation in the “Gangof 14″ to confirm SCOTUS justices and Obama’s refusal to join said group; Obama’s pointing out that McCain’s campaign is almost singularly focused on terrorist-educator-neighbor Bill Ayers.

Low points: McCain’s saying that Obama “voted against Justice Breyer” (who was appointed in 1994!); Obama’s ducking most every McCain attack (he’s winning anyway, so why bother, that’s the rationale, I still don’t like it); McCain’s incessant whining about John Lewis and repeated urgings to Obama to “repudiate” the statement.

End result? McCain’s the longest shot in my lifetime, as evidenced by the latest Gallup tracking:

“If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?”

— Barack Obama, to Matt Bai of the New York Times

… or, at least, that’s what Barack ******* Obama wants you to think — ABC reports!

Found on Flickr — A pie we can believe in!

Barack Obama smashed his record.  No sooner did the Illinois Senator set a new bar for mentions of the word “pie” in a single campaign event, than he shattered his own mark. … A mere 2 hours after reaching the magic 13, Obama did better; 15 mentions of the word “pie” in 104 seconds.  … Here we go:

“We decided to stop at a diner because I was hungry  and I decided I wanted some pie (1). Pie (2). That’s what I wanted.”

At which point, as usual, someone in the crowd listening offered some pie of their own.

“You make pie(3)?” Obama asked?  “What kind of pie (4) you make? Sweet potato pie (5)? I like sweet potato pie (6). I’m thinking of having a sweet potato pie (7) here in Philadelphia? Because I’ve heard a lot of people are saying they can make sweet potato pie (8).  I’ll put it up against my mother in laws sweet potato pie (9). Alright, you give up? Nah. You. So anyway they did not have sweet potato pie (10) in South OH. So I had coconut cream pie (11). The governor of OH he had lemon meringue pie (12). So we ordered our pie (13)and I decide that I’m going to take a picture with the wait staff.”

It was at this point that he had matched his record.  Had he stopped here, it certainly would have been impressive…yet not historic.  … Nevertheless, the record was within reach. And Obama continued:

“Just as we were re finished taking the picture and the owner comes out, with our pie (14). So I take my pie (15).”

So, yeah. Just thought you might like to know that.

Exhibit A: William Ayers (rhymes with "Who Cares")

Earlier this election cycle, John McCain’s campaign decided to go increasingly negative. Ads were cut that — instead of first challenging the man’s policy ideas or even his qualifications — attempted to make a mockery of Barack Obama’s “celebrity.” (These, notably, were followed by Sarah “Barracuda” Palin’s emergence from relative obscurity as a bona fide Republican celebrity.)

Rest of post and discussion after the jump.

(more…)

The legendary bluegrass musician Ralph Stanley endorses Barack Obama… could this turn some suspect Appalachians his way?

I thought this was worth sharing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ&eurl=http://vodpod.com/watch/1049884-breaking-news-homer-simpson-tries-to-vote-for-obama[/youtube]

1.) For once, a non-media conservative defending journalists for doing the work they’re supposed to do.

Larison says (and you should really click here and read the whole thing):

When someone at a restaurant asked Palin a question about Pakistan that generated some controversy because it seemed to contradict McCain’s previous statement at the debate, the McCain campaign dubbed it “gotcha journalism” and right away when Gibson stumped Palin with his Bush Doctrine question there was a great hue and cry about the “gotcha” nature of this question.  Apparently the questions on her reading habits and Court rulings has also been defined as a “gotcha” question by Palin supporters, even though it is as certain as the sun rising that journalists will ask nominees their views on judicial philosophy and Court rulings … In other words, the “gotcha” is no longer an ambush — it can include any question to which the candidate really should have an answer. …

When this year’s rulings came down, the presidential nominees either volunteered their opinions on the rulings or they were asked about them.  McCain denounced Boumediene and endorsed Heller. Obama supported both, which caused him some trouble because he had said that he thought the D.C. gun ban was constitutional …  If Ifill asks these questions tonight, is she playing “gotcha” or trying to gain information and a window into the candidate’s reasoning and understanding of the relevant policies?  This might be worth sorting out in advance so that we’ll know which flubbed answers to ignore and which ones are important.  If all questions are now “gotcha,” maybe we can just skip watching the debate and go have a drink. [bolds mine-R]

2.) Speaking of Gwen Ifill…

This is the argument: The moderator of tonight’s debate, a woman who is known throughout Washington for being a fair interviewer (and far from tabloid-esque, as with the more partisan likes of MSNBC or Fox News), is writing a book about “politics in the age of Obama.” She is black.

This has been translated into “she’s a member of the liberal media and is writing a book about politics in the age of Obama.”

This is the intellectually dishonest bomb-throwing that otherwise engaged people like myself simply detest, no matter which side of the aisle is throwing it. First, a book about the changing fortunes of black politicians is a far cry from a book “about” Obama or (as some have called it) “PRO-Obama” — she hasn’t event written the chapter about Obama yet. Secondly, do we think Bob Woodward would be a bad moderator? He’s written books about politicians, and all of them have been tough, hard-nosed — and ultimately fair. (There’s a reason President Bush keeps sitting down with the man, even though his books on the Bush White House have provided plenty of embarrassment.)

This is how it stands: Those who begin whining about “unfairness” are usually doing it because they know they’re losing (see previous post on the landslide that now seems imminent)… when Sean Hannity et al brought the Jeremiah Wright story to the forefront, Obama never claimed the story wasn’t credible because it was being reported by a right-leaning news organization; the story was true and so the questions were justified. He tried to spin it, sure, but not by beating up on the press. I’m guessing that’s because he knew he was winning then, and he surely knows he’s winning now.