I’ll be doing that here. Check in early and often, and look for the headlines that begin with “SPIN ROOM,” because those are mine.

First, let’s note that John McCain could win. It doesn’t look likely, and if the polls are correct it’s 98 percent impossible. But he could, and if he does, I’ll be as surprised as anyone and be thrust into rethinking a lot of assumptions I’m now carrying around. And with that out of the way, my thoughts on Election Eve.

(more…)

It’s worth noting in all this that, according to the Seattle Times:

McCain also has ties to Khalidi through a group Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies received at least $448,000 from an organization McCain chairs.

IMO, the association game just doesn’t work that well in a political world that’s so small.

NOTE: All referenced ads are VodPodded at right; the list below is upside-down from the order in the VodPod. Deal with it.

1.) Obama’s wink-and-nod on Palin: Actually, it’s Palin who’s winking and nodding, after a little background on McCain saying he’s not particularly knowledgable on the economy, and that he’ll “rely” on his VP for economic advice. MY TAKE: It’s a very wry, hard-hitting ad, but the fact that people have to read it and not hear it is a big negative. It’s a talkie! Why not use it?

2.) McCain’s dig at the big ad buy: Reminds me of the “Celebrity” ad, but less weird and more potent. It’s always seemed to me that McCain shouldn’t whine about being outspent, but spin it somehow into “look how much money he has to throw around on ads, crowning himself president while you struggle to make ends meet.” He seems to be doing this here, and while I don’t think it’s a game-changer, it certainly can’t hurt. He’s also, on the stump, blaming Obama for delaying the World Series with tonight’s ad (which Fox says isn’t true, they’re just cutting the pregame show) and playing up the “he thinks he’s president already!” angle, which could have an effect on any few rare voters to whom politics is like a football game that you don’t have a vested in (i.e. you vote for the underdog).

3.) Al Franken’s funny ad: The guy is a comedian, right? But he hasn’t followed his Republican ex-govenor Jesse “The Body” Ventura in making a lot of ludicrous ads. This one, however, is kind of funny…

4.) Norm Coleman’s “even Hollywood doesn’t like him” counterpunch: Cliff from Cheers and some other washed-up celebs appear in this ad against Franken. It would be a lot more potent if we’d seen any of these people on something besides re-runs in the last 10 years… but still, in a world of boring political ads, I approve of these messages.

Now, the most absolutely ridiculous ad I’ve seen this election isn’t available anywhere online (if someone finds it, I’ll give you a $5 gift certificate to my favorite coffee shop), but let me paint the picture: Charlene Rabold, a Democrat looking to unseat Republican state Rep. Jim DeCesare here in Bowling Green, has an ad that claims DeCesare is at least OK with, if not downright in favor of, legalizing marijuana. The source: A resolution he voted for, honoring economist Milton Friedman! (Who apparently suggested it would make economic sense to legalize marijuana in order to regulate and tax it.) She was later quoted in my newspaper as “Googling” his name to find this factoid. As a letter to the editor today put it, it should be of more concern that a Democrat who wants to fix the economy would have to Google Milton Friedman! Best of all, it ends with a stoned teenager stumbling out of a smoke-filled van, saying “Thanks, DeCesare doood!!!”

Priceless.

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.

The increasingly catchphrasified presidential candidate went on Don Imus’ radio show this morning. It was a friendly venue; at one point Imus says that McCain “would make a great president.” But despite Imus’ leanings, he did attempt to ask some relevant questions, especially per the running mate: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president? Why couldn’t she name a single newspaper or magazine that she reads? Why won’t she go on “Meet the Press”? The answers… well, they sure tasted like they’d come out of a can.

Imus: What have you seen in Gov. Palin that (her conservative detractors) have not?

McCain: My question is, is what’s their problem? She’s the most popular governor in America! … I’m amazed! I’m amazed! … Because she hasn’t been at a Georgetown cocktail party? …

Imus: If you called me up and asked me what newspaper I read, I could tell ya that!

McCain: D’ya think that she doesn’t read newspapers? A whole lot of people get their news now offline… uh, online. That’s why newspapers are declining in circulation! It’s easy to make fun of people and ask them “gotcha” questions! … They like to see a person with five children and a great husband! …

Imus: Used to be said that a candidate had to get through a “Meet the Press” session with Tim Russert, and if they didn’t it was hard to recover. And (gets cut off)

McCain: (Hard chuckling) Who said that?!

Imus: Almost everybody!

McCain: That’s hilarious!! That’s HILARIOUS!! With thousands of people showing up at a town-hall meeting, I’ve never had one of ‘em say, “Why hasn’t she gone on ‘Meet the Press’”! NOT ONE! That’s very good, that’s VERY good! …

Oh, and the quote of the day from McCain (and an absolutely spot-on impression of Darryl Hammond’s portrayal of McCain): “The thing that should disturb Americans is (Obama’s) response to Joe the Plumber!”

Click here for full audio interview (and yes, it’s worth it):

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

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:

On the outside, looking in. (Photo by Carolyn Kaster/AP)

I wrote a couple weeks ago on the growing evidence that not only is Obama going to win, he’s going to win big. The evidence was there, and a few pundits were making the same predictions (though more muted, because as pundits they fear being wrong). Today, however, it seems the prediction of a McCain loss is a sure bet… just take a gander at these varied samples from around the web:

Bill Kristol, token conservative columnist for the New York Times:

The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed.

He may be anyway. Bush is unpopular. The media is hostile. The financial meltdown has made things tougher. Maybe the situation is hopeless — and if it is, then nothing McCain or his campaign does matters.

Ex-Clintonite Lanny Davis, in Politico’s Arena:

this election is over. Obama is on the right side of most issues supported by most voters, especially economic, and Senator McCain cannot delete his erratic behavior when the credit crunch crisis hit, fatally undermining his key strengths on experience and steadiness in crisis. …

Given this Schmidt-driven politically tone-deaf Atwater-model strategy–if not changed–what is a certain Obama win on Nov 4 will be a blow-out – perhaps close to the Ronald Reagan landslide over Walter Mondale in 1984.

Former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins:

We have seen two major campaigns this year that could be described as internally divided — Sen. Hillary Clinton’s losing primary campaign and now Sen. John McCain’s general election effort.

And while chaos and disarray reigned supreme in Sen. Barack Obama’s opponents’ campaigns, the steady, disciplined and strategically driven Obama campaign marches forward toward likely victory. …

And no one seems to be in charge, least of all the candidate. The end result is a campaign suffering from “schizophrenia.”

John McCain is saying one thing on the stump, his running mate another. But the worst sin is that his advertising campaign is incoherent and putting out multiple and inconsistent messages. …

With one debate remaining and less than three weeks of campaigning left, John McCain’s 10-year quest to be president is coming to a close and — as of today — a dreadful one.