The Republican presidential hopeful John McCain let his frustration with the US economy for torpedoing his campaign boil over today. When asked in an interview about the challenges his campaign faces, McCain responded, "Look, it's no secret that the economy favors my opponent." Asked to elaborate, he replied, "This country is in crisis. Now is the not the time to point fingers. But everybody knows that the economy caused this crisis, and I think everybody knows why it's doing it."

Separately, Steve Schmidt, who is the top strategist for the McCain campaign, called the economy a "pro-Obama institution..uh...organization...whatever, it's pro-Obama." He added,

This is an economy that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate. Everything that happens to the economy should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective.

Challenged by reporters to defend the accusation, Schmidt continued:

The economy could have gone sour at any point in the past four years or the next for years. You have to ask yourself why now? Who stands to gain? Why, on the same day that John McCain declared that the fundamentals of our economy were strong, would the Dow Jones suddenly tumble 300 points? Some people might call it a coincidence. I call it spite.

Asked why the economy might bear ill will towards the campaign, Schmidt answered, "I have no idea. Go ask the economy."

But others have suggested that the economy, which has been increasingly fragile in recent years, feels disrespected by John McCain, whose priority in the Senate has been military affairs and earmark reform. McCain's blunt acknowledgment that "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues," may have particularly incited the economy's wrath.

According to traditional economic theory, economies follows strict mathematical rules and lack any independent agency of their own, but many economists have recently embraced the controversial new theory of Agent-Based Economics which asserts that economies have feelings too. The theory offers support to McCain's assertion that the economy has it out for him. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has accused the economy of engaging in malicious behavior, calling it "the worst economy I've ever seen" and "a corrosive force." Dr. Richard S. Satrams, Professor of Economics at Prestigious University, was even more direct:

Much to the dismay of my colleagues, the economy is a capricious and unpredictable beast. Whether driven by chance or animus, I cannot say, but it surely has John McCain by the balls and shows no sign of letting go. One suspects that it seeks another trophy to hang next to [former President] Jimmy Carter's peanuts.

The Obama campaign immediately ridiculed McCain's accusations, stating in a press release that "John McCain is so out-of-touch that he wouldn't recognize the economy if it collapsed on his doorstep. Any of his doorsteps."

Late update: The McCain campaign has just released evidence which they claim proves that the economy is against John McCain. The scrap of paper appears to so show the angry scrawl of a clearly disturbed and bitter economy. The authenticity of the document has not been established.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article has been cross-posted at DagBlog.com. For more on John McCain's tempestuous relationship with the economy, see my previous articles:

• John McCain - Steady at the Helm in Turbulent Seas
  
• The Strange History Of John McCain's Economic Theories

Since I began writing for TPM, one of the most popular subjects in the comment sections of my posts has been an issue of great national import: my shirt. When it made its monochrome debut at TPM last April, a fierce debate ensued as to the precise color of the collar. Unable to reach consensus, cafe member DF helped me to end the debate by pimping my shirt with technicolor. The animated colors served to further enrage the critics, and I am still asked on a regular basis to change my shirt. Last July, a cantankerous, wise-ass baby known as Allsburg, took the challenge a step further by publicly offering to bribe me into removing my shirt. He promised to donate $100 to the Obama campaign and another $100 to a Senate candidate of my choice if I would permanently change my avatar to a non-animated image. But some of the shirt's supporters came to its defense, offering to donate the same amount if I were to keep the shirt on, creating a stalemate.

Baby Allsburg hasn't been seen around the cafe lately, and I've recently heard a very disturbing rumor that he was eaten by dingos in the deserts outside Seattle. While I have become very attached to the shirt, I feel that I owe it to the memory of our dear be-dingoed ex-baby to fulfill his dream by sacrificing my shirt to help Barack Obama in this final, critical month of the campaign. But to be fair to the shirt's supporters, I would like to give them the opportunity to save the shirt. Therefore, I hereby announce the first ever SHIRT-OFF FOR OBAMA contest. Please donate to show your support for Obama and your love/hate for the shirt at my online fundraiser: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/ShirtOff. If the sum of the anti-shirt donations is greater than that of the pro-shirt donations, I promise to permanently remove my groovy seizure-inducing avatar and replace it with something innocuous. Maybe a cat. Those seem to be popular.

If you donate, please indicate your vote by including in the message Save the Shirt or Lose the Shirt. The contest will last 24 hours, concluding at midnight tonight. I will publish updates on this thread throughout the day.

Please rec until this post makes the list, for Obama's sake if not that of the shirt.

Regards,
Genghis

This fundraiser is not supported or endorsed by Talking Points Memo. The shirt isn't either.

John McCain on the state of the economy:

1/10 McCain: I don't believe we're headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong.

Hurray, the fundamentals are strong!

9/ 15 McCain: Our economy, I think, is still -- the fundamentals of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times.

Well, at least the fundamentals are still strong.

9/15 McCain: And my opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals -- the American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, the small business, those are the fundamentals of America, and I think they're strong.

Um, what exactly do you mean by fundamentals?

9/15 McCain: The fundamentals of our economy are at risk.... And those fundamentals are threatened, they are threatened and at risk because some on Wall Street have treated Wall Street like a casino.

Sorry, I'm totally lost now.

John McCain on bailouts

9/15 McCain: I do not believe that the American taxpayer should be on the hook for AIG...We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else.

No bailout!

9/16 McCain: I didn't want to do that. And I don't think anybody I know wanted to do that. But there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk.

Sometimes you have to bail.

9/29 McCain: Now it's time for all members of Congress to go back to the drawing board. I call on Congress to get back obviously immediately to address this crisis. I speak to you in an hour of crisis for our nation's economy. I believe that the challenges facing our economy could have a grave impact on every American worker, small business owner and family if our leaders fail to act.

Bail! Bail! Bail!

John McCain on the blame game

9/29 McCain: Now is not the time to fix the blame. It's time to fix the problem.

No blaming, people!

9/29 Doug Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser for McCain: Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families...Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome. This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.

It's Obama's fault!

John McCain on phoning it in

9/29 McCain: I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis. I'll never do that. I know that many of you have noticed it's not my style to simply phone it in.

Not his style.

9/29 McCain aide Mark Salter: He's calling members on both sides, talking to people in the administration, helping out as he can.... He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.

Not phoning is so 3 hours ago.

John McCain on whether American are better off than they were:

1/30 Anderson Cooper: Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?
McCain: I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, et cetera.

Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job.

8/05: McCain Ad: Washington's broken. John McCain knows it. We're worse off than we were four years ago.

George Bush? Never heard of 'em.

I have also previously written about McCain's erratic shifts on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and supply-side economics. That article can be found here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman.

From Friday's debate:

Jim Lehrer: Are there fundamental differences between your approach and Senator Obama's approach to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?

John McCain: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington...You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money.

I'm sure that the bear paternity routine had the audience rolling on the floor the first time John used it, but someone please explain to him that jokes go stale after several hundred repetitions. (And after you've explained it to John, please explain it to my dad, thanks.) But let's take his point seriously and consider the impact of the bear study on our economy.

Case 1: Bear Study
Cost: $3 million
Percentage of budget*: 0.0001%
Average cost to taxpayers**: 3 cents

3 cents? Thanks, John. I'll put it in the bank as soon as I get it. That should give Citigroup some capital to work with. But I'm not being fair. John McCain isn't suggesting that canceling the bear study will save the economy. He wants to cut all the earmarks:

Case 2: Earmarks
Cost: $18 billion
Percentage of budget: 0.6%
Average cost to taxpayers: $194

There's a campaign slogan for you: Elect John McCain, Save $194. Of course, that would be disingenuous because the tax burden isn't distributed evenly. Most taxpayers would save less than $100. How about this? Elect John, McCain, Cut the Budget by Half a Percent. Still doesn't really resonate. And how does that $18 billion compare to a $700 billion bailout? Talk to us, John.

John McCain: I hear this all the time. "It's only $18 billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?

Holy, moly! At that rate, in five years, it will be $54 billion. That's a lot of bear studies.*** But hold on a sec. That $18 billion in earmarks figure is from 2005, which was three years ago. In 2008, there have been $16.5 billion in earmarks. Huh. So over the past five years it tripled, but over the past three years, it declined. Can we get some clarity here? John?

John McCain: I suggest that people go up on the Web site of Citizens Against Government Waste, and they'll look at those projects.

Great idea. Let's go.

Case 3: Triple the Pork
2003: $22.5 billion
2008: $17.2 billion

Uh...John? That's not tripling we can believe in. Don't get me wrong. I'd be happy to get back whatever money the government manages to save from your reforms. Or it can keep the money and pay down the debt--I'm down. But what does any of this have to do with the economic crisis? We're facing a $700 billion bailout and a potential recession of historic proportions, and you're telling us jokes about a $3 million bear study. I think you're joking all right but not about the bear study. And I have to tell you, it's not funny.

P.S. I know that you don't have much patience for economic theory, but you might want to ask one of your economic geniuses about Keynes. Cutting infrastructure spending and pursuing a balanced budget during a recession is generally regarded as a really bad idea. Some food for thought:

The initial government response to the Great Depression was ineffective, as President Hoover insisted that the economy was sound and that prosperity would soon return...Convinced that a balanced federal budget was essential to restoring business confidence, Hoover sought to cut government spending and raise taxes. But in the face of a collapsing economy, this served only to reduce demand further. As conditions worsened, Hoover’s administration eventually provided emergency loans to banks and industry, expanded public works, and helped states offer relief. But it was too little, too late.

 

* The Federal budget in '08 was about 2.9 trillion dollars.

** About 140 million Americans filed income taxes last year, of which about one third paid nothing, leaving approximately 93 million taxpayers.

*** $54 million would pay for 18,000 bear DNA studies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman.

This post is not about the horse race or who "won" the debate. This post is about the greatest problem facing America today, a greater problem than we have faced in many years. This post is about the economy. I'm sorry to say that neither of the candidates took the opportunity to address it in a serious manner.

Let's begin with McCain, the stupider of the two. What's McCain's solution to our economic travails? Reducing earmarks. As Jim Lehrer pressed him on how to address the current crisis, McCain responded with earmark reform and more earmark reform. Earmarks are certainly a problem. We waste a lot of money on local projects that serve not the nation's interest but the interest of reelecting certain congresspeople who have proven their worth by staying in office long enough to head choice committees. Great. Let's cut the earmarks. According to the O.M.B., we spent $16.5B on earmarks in 2008. That's a lot of money to you and me, but to the Federal Government, it's chump change. The total Federal Budget in 2008 was almost 3 trillion dollars, of which earmarks make up one half of one percent. Let's say McCain were to be elected President and, against all odds, succeed in banning earmarks completely. The Federal Budget would still be 3 trillion dollars. What does shaving 0.5% (at most) from the Federal budget have to do with stabilizing the economy?

But it's worse than that. Ever since Keynes, it's been widely accepted that governments should spend money during recessions in order to stimulate the economy. Whatever limited value earmarks have for the nation, they at least pump money into the economy. So McCain's solution to the recession is to cut Federal spending which would accomplish the exact opposite. 2009 is the worst moment in recent history to cut earmarks. McCain's solution not only offers minimal benefit to our economy; it's actually counterproductive. Did I say stupid?

Obama's turn. Obama, to his credit, spent a minute or two discussing the bailout plan, which is more than McCain was able to muster. But the bailout is a stopgap measure meant to stave off a massive collapse. It's the first step in what must be a comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy. So what else did Obama have to say about the economy? Tax cuts for the middle class. Everyone who makes less than $250K will receive some kind of tax cut. Rolling back the Bush tax cut for the rich will cover the cost. Income distribution and the shrinking middle class are major problems which need to be addressed, and I'm very glad that Obama intends to address them. But those plans do not address the economy in the near term. The tax cuts do not constitute a stimulus package. Obama's plan simply that shifts the current tax burden to wealthier Americans. It does not provide any solution to our immediate economic malaise.

The correct answer to Lehrer's question about what we need to cut would have been to say that now is not the time to reduce the deficit. What we need right now are stimulus packages for the top, the bottom, and the middle. We need to inject capital into the economy and restore confidence. We need a plan to protect the country from a long, deep, painful recession. Neither candidate has offered even the glimmer of such a plan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman.

We are facing the worst economic crisis since the 1980's. WaMu just set a record as the "Largest U.S. Bank Failure Ever." (Mazel-tov, WaMu.) Investment titans are on the knees, the ones that haven't gone under or been torn apart. Debt is at a historic high. Credit is tight. People are losing their houses and their jobs. Everyone is angry. Everyone is afraid.

And at a long serious table in the White House, three men who would lead this country, one at each end and one in the middle, sit impotent. George Bush is despised by two-thirds of the country. Would that he had had the grace to depart in 2006 when the majority made clear that it no longer trusted him to run the country. He is President now only by virtue of the office. The two who would replace him sit quietly while the economy roils, plotting subtle jabs and symbolic gestures, arguing about television schedules. Their positions on the bailout are...vague. Somewhere between "we must act now" and "the plan still needs work." Be careful, candidates. You wouldn't want to say the wrong thing. The bailout might not work, so you don't want to own it. But you can't have us think you're fiddling while we burn either. Gotta do something. Can't commit to anything.

Fuck that. If you wish to lead, now is your chance. The lame duck can't fly. The parties are divided. There is no one to step up but you. We don't need any namby-pamby joint statements about how seriously you take this crisis. We don't give a shit whether you debate tonight or next Wednesday. We don't care about the status of your campaign ads. We need a plan. We need you to talk to us and tell us what has to happen to avert this crisis. We need you to bend the legislators of your party to your will. We need you to go back to that long serious table, not to participate in a process, but to make a deal. We need you to lead!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman.

America is fortunate to have a choice between two men of honor this election year. In another election, the candidates might have tried to exploit the financial crisis for petty political gain. But not this year. John McCain has gone so far as to propose delaying the first debate with Barack Obama so that they can solve our crisis:

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved...I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night's debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

Now that, my friends, is honor. This is a time of crisis. The last thing that Americans need right now is to watch their leaders debate about how to end the crisis. Proposing this great delay required great political courage. Cynical Americans might have concluded that McCain was not quite ready to debate or that he was making a show for political gain. But John McCain is willing to risk the cynicism of the voters to do the right thing for the country.

Barack Obama is also a man of honor. Even before McCain's stunningly honorable proposal, Obama called John McCain to propose that they make a joint announcement. This is a time of crisis. What Americans need right now are joint statements reassuring us that our nation's financial health is in the hands of honorable men. According to the Obama campaign:

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement.

I'm sure the inclusion of the times of the phone calls was unintentional, but I had our crack statistician teams run the numbers. Apparently, Barack Obama is more honorable than John McCain by exactly 6 hours.* Now 6 hours may not seem like a lot of time, but it can mean the difference between honor and dishonor in the White House. For example, if John McCain were to receive a phone call at 3 AM, he might not respond with honor 9 AM.

But though he was slower out of the gate, John McCain has been leading the honor race ever since. He broached a debate delay to Obama during the 2:30 call, and Obama indicated that he would consider it:

I proposed putting out the joint statement. [John McCain] concurred with that. he then also said, 'I would like us to look at suspending the campaign and pushing the debates off.' I said, 'let's put out the joint statement first, and then get our campaigns to discuss this.'

But John McCain knew that the nation could not wait for honor. After the phone call, he immediately released the news of his courage to the press. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, while quick to honor, apparently lacks John McCain's honorable depth, as he is not willing to face the cynicism of the voters by agreeing to delay the debate, explaining, "I believe it makes sense for us to present ourselves to the American people."

Most analysts credit John McCain with winning this battle in the honor war, but we have a long 10 weeks ahead of us. We can expect many more honorable and completely non-political actions from both candidates during that time. Meanwhile, after 16 hours of nonstop meetings, the two candidates have produced an honorable joint statement which will surely make Americans weep with relief:

This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

 

* Al Gore has claimed credit for proposing to issue a joint statement and to delay the debate back in 2005, which would giving him a 3-year honor jump on both candidates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman. If you enjoy our work, please share the love by linking to our blog and Digging this post.

The blogosphere is abuzz with rumors about a secret deal between John McCain and Satan. TPM blogger, TheraP, first broke the story last week in a post entitled, Lady MacDeath - A Faustian Bargain of Sinister Deception. According to TheraP, who does not quote any sources, Satan promised John McCain the Presidency in 2008 in return for sacrificing his soul and selecting Sarah Palin to be his running mate. David Ignatius, op-ed columnist to the Washington Post, apparently deemed the story credible enough to mention the alleged deal in his column the next day, though he does not cite TheraP directly. A damning photo has also surfaced in another TPM Cafe blog by user ☠enghis (no relation), which appears to show John McCain in the act of signing a contract with a demonic being, though the terms are obscured.

If the rumors can be substantiated, it could complicate John McCain's election chances. In a 2006 interview with Ignatius, McCain declared, "The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil." If it turns out that McCain has in fact sold his soul, the Obama campaign may try to brand him as a flip-flopper. Even if his soul were not part of the arrangement, McCain could face sharp criticism for negotiating with a supernatural entity that most Americans despise. According to a recent Gallup poll, Satan tops the list of the The Most Evil Things Ever, coming in fifth place after taxes, pedophilia, greedy bankers, and hemorrhoids. Finally, voters may question McCain's judgment in entering a contract with Satan, who is notorious for double-dealing. According to Maggie Walsh, Professor of Human-Demon Relationships at University of California, Sunnydale, "any contractual relationship with Mephistopheles is risky, but it doesn't take a rocket theologian to see how this one's going to play out. McCain will get his Presidency, the Devil will get his Vice President, and then poof: Palin's in the White House and McCain's in the Red House. I hope that he had a good lawyer."

The McCain campaign has officially ignored the allegations, but as the rumors swirl, McCain is apparently feeling the heat. Asked about the charges at a town hall meeting yesterday, McCain responded angrily, "I did not have contractual relations with that demon, you little jerk." Meanwhile, campaign spokesman, Tucker Bounds, tried to tie Obama to the Devil, telling CNN news, "It's well known that Obama's advisor's sister-in-law's niece is a Satanist. Perhaps the media should be asking Senator Obama the hard questions about his relationship with the Devil."

Satan's office has also put out a press relying denying that any deal had taken place, "We reject and denounce the long discredited practice of soul trafficking, and we have a firm policy against meddling in human affairs." But a source close to the Devil who refused to be identified for fear of eternal damnation insinuated that the policy was flexible, "I can't talk about any deals, but Satan has a soft spot for righteous hypocrisy and a great deal of respect for the way John McCain has run his Presidential campaign." Asked whether Satan has ever done any deals with representatives from the Federal Government, she replied, "Let's just say that the White House visitation logs are still incomplete."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross-posted at my new blog, DagBlog.com, a joint project with cohorts Articleman and Deadman. If you enjoy our work, please share the love by linking to our blog and Digging this post.

Articleman will be discussing McCain's history as a member of the Keating Five on KRXA AM tomorrow at 8:05 a.m. Pacific/11:05 a.m. Eastern with Hal on his Morning Show.

Oh things are going well my friends. This stock market crash could not have come at a better time. Just look at John McCain squirm. All we need are a few more major bankruptcies, and we'll have the election locked up. As a special bonus, the greedy bankers are getting screwed too. If we play our cards right, we can cap their salaries, take away their bonuses, and make them write 1000 times on the whiteboard, "I will not overleverage myself." That way, the next time there's an irrational market bubble, the new batch of bankers won't fall for the promise of easy money the way people did in every bubble for the past two centuries because they'll remember that the last batch of bankers lost their bonuses. But really, this isn't about reform. I just like watching rich assholes get kicked in the nuts. Speaking of which, how many more points do you think the market has to drop before those traders start jumping off buildings? Let's do a raffle.

Now I know that some of you credulous sheep have fallen for that line about how we have to save the banks for the sake of the economy. But like Hillary said, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists. Anyway, once we get G.W. out of office, everything will be perfect. As long as Obama doesn't let the dirty CEO's and bankers off the hook (I like the guy, sometimes he lets practicality get in the way of a good ass-kicking), the working class will finally get its due, and we'll all be taken care of. No Democratic President would ever let hardworking Americans lose their jobs and have to go on welfare. And without any surviving credit card companies, people won't even have to go into debt to buy stuff. Anyway, I figure that most people have enough savings to get them through a two or three years without a job if that's what it takes to save the working class. Seriously, the more evil banks go bankrupt, the better off the American people will be. I say, let 'em crash.

Back in the doom-and-gloom days of...um...last week, there were a number of stalwart cheerleaders at TPM Cafe who airily assured us that Obama had everything under control. While I wasn't particularly concerned about the polls--I've seen enough elections not to get my knickers in a twist over weekly fluctuations--I had the sense that at least some of those cheerleaders would insist that all was well up to the moment of crushing defeat. The knowing assurances that Obama's hesitance to attack was part of his rope-a-dope strategy seemed the most suspect. I understand how rope-a-dope pertains to be boxing, but elections? Did these people expect McCain to wear himself out from too many negative attacks. Did they think the Republicans would run out of smears? What exactly was to be gained by holding back early and attacking later?

I've changed my mind. Whether by design or fortune, Obama gained by delaying retaliation. For one thing, McCain's attack ads, from Paris Hilton to kindergarten sex ed, have not been very effective. On July 30th, the day the celebrity ad came out, Obama led McCain in Real Clear Politic's aggregated polls 47/44. Today, Obama leads 52/48. More tellingly, Obama's favorable/unfavorable ratings haven't moved more than a couple of points since July, suggesting that the wild poll swings have had more to do with the conventions and Sarah Palin than McCain's attacks.

That's the rope part. What about the dope? The McCain campaign has obviously not run out of smears, but in running a series of dirty attack ads, they have squandered a valuable asset--moral high ground. At the beginning of the campaign, the two candidates were presented my the media as two honorable guys who run would clean, substantive campaigns. No longer. While Obama has lost some credibility in the mudslinging, it is McCain who has emerged as the bad guy in this fight, as previously fawning journalists have come down hard on his lies. Regardless of how this narrative translates into polls, it offers a clear strategic victory to the Obama campaign. McCain will now face more scrutiny from the press, he will have more trouble convincing voters that he represents a change from politics as usual, and in a mud-fight, he will be more likely to be seen as the instigator. Obama, on the other hand, now has a free hand to attack McCain without risk of tainting his own message of change. Had he attacked harder, earlier, and dirtier, the media would have been far more likely to declare both candidates equally tainted.

I'm not sure whether Obama intentionally suckered McCain into sacrificing his once vaunted credibility or whether he just got lucky, but it's worth noting that this is not the first time that Obama has managed to present himself as the sweet-natured hero reluctantly retaliating against a devious, Machiavellian villain.

And to the cheerleaders, if this is what you meant by rope-a-dope (be honest), kudos to you.

Those who know my writing here are aware that I have little love for Hillary Clinton. Had she won the nomination, I would have voted for her but not happily. But whatever her flaws, Clinton is extremely intelligent. She has a better command of public and foreign policy than any other candidate who participated in the primaries. Barack Obama, of course, is brilliant in his own right, as is Joe Biden.

John McCain is not a complete idiot, but policy details are obviously not his strong suit. Not just economic issues, which he has famously confessed to not understanding, but also foreign affairs, an area in which he has made a number of public gaffes, most notably confusing the religious affiliation of Al Qaeda, repeatedly. Can any of you imagine Clinton or Obama or Biden making the same error? Repeatedly?

And now we have Sarah Palin, the Republican Hillary by virtue of her ovaries. If any Clinton supporters fall for this cynical gender play, then shame on them. For Sarah Palin is in truth the un-Hillary. As Clinton is knowledgable, Palin is ignorant. As Clinton is cerebral, Palin is superficial. As Clinton is brilliant, Palin is, I'm sorry to say, a dumbass.

I hope that as the McCain campaign is forced to let Governor Palin answer questions about something other than motherhood and oil pipleines, a taste of which we've received in the namby-pamby Charlie Gibson interview, her cluelessness will become as obvious as lipstick on a polar bear. Because Governor Palin, I don't know Hillary Clinton, and she's no friend of mine, but I can say with confidence, you're no Hillary Clinton.

with apologies to Sam Cooke

She don't know much about history
She don't believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she does know how to speak on cue
And she knows if she makes fools of you
What a wonderful veep she would be

She don't know much about geography
She don't know much foreign policy
Don't know much about George Bush's war
Don't know what a VP is for
But she knows that one and one is two
And if McCain just tells her what to do
What a wonderful veep she would be

Now she don't claim to want any bridges
But she can sell you one
'Cuz maybe by pretending she never liked bridges
She can win your vote for John

She don't know much about history
She don't believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she knows if she can hide the truth
Until we make it to the voting booth
What a wonderful veep she would be

with apologies to Sam Cooke

She don't know much about history
She don't believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she does know how to speak on cue
And she knows if she makes fools of you
What a wonderful veep she would be

She don't know much about geography
She don't know much foreign policy
Don't know much about George Bush's war
Don't know what a VP is for
But she knows that one and one is two
And if McCain just tells her what to do
What a wonderful veep she would be

Now she don't claim to want any bridges
But she can sell you one
'Cuz maybe by pretending she never liked bridges
She can win your vote for John

She don't know much about history
She don't believe in biology
She wants to change the science books
She wants to fire the White House cooks
But she knows if she can hide the truth
Until we make it to the voting booth
What a wonderful veep she would be

Sometimes I feel as if we're all participating in some kind of psychology experiment and that any minute now, an old guy in a white coat will peer down from the heavens and tell us that we can remove our armbands and go home. Recent political events seem designed to expose our rational failings and prove that in the end, we're all just rats in a maze.

Was it only a few weeks ago that McCain derided Obama's lack of experience and ran ads proclaiming, "Hot Chicks Dig Obama?" Now McCain has found a celebrity of his own in Sarah Palin. She's young, she's attractive, she electrifies crowds, and she lacks experience. The campaign tries hard to present her as an everywoman, but despite her folksy manner, Palin is no more an average "hockey mom" than Britney Spears. Many celebrities, including Palin and Spears, have humble origins. They transform into celebrities when they become objects of national attention and sensationalist journalism. For Palin, this began when she ran for governor of Alaska and blossomed when McCain made her his running mate. Whether the ticket wins or loses, we'll follow daughter Bristol's pregnancy and marriage with the same prurient fascination that we have devoted to Britney's. Even "trooper-gate" will likely garner more ink from tabloids than than political rags, as we probe the intimate details of sister Molly McCann's sad marriage to a sadistic cop.

Though McCain's choice of running mate is cynical, and his effusive praise of Palin's "executive experience" is hypocritical, he and his campaign staff are at least behaving rationally. Their objective is to win the election; their strategic decisions and public statements promote that objective. But the rapid about face by legions of loyal supporters is a mind-blowing experiment in mass rationalization. McCain supporters who only a week ago dismissed Obama as a young, inexperienced lightweight now play up the significance of P.T.A. leadership. They smirked at Obama's adoring fans packing stadiums, but they danced ecstatically and gushed like teenagers when Palin took the stage. "Hot chicks" may dig Obama, but Republican delegates from Indiana now wear pins declaring their collective passion for "The Hot Chick." Perhaps Obama should roll out a new ad in which creepy old guys express admiration for the Palin's "aura." Republicans would denounce it as crass; Democrats would call it a joke and tell them to lighten up.

The most extreme Republican flip-flop concerns Bristol's pregnancy. How many people who now contend that teen pregnancy is a normal problem afflicting average Americans self-righteously denigrated the parenting skills and/or socioeconomic status of Britney Spears' mother when her teenage daughter, Jamie Lynn, got pregnant? (Side note: Jamie Lynn has apparently sent Bristol some burp cloths as a baby gift.) And imagine the Republican outcry if one of Obama's daughter's were to become pregnant at seventeen. Conservatives would loudly blame Michelle for trying to balance a career with motherhood and darkly hint at endemic cultural problems among the black community.

But Republicans aren't the only flip-floppers. How many Obama supporters who have boldly defended the importance of judgment over experience now dismiss Palin for lacking the latter? How many years of governing experience does it take cross the "Commander in Chief threshold?" And why was Clinton's candidacy a milestone for women while Palin's is a joke? When Jane Swift had twins as acting governor of Massachusetts, did mothers who now challenge Palin question Swift's ability to raise children while in office? If one of Obama's daughters were to become pregnant in a few years, would Democrats insist that the issue is fair game for the press or demand that the family's privacy be respected? There are ways to explain these variances of opinion of course. There can be a "right kind" of governing experience, and a "right kind" of female candidate, but I wonder whether it's the political commitments that are fixed, whereas the explanations just fill in the logic gaps after the fact.

As I watched the speeches last night, I listened to fellow Democrats reassure one another about how horrible Palin and the other speakers were. I read the angry, incredulous, and dismissive comments about Palin in the blogs. If I were the white-coated psychologist, and the election were my experiment, I would push the test to the limit. McCain would win the Presidency but have an affair with an intern, lie about it under oath, and get impeached by the Democratic Legislature. Hillary Clinton, campaigning on a message of "Experience for Change" would defeat Sarah Palin in 2012 and promptly re-invade Iraq. Dick Cheney, in the role of elder statesman, would decry the invasion and demand that the Clinton Administration release classified intelligence. Britney Spears would transform herself into a champion of feminism and gay rights, lead a movement called "Hot Chicks for Hot Chicks" and ultimately succeed Schwarzenegger as the Governor of California. During Governor Spears' tenure, her 12-year-old son would impregnate New York Senator Chelsea Clinton.

The experiment is over. You may remove your armbands and go home.

I knew that John McCain was devious, but I didn't realize just how devious. I have just learned from a credible source, who has asked not to be named because he's not a real person, who McCain plans to select as a running mate. I'll give you some hints:
- years of experience at the highest levels of government
- substantial economic and foreign policy expertise
- swing state associations
- appeals to working class voters
- endorsed by key conservative leaders
- appeals to moderate Democrats and disaffected Clinton supporters
- combat experience

Yes, John McCain intends to select Hillary Clinton as his running mate. She'll release her convention delegates all right...to McCain. Theirs will be the new Unity ticket. In an unprecedented strategy, her loyal delegates intend to write in John McCain at the convention. The Democratic National Convention doesn't permit write-ins, but Hillary intends to convene an emergency session of the Rules and Bylaws Committee to push through the changes. If she doesn't succeed, her delegates plan to write McCain's name on paper airplanes and throw them at Barack Obama which is bound to alarm the Secret Service and result in the ejection of elected delegates, ultimately causing a convention riot not seen since supporters of Teddy Roosevelt spit goobers at William Taft in 1912. The paper airplanes also offer subtle homage to McCain's experience as a naval pilot.

This news was as flabbergasting to me as I'm sure that it is to you. But in retrospect, it makes too much sense to be false. This strategy has obviously been planned since at least March, when Clinton compared McCain favorably to Obama, arguing that the latter had not crossed "the commander-in-chief threshold." It also explains why she spent so much time attacking Obama and so little time attacking McCain. And the gas tax holiday proposals championed by McCain and Clinton were clearly coordinated to put pressure on Obama. Finally, in light of the news, it's obvious that McCain's recent ads appealing to Clinton supporters are not cynical attempts to manipulate angry Clinton supporters, they're the first stages of a joint campaign.

Skeptics will argue that Clinton is far too liberal for most Republicans, who spent years demonizing her, but key right-wing leaders have warmed to Clinton in the last few months. She has been endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulture, and Richard Mellon Scaife, and my source tells me that Chuck Norris has already been working for the ticket behind the scenes. Scaife's private lunch with Hillary was likely an early strategy session, and Limbaugh's Operation Chaos was certainly meant to prepare his conservative ground troops for the fall campaign. Furthermore, everyone knows that unlike Democrats, Republicans will put aside their differences and vote for their nominee in the end. Finally, as most pundits have noted, this election is not about policy; it's about personality. Polls show that Clinton and McCain supporters have a natural affinity for one another's candidates and share a mutual intense hatred for Barack Obama. Most voters will happily toss aside their cherished principles in favor of a sticking it to the One.

As an Obama supporter, this development is obviously of great concern to me, but I also feel a sense of relief. Democratic unity has seemed so strained and artificial. Putting the Obama critics together behind the one candidate draws the political division where it belongs. The U.S. is not red and blue anymore, it's black and white. So unleash the blogs of war, it's time to get angry again.