McCain Makes Historic First Visit to Internet

Will Spend 5 Days At Key Sites

In a daring bid to wrench attention from his Democratic rival in the 2008 presidential race, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) today embarked on an historic first-ever visit to the Internet.

Given that the Arizona Republican had never logged onto the Internet before, advisors acknowledged that his first visit to the World Wide Web was fraught with risk.

But with his Democratic rival Barack Obama making headlines with his tour of the Middle East and Europe, the McCain campaign felt that they needed to "come up with something equally bold for John to do," according to one advisor.

McCain aides said that the senator's journey to the Internet will span five days and will take him to such far-flung sites as Amazon.com, eBay and Facebook.

With a press retinue watching, Sen. McCain logged onto the Internet at 9:00 AM Sunday, paying his first-ever visit ever to Mapquest.com.

"I can't get this [expletive] thing to work," Sen. McCain said as he struggled with his computer's mouse, causing his wife Cindy to prompt him to add that he was "just kidding."

Having pronounced his visit to Mapquest a success, Sen. McCain continued his tour by visiting Weather.com and Yahoo! Answers, where he inquired as to the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

Sen. McCain said that he had embarked on his visit to the Internet to allay any fears that he is too out-of-touch to be president, adding that he plans to take additional steps to demonstrate that he is comfortable with today's technology: "In the days and weeks ahead, you will be seeing me rock out with my new Walkman."

Courtesy of Borowitz Report.

Taxes!

Having watched the Obama campaign for the last six weeks, I can tell you two things for certain about this election:

First, Issue #1 for the Obama campaign is the economy. Duh.

Second, Issue #1 for the majority of the electorate is also the economy. Duh.

Why then does the McCain camp seem so intent on dodging the subject; forever trying to make this election about military/foreign policy experience (probably a bad idea) and the Iraq war ?

I think I have a few ideas:

Those signs are all over Ohio right now. So are these:

Americans are feeling the sting of this economic downturn. Gas prices are increasingly unbearable, the housing situation remains dire, lending institutions are hanging on by a government financed thread; things are not going well. Besides the fact that McCain is not so well versed in economics, what does he have to fear from whiny American voters?

Well, his tax policy.

Courtesy of the Washington Post.

This spiffy graphic comes from the Washington Post, based on data from a study done at the Tax Policy Center. The juicy entirety of the findings can be found here, and they are actually interesting even to those of us not well versed in economics.

If I were an economist, I could make all sorts of informed inferences about what this graph and the full study means. Maybe Kevin can help us out with that. For now, all I want to do is to point out some very clear points:

While both candidates aim to mostly reduce taxes, McCain’s most drastic decreases are on the top 1% of Americans, while Obama’s only increases affect the same people. The difference between them tops $1 million.

Stances on taxing the rich are a rather fundamental element of most voters’ political psyche and are not likely to change over the course of one debate. McCain wants to drastically lessen the progressive nature of our tax code, while Obama wants to deepen it at the highest tiers. It is pretty simple and I’ll leave the merits of either stance to our readers to debate. The point is that this dichotomy is pretty typical of a Presidential race. Republican wants to tax the rich less, Democrat more. Whoopee.

The next point is the big one: After you account for the richest 1% of Americans, every other bracket would actually see a tax reduction in Obama’s plan. This goes against conventional wisdom for 99% of Americans that Democrat=higher taxes. This brings me back to the signs in Ohio. With Obama’s plan, 95% of Ohioans would see at least a $1,000 decrease in their taxes. I daresay that helps out average Americans with spending, fuel consumption and other life expenses more than any relief package (of which Obama believes we need another, by the way).

I won’t go into whether or not one tax plan is actually better than the other, because again, I’m not an economist. However, I’ll venture a guess as to what most Americans are interested in hearing about. As you move down the income scale, Obama’s tax cuts are more substantial than McCain’s. As you move down the income scale, the number of American’s fitting into the bracket is much higher as well. And I’ll tell you what, with the breadth and effectiveness of the Obama campaign’s voter registration and get out the vote efforts, this is something for the McCain camp to seriously worry about. People are listening.

Fewer taxes is always a welcome element to any politician’s platform in the eyes of most voters. However, when you are coming into office during an economic downturn, during a long term war investment and one of the most serious national debt situations in the nation’s history, the government has to make money somewhere, doesn’t it? China already holds over $1 trillion in reserve, I don’t think they want much more of our debt. I’m not so sure the gold standard is the answer yet either, but maybe Dr. Paul can sell me on that one on Sept. 2nd.

I don’t have answers, but I think its pretty clear why McCain isn’t keen on discussing the economy. Obama is driving the issue hard, and has the policies to actually compete and really out do McCain on an issue that is traditionally a strength of the Republicans. “It’s the economy, stupid” isn’t enough for the Obama camp. They are pointing that slogan at their rival and backing it up with some real ideas. We’ll see how that works out for them.

Meanwhile, hold on to your hats kids, the economy is going to be it this year.

Intersection Of Freedom’s Watch And McCain? All Roads Lead To Rove

When you think about the biggest skunk in the Grand Ole Party, does Karl Rove's eau de turdblossom spring to mind? It should:


We have recently learned that Rove has signed a mid-six figure consulting deal with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson to oversee the activities of the right-wing shadow group Freedom's Watch. With the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) underfunded and in disarray this cycle, it has outsourced its work to Freedom's Watch, a shady soft money group with ties to President Bush and Senator John McCain.

If you ever wondered what the Bush political team is up to this campaign season, you need look no farther than the team behind Freedom's Watch. Rove, along with former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, former White House Political Director Tony Feather, and a slew of Bush cronies have teamed up with the third richest man in the country, Freedom's Watch's sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson - to form this unprecedented swift-boat operation. Their goal is clear -- to preserve Bush's legacy by delivering a third Bush term....

Please take a moment to visit www.TheRealFreedomsWatch.org and sign our petition demanding the National Republican Congressional Committee and Republican campaigns nationwide denounce Karl Rove's new attack shop....


Funny thing about Rove: he's been writing regular op-ed columns for the WSJ and Newsweek, and doing regular political commentary for Faux News. He also works both for Freedom's Watch AND for the McCain Campaign. All at the same time. All with no regular public disclosure of his rampant conflicts of interest nor with much if any oversight of his pivotal role between McCain's presidential campaign and Freedom's Watch which, as a 501(c)(4), is supposed to have no coordination with McCain's camp or any political campaign.   And yet:

“Karl is up to his eyeballs in this,” says one prominent GOP consultant who has met with Rove a few times this year. “They’re trying to figure out who is going to do the presidential, who is going to do the Senate and who is going to do the House. They’re trying to assign resources to maximize the dollars and minimize duplication. Karl has taken it over.”


Anyone else getting that inevitable whiff of GOP corruption and flouting of the rules?

I'm sure Rove protege Steve Schmidt, newly installed at the McCain campaign's helm, is shocked...shocked, I say...to learn his mentor Karl Rove might be involved in a rule-flouting scheme to game the 2008 election.  Especially when you consider the timely roll-out of prior Freedom's Watch campaigns which just happened to coincide directly with the McCain messaging roll-out of the week?  (And with Congressional campaign strategy, which Blue America has already been fighting.)

Why is it that when we talk Republican corruption, all roads inevitably lead to Rove? And shouldn't we all be asking if Grover Norquist is up to his old launder the Republican money and take a cut tricks again? Is this yet another "follow the money" scheme? Inquiring minds and all...given that after Jackie Boy Abramoff, none of these people ever again get the benefit of any doubt.

Another Obama "Problem" Group Proves to be Unproblematic

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin today:

Women voters aren't warming to 'cool' Obama

July 30, 2008

BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist

The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It's not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.


Terrific lede! Except ... Obama's polling among women actually IS quite clear, according to a Research 2000 poll released three days ago:

QUESTION: If the election for President were held today, who would you vote for if the choices were between Barack Obama, the Democrat, John McCain, the Republican, Bob Barr, the Libertarian, or Ralph Nader, an Independent?

OBAMA  MCCAIN  BARR  NADER  OTHER  UND

ALL     51%    39%    3%     2%     1%     4%

MEN     45%    45%    4%     2%     1%     3%
WOMEN   56%    34% 2%     2%     1%     5%


That's a 22-point lead among women overall, Ms. Marin.

But don't let a little thing like empirical evidence mess with the premise of the day's "Obama's got a [fill in the day's demographic] problem!" story. Especially when you have a whole lot of anectodotal crap to cram into a column somewhere, like how Michelle Obama pleaded for support in a roomful of well-off, well-dressed women who seemed disposed to vote for her husband, but hey ...there is still a woman problem, damn it, because the writer has to shoehorn in a little "human interest" crapola to justify her columninizing existence. Enter ... Sarah, angry McCain-supporter news junkie who thinks Obama is "like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool."

But the women Obama needs right now are the ones who do not dine downtown. They're the ones who can't afford organic anything, forced to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk because they can't buy both on the same day.

Women like Sarah.


What's particularly irritating about this column is that near the end, Marin actually does cite a poll ("The July 15 Quinnipiac University poll shows women overall backed Obama over McCain 55 percent to 36 percent.") ... yet we're delivered the stupid lede and premise anyway. So it's not even the case that she's unaware of how Obama is polling among women overall.

Yeah, Obama might have a woman problem, all right. It just might be Carol Marin.

Update by kos: For more context, check out the 2004 exit polls. Kerry won the female vote 51-48. So while Kerry won that vote by just three points, Obama leads that demographic by 22.

A real problem for Obama, yes.

Gotcha! Gallup Commits "Polling Malpractice" Startling New Info/Controversy on Poll

Reposted from DailyKOS.

There were many problems with the latest Gallup Poll, which has McCain up +4 vs Obama. But now with more information (buried deep into the 9th paragraph of USA Today's own write up), it only gets worse. It's potentially "startlingly" worse

It seems that Gallup according to writer Seth Colter Walls, "committed polling malpractice", when describing polling expert, Prof. Adam Abramowitz analysis, of Gallup/USA today's latest halting revelation.

Gallup fudged the numbers in more ways than we ever thought!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...





As for how "likely voters" were identified, USA Today reports that respondents were asked "how much thought they had given the election, how often they voted in the past and whether they plan to vote this fall." Fair enough. But the very next sentence raises even more questions about whether USA Today's effort is actually a snapshot of the electorate, as its website claims, or enters the realm of forward-looking hypothesizing. Buried in the ninth paragraph of USA Today's own write-up, they reveal that "McCain's gains came because there was an even number of likely voters from each party. Last month, the Democrats had an 11-point edge."

Abramowitz says this contradiction is the equivalent of polling malpractice. "It is simply not plausible that there would be an 11-point  swing in party ID among likely voters or that there is now an even split in the likely electorate between Republicans and Democrats," he wrote in an email to the Huffington Post.


Agreed! There is no responsible poll in America that would weigh Democrats and Republicans evenly right now.

As Prof. Abramawitz explained, party ID wouldn't be up 11 points in a month (especially for the struggling Republican party) either. Think about it? When is the last time you've seen, or heard about a poll where Republican and Democratic party ID were equal? Gallup tried to hide this initially. It was bad enough they had given us multiple, shaky reasons/data already. But this one (equal party ID) is just as bad as removing a large sample of 109 so called "unlikely voters", who planned to vote for Obama by 61 to 7% (Yes. They did that, and several other highly questionable decisions) to give McCain the "likely voter edge". Obama should of been up BIG in this poll (as he already hit 50% vs McCain's 44% in their June poll).

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...

Something really crazy is happening. I wrote a diary yesterday regarding this subject. http://www.dailykos.com/...

There seems to be a confluence of media and polling firms, that are either against Obama or trying to keep this race close.

I don't know. But Gallup Chief Frank Newport practically admits on MSNBC that they lied and were testing new theories. So Back to Mr. Colter of the Huffingtonpost:

But grains of salt aside, there is other evidence to suggest that USA Today's "likely voter" poll runs afoul of its own standards in terms of not forecasting far-off election results. In describing the poll's usefulness on MSNBC Tuesday morning, Gallup chief Frank Newport said "it's important to look at likely voters ... just to see under a scenario where McCain supporters are energized."

"Just to see a scenario where McCain supporters are energized"; so now Gallup is passing off speculation and hypothesis as accurate polling?


Shouldn't this be some type of scandal? What was Gannet's (USA Today's owners) role or influence in this? Why is MSNBC, other media and "pundits", continue to reference this now disgraced poll? What does this mean to our future, the upcoming election, and media/polling priorities and influence?

Gallup/USAToday should certainly feel ashamed and needs to apologize as it attempts to pass off this drivel.  Mr. Colter Walls agrees, and Gallups, Newport even tries to defend/explain himself one more time, as well:

So sure, "under a scenario" where McCain's voters are energized at a level equal to Obama's and the national distribution of party ID is equal between Democrats and Republicans, perhaps it would make sense to see McCain with a four-point lead in a poll with a plus/minus 4 percent margin of error. But engineering coverage of a poll with metrics contrived to show results under a certain "scenario" sounds more prospective and hypothetical than the paper's stated mission of covering polls as momentary snapshots and "not forecasts of far-off election days."

As Newport said on MSNBC this morning: "The likely voters simply tell us that turnout could make a difference."


I'm sure we've all thought it at times. But I hope this is the first, last, and only poll that has McCain ahead (legitimate, or illegitimately). Let's not start any precedents.

Gallup's Frank Newport, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, John McCain and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough are all a disgrace, and charter members of Keith Olberman's "Worst Person Of The Day". club.

PS: Obama is kicking ass, and the crowd is juiced in his economic townhall in Missouri today.

He's been funny, articulate, honest and emotionally energized.

McCain Failure to Visit Troops Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence

Reposted from the Washington Post.

For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

The attacks are part of a newly aggressive McCain operation whose aim is to portray the Democratic presidential candidate as a craven politician more interested in his image than in ailing soldiers, a senior McCain adviser said. They come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival's patriotism.

The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

"Absolutely, unequivocally wrong," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in an e-mail after McCain's comments to Larry King.

Despite serious and repeated queries about the charge over several days, McCain and his allies continued yesterday to question Obama's patriotism by focusing attention on the canceled hospital visit.

McCain's campaign released a statement from retired Sgt. Maj. Craig Layton, who worked as a commander at the hospital, who said: "If Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief."

McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct, and that Obama canceled the visit because he was not allowed to take reporters and cameras into the hospital.

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here."

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.

The McCain campaign has produced a television commercial that says that while in Germany, Obama "made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras." The commercial shows Obama shooting a basketball -- an event that happened earlier in the trip on a stopover in Kuwait, where the Democrat spoke to troops in a gym before grabbing a ball and taking a single shot. The military released the video footage.

A reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding Obama's decision not to visit Landstuhl, based on firsthand reporting from the trip, shows that his campaign never contemplated taking the media with him.

The first indication reporters got that Obama was planning, or had planned, to visit the hospital came last Thursday morning, shortly after the entourage arrived in Berlin. On the seats of the media bus were schedules for his stop in Germany and the final entry -- a Friday-morning departure -- indicated that the senator's plane would fly from Berlin to Ramstein Air Base.

When a reporter asked spokeswoman Linda Douglass that morning about the trip to Ramstein, she said that the trip had been considered but that Obama was not going to go. At that point, the campaign provided no other information.

Later that night, after Obama gave a speech in Berlin, a campaign source spoke about the canceled stop on the condition of anonymity. The official said that the trip was canceled after the Pentagon informed a campaign official that the visit would be considered a campaign event.

Overnight, the Obama team issued two statements, one from senior campaign official Robert Gibbs and the other from retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was on the trip.

Gibbs's statement said the hospital visit, which had been on the internal schedule for several weeks, was canceled because Obama decided it would be inappropriate to go there as part of a trip paid for by his campaign. Gration said the Pentagon had told the campaign that the visit would be seen as a political trip.

Those two statements, while not inconsistent, did not clarify whether the visit was canceled in reaction to Pentagon concerns or because of worries about appearances. They also opened Obama's camp to charges that it was offering slightly different reasons at different times.

Gibbs said yesterday that the campaign had planned to inform the traveling media members sometime on the morning of the flight to Ramstein that Obama was intending to visit the hospital but had made no plans to take reporters, including even the small, protective press pool that now accompanies him most places.

Reporters, he said, probably would have been able to get off the plane but not leave an air base facility close by. "We had made absolutely no arrangements to transport the press to the hospital," he said.

On Friday afternoon, en route from Berlin to Paris, Gibbs briefed reporters traveling with Obama. He noted that the candidate had visited wounded soldiers several weeks earlier at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District and at a combat support hospital while in Iraq earlier in the week -- both times without reporters.

At one point, a reporter asked, "Why not just say it is never inappropriate to visit men and women in service?" -- a key McCain charge -- "What is your response to that?"

Gibbs replied: "It is entirely likely that someone would have attacked us for having gone. And it is entirely likely -- and it has come about -- that people have attacked us for not going."

On Saturday in London, Obama addressed the controversy during a news conference. He said Pentagon concerns about Gration's status triggered the decision not to visit Landstuhl.

"We got notice that [Gration] would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the Senate staff," Obama said. "That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not, or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns."

Obama's explanation, which came after more than a day of controversy, was the clearest in noting that it was Pentagon concerns about Gration accompanying him to the hospital that forced Obama to reconsider and, ultimately, cancel the visit.

Gibbs was asked yesterday about the continuingallegations from McCain that the real reason was a desire to bring a media entourage to the hospital.

"That's completely untrue, and I think, honestly, they know it's untrue," Gibbs said.

McCain's Campaign: So Dumb, We Had to Check to Make Sure It Was Real



We're in trouble:
Obama was at the Tiergarten in Berlin, amid a sea of people.  McCain was at "Schmidt's Sausage Haus und Restaurant" in German Village, an enclave of Columbus, Ohio.

McCain addressed about a half dozen Ohio small business owners in the historic village.
"I'd love to give a speech in Germany," McCain said. "But I'd much prefer to do it as President."

[...]

This event was hastily organized after the candidate's planned visit to a Louisiana [oil rig] was cancelled due to the threat of hurricanes in the Gulf Coast.


Someone emailed me this news from another source, and at first we couldn't tell if it was satire.  Obama, of course, gave a speech this afternoon to huge crowd in Berlin.  He has just come from the Middle East, where he garnered glowing press.   Seeing the McCain campaign try to counter Obama's Berlin event with a stop in German Village where McCain ate some sausage is so pathetic it probably causes most political observers who aren't fervent Republicans to laugh, and like us, think, "nah, this has to be a joke.  They're not that bad...are they?"

It wasn't a joke.  And it's got me worried.

You probably know the concept of peaking too soon.  I'm afraid the McCain campaign may be bottoming out too soon.  I've been following politics since the mid-80's, and I can't think of any campaign that has been as bad as McCain's.

The campaign thought it was a good idea to send McCain out to an oil rig during a hurricane.  That didn't work, because, you know, there was a hurricane.  By even suggesting that it was a good idea, and then having to pull back from their plans, they looked like nitwits.  (And that doesn't even address the problems caused by the oil spill that's shut down the Mississippi River south of New Orleans.

Their Plan B?  They sent him to an ethnic diner that will reinforce the contrast between the tired McCain, who met with a few small businessmen, and the charismatic Obama, who got a reception from Berliners like that given to John F. Kennedy.

Obama went to Berlin and got hundreds of thousands of people and fawning press coverage.  McCain went to Ohio and got a bratwurst and probably a case of heartburn.

So why am I worried?  Because I can't believe Republicans will allow McCain to continue running his campaign this poorly.  [And the RNC hasn't been any better, as SusanG pointed out yesterday.]  The rest of the party doesn't necessarily need him to run a campaign that can put him in a position to win, but they have to do whatever they can to prevent him from losing solidly and losing in a landslide.  A solid loss hurts them for a while.  It could take them a decade or longer to recover from a landslide loss.

McCain isn't a particularly good candidate.  He's undisciplined, many people think he's too old to be president, he's too closely associated with George W. Bush, and his party is now loathed by much of America.  He's generally seen as likable, but more and more his weaknesses as a candidate are becoming visible.

But as bad a candidate as McCain may be, his campaign is making him worse.  They wasted the time between him locking up their nomination and Obama securing ours.  Obama raised as much money in one day last month as McCain raised in all of June.  McCain spent far more than Obama in June, but he didn't gain any ground.

The McCain campaign recently went through shake-up that was supposed to tighten their operations.  While they have gotten slightly more aggressive in attacking Obama, their messaging and choice of locations and visuals have been laughably bad and don't appear to be getting any better.

I love seeing McCain's campaign get outclassed by Obama's in almost every facet.  I have thought all along that whoever won our nomination would win the presidency, and that there's a good chance that by historical standards it won't even be close.  But I don't like to see the McCain campaign hit what by similar historical standards may be rock bottom, and do it so far out from the election that McCain might have time to bring in people who could improve his operation and make the election closer than we would all like.