A New Kind of Ugliness on the Campaign Trail

It's getting close, this presidential election we've all followed for so long. With Barack Obama showing strength in recent polls, the Republican Right has begun begging john McCain to take the gloves off and really go after Barack Obama. That's why you've been hearing Sarah Palin, and now lately McCain himself bring up Obama's alleged friendship with William Ayers. The clear inference is there's more to this story than the media has reported. What that is has become anybody's guess.

Yet Ayers is only part of a larger picture. Politico.com reports that as the McCain campaign founders, supporters at Republican rallies are starting to get ugly. There has always been an edge to those opposed to Obama becoming president. To say the edge is getting sharper the past few days is the height of understatement. There's the "kill him" reference at a rally at which Sarah Palin spoke, to the constant Barack Hussein Obama references by local officials, to a woman calling out "Obama Osama" at a Wisconsin rally.

It's no longer just political mocking, it's outright rage. And it's dangerous. John McCain knows this, and to his credit, has tried to temper his more rabid supporters. That effort is in part political, because he knows such nonsense turns off the very independent voters he must have to win. Sarah Palin, meanwhile, ignores the damage this rage may inflict on the campaign. In fact, she encourages it.

That stoking of the fires of blind anger has had horrible consequences in America's past. John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, understands this when he talks to Politico about the "protection of our civil society" as a principle reason this rage must be tempered.

He might well have added, it doesn't appear to have made most Americans stop thinking about their economic well being.

Support Your Local Banker?

Oh, how the media love to tell us things in language that hides what's really going on. Today's headline in the New York Times (the paper of record, you understand) says "US May Take Ownership Stake in Banks". What they mean is, the Treasury Department, newly omnipotent since the bailout bill passed, is going to try to nationalize the American banking system. Notice, however, they don't call it nationalization.

It's not like they can't spell the word. When it comes to an identical plan by the British banking system, they call a spade a spade. They use the word nationalize. When it comes to American banks, the word is recapitalize. All this, of course, is trying to defrost the credit markets. In short, the banks don't trust each other enough to lend each other money. Which then leads to the following question. If banks don't trust banks, why should we trust banks? Or hedge funds? Or insurance companies like AIG?

You've doubtless heard about the group of AIG executives who had the bad taste (not to mention sense of entitlement) to go on a $440,000 dollar spa vacation AFTER their company was bailed out by taxpayers. Even the White House couldn't stomach that one. But I digress. The world's major central banks took the unprecedented step of lowering their interest rates by one half percent. Oh yeah, and the People's Bank of China was one of the participants. When it comes to money, ideology and human rights will just have to take a back seat.

So what does all this mean here in the States? It means even before the $700 billion dollar bailout is implemented, officials are scrambling for a Plan B. Remember, we told you not too long ago there was no Plan B. Well, now we know. It's official. There is no Plan B! There's also no miracle cure for a downturn that has become worldwide.

Don' be surprised if Uncle Sam comes right back to the taxpayer to fund yet another rescue scheme. And don't be surprised if there's a run on banks sometime in the near future. And finally, don't be surprised if the media won't call it what it is.

Who Won? That One!

Debate #2 between John McCain and Barack Obama had a different format than the first one. The candidates took questions from the audience in Nashville and from the Internet. Tom Brokaw fretted too many times about how long their answers were. And John McCain came nowhere near scoring the knockout the pundits said he'd need to revive his sagging fortunes.

He did have one interesting new proposal. Well, not really new. He'd have Uncle Sam buy up all those toxic mortgages out there, keeping homeowners in their houses. It would cost about $300 billion dollars. It's also not that different from a proposal floated by congressional Democrats.

If last night's debate was notable for anything, it was two words that seemed to be a mirror into McCain's soul. When firing back on energy policy, McCain talked about the Bush-Cheney energy bill of '05. He said, "You know who voted for it? That one". That one! For many people, that bit of objectifying was beyond an insult. Dollars to donuts McCain will have to answer what he was thinking when he said it later today.

Maybe he wasn't thinking at all. Maybe his contempt for Obama is so great that the phrase just came tripping off his tongue. Or, as some black folks have posited on blogs and boards this morning, did McCain actually mean "That one, the Negro guy"? Some people will argue black Americans are far too thin skinned about such slights. However, substitute any other candidate who has run for president in the past, and ask yourself if McCain would have used the same language.

John McCain sees the unique opportunity to become president fading before his very eyes. No matter what his spinners say, he knows he didn't win the hearts and minds of independent or undecided voters last night. That was his mission. He didn't succeed. Now, one supposes he'll have to go back to the well worn attacks on Obama's "associations", at least until his handlers wake up and realize that won't work either.

Who lost last night's debate? That one!

Debate Looms as Attacks Increase

It's time for debate #2 between John McCain and Barack Obama. This time around, the stakes have been raised. A flurry of attacks over the weekend first by McCain, then by Obama, could make this the face-off where there are fireworks. It's been common knowledge for awhile now that the Republican standard bearer would try to shift the focus of the campaign from the economy to Obama's character. So that's exactly what McCain and his minions did over the weekend. Former radical William Ayers was resurrected as if he and Obama together were plotting together to blow up buildings in the late '60s. When Obama was eight years old.

Not content to bring up Ayers, Sarah Palin, who just told an audience a day earlier that Americans want to focus on the economy, health care, and jobs, brought up the need to further discuss Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Back in April, McCain said he didn't want his campaign using Rev. Wright against Obama. I guess Palin didn't get the e-mail.

Obama responded in kind, for a change. His campaign brought up McCain's membership in the Keating Five, that group of Senators who got caught up in the late '80s savings and loan fiasco that cost US taxpayers billions. McCain trotted out his former lawyer, who said the entire affair was a plot by Democrats. Huh? Four of the five senators cited were Democrats. So much for logic.

As has been the case throughout the campaign, the timing of McCain-Palin couldn't have been worse. They go after character on a day the stock market dropped 800 points in midday. It was a day the experts could say with a straight face that a 363 point final decline was good news. And McCain and Pali are talking about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

That's why much is at stake tonight when the pair get together in Tennessee. It's a town hall setting, supposedly McCain's strong suit.

But that was before the economy went south, along with McCain's poll numbers.