Vodpod videos no longer available.
Monthly Archives: October 2008
From Ben Smith:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirms Drudge’s report that two right-leaning papers, the Washington Times and the New York Post, have lost their seats on the Obama plane, along with the Dallas Morning News.
“We’re trying to reach as many swing voters that we can and unfortunately had to make some tough choices. but we are accommodating these folks in every way possible,” he said.
The Post and the Morning News are both read primarily in states that aren’t in play, but the Washington Times is read in Northern Virginia.
Burton said the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times had returned to the plane, and confirmed that Ebony and Jet magazines have seats on the plane. (The Tribune has had a reporter on the plane for most of the cycle, but recently added a photographer.)
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said in an email that, contrary to Drudge’s suggestion, she won’t be on Obama’s plane.
“I’ll be at Saturday Night Live covering Tina Fey’s Sarah Palin and possibly the real John McCain,” she said.
Burton said the campaign was making space for the dropped outlets on the campaign bus where possible, and that they were encouraged to travel with Senator Joe Biden. He also noted that Fox News, whose schedule includes perhaps the most openly hostile programming to Obama, has a seat on the plane.
McCain barred Dowd and Time’s Joe Klein, two columnists seen as leaning toward Obama, from his campaign plane, and space has grown very tight on Obama’s in recent days. But Obama aides have also been heard to complain about the coverage from the New York Post and the Washington Times, if not as vociferously as they have about Fox News’s coverage.
Besides just being wild childish, this does not augur well for transparency in an Obama administration, which has already been eerily good with its message discipline for this entire campaign cycle. (Their campaign has been pretty much leak-free.)
Haven’t we had enough of this kind of stuff under GWB?
I’m afraid the title of this post might be a little misleading; none of these things have anything to do with the election. It’s a pretty decent list though, and considering the original song, actually fairly inclusive. Enjoy (and you can find my other list at my blog).
Original Song: Warren G (feat. Nate Dogg), “Regulate” from G Funk Era…
- LL Cool J, “Mama Said Knock You Out” from All World
- N.W.A., “Straight Outta Compton” from Straight Outta Compton
- The Notorious B.I.G., “Hypnotize” from Life After Death
- Nas, “If I Ruled the World (Imagine That) from It Was Written
- Dr. Dre, “Let Me Ride” from The Chronic
- Snoop Dogg, “Ain’t No Fun (If the Homies Can’t Have None) from Doggystyle
- Jay-Z, “Can I Get A…” from Vol. 2 Hard Knock Life
- Busta Rhymes, “Put Your Hands Where My Eyes Can See” from Total Devastation: The Best of Busta Rhymes
- Mobb Deep, “Shook Ones, Pt. 2” from The Infamous
- Snoop Dogg, “Who Am I? (What’s My Name?) from Doggy Style
Bonus song – N.W.A, “Express Yourself” from Straight Outta Compton
Bonus video – “If I Ruled the World (Imagine That):
G.D. wants to know how bad things have gotten for McCain.
Ambinder shares an e-mail received by Obama volunteers in Arizona. In response to polls showing how close the race is in the Copper State, Jon Carson writes, “Supporters like you have put us within striking distance. Now it’s time to pull off what no one expected.”
Also, according to Ben “In The Tank” Smith, MoveOn.org has purchased ad time in the state. They’ll be running this:
Now, on one hand, the Obama message could just be another creative way of burning up some of that cash before Election Day. On the other, it’s really not looking good for McCain in his home state. Neither Nate’s nor RCP’s numbers show anything particularly outstanding for him.
In related news: I will literally, not figuratively, die laughing if Barack Obama wins Arizona.
[Cover of The Economist from May ’08]
Those crazy Brits:
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
They also buy into the Senator McCain vs. Candidate McCain foolishness:
Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
And then they get weird:
Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
What a strange endorsement. Obviously the British (and the rest of the world) have a stake in this election, but on the other hand, they don’t have a say. That might explain why the tone of the endorsement was rather aloof. The argument boiled down to this: Obama ran a cooler campaign, so why not give him a shot?
It was a 2000-word shrug.
(Cross-posted from U.S. of J.)
Like the good Ned Resnikoff (a friend of the blog, and fellow Pushbacker), I too support irresponsible speculation. After all, if I didn’t, why else would I maintain this blog obsessively. With that in mind – and because I don’t feel like doing anything productive – here is what I predict the map will look like on November 5th (You can find Ned’s take here.):
How likely do you think this is?
Our maps are almost identical, with the exception of North Dakota and Missouri. Ned predicts that North Dakota will flip, while Missouri stays in the Republican camp. I’m not so sure. Considering it’s proximity to Illinois, it’s somewhat more favorable demographic profile (more black people), and the fact that the Obama campaign has invested a lot of time and money there, I think Missouri is the more likely pick up.