Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me

Actually, I have one more economics-themed post that I wanted to include on the last one about inverted yield curves, but just didn't seem to fit there. This might actually have less to do with economics than it does politics. You decide. But I promise: discussions of which obscure old movies I've been watching from NetFlix are coming soon to this space. Get up for it!

At this point, I wanted to bring up quotes from the op-ed piece President Barack Obama penned for the Washington Post on Thursday. The full article is here (free registration may be required). Obama, naturally, was defending his administration's "Stimulus Package", which people have critiqued as nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. Obama sounded a clarion call for action, trying to get some amount of bipartisan support from the GOP side of Congress, but here is what he said:

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Now, I don't want to get too historical on you, but I fear Obama could slide down the slippery slope of sounding too much like Jimmy Carter did in the late '70s.

At this point, I would love to link to a YouTube clip showing the scene from an early episode of The Simpsons, when the townsfolk of Springfield were expecting the unveiling of a statue dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. Instead, when the drape was lifted, the statue was of Jimmy Carter (with the tagline "Malaise Forever" -- classic!), which of course created a town riot. Sadly, that clip doesn't exist on YouTube, but I can provide the actual Carter "Crisis of Confidence" speech from 15 July 1979, archived by the University of Virginia. Side note: who knew that when Bill Clinton used the line "I feel your pain," he was practically quoting Carter?



Economic recessions have everything to do with crises of confidence, of course. If consumers have no faith their jobs are secure, their buying patterns change radically. That is one reason why Hyundai's offer to buy back a new car purchased this year if the buyer loses his or her job is so revolutionary. As almost every other car manufacturer saw huge hits on new car sales, Hyundai's sales actually increased 14%. Consumer confidence levels are so critical to the economy, a dedicated organization exists to track them.

Consumer confidence was one factor why the economic crisis described in Tom Clancy's 1994 novel Debt of Honor was so realistic. Clancy understood that for a foreign entity to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, all they had to do is sow distrust and fear of our economic institutions (like the financial firms on Wall Street) among the American people. The resulting crisis of confidence brought the American economy low, setting up the rest of the novel. Sorry, I don't want to play spoiler for anyone who has not read it yet.

FDR understood how important consumer confidence was during his first Inaugural address, in 1933, when he famously declared, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The U.S. was already in the midst of the Great Depression, and only by dispelling the negative cloud of uncertainty and fear could FDR lead the country towards economic recovery.

Getting back to Obama and Carter, President Obama will get his stimulus package approved eventually. There was word on the news today that Congress either already approved or appears ready to compromise on a reduced spending bill, one that totals a mere $780B price tag to future generations.

I just think that if Obama wants to help the U.S. recover from this recession in a timely manner, he will skip the doom and gloom speechifying. For heaven's sake, don't mention the possibility of 5 million jobs going away! He needs to leave the fearmongering to the MSM. They do a great job of that.

Please Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

I really try to avoid creating multiple posts in one day, primarily because I'm worried that I won't have enough to write about on other days. However, I just saw this video clip from what appears to be a Republican response to Slate and just had to respond:



Now, I'm no political guru, but what Mark McKinnon says about President Bush not revealing his lighter side to the national media runs counter to everything we've been taught to believe about the press. I'm not talking about the presumed bias against anything Republican here; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh fill that void. No, it is this direct quote from McKinnon:

It’s really hard, and it’s increasingly hard with the proliferation of media, to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to. To get kind of behind the curtain and show the human side.

Wait, you're trying to make the claim that the reason why no one ever saw the softer side of Bush 43 is because of the proliferation of media? That there are too many sources from which we voters can get to know a candidate?

I don't think I've ever heard anything more patently false* than that. I know that these political insiders, spin doctors, and apparatchiks have their own agendas any time they open their mouths. Michael J. Fox had a wonderful TV show for a long time based on that one premise. But there should be a line drawn between simple spin or image control and outright falsehoods.

* Well, maybe that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were looking for a warm water port, but that's beside the point.

Case in point: The current (and soon to be former) Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently undergoing impeachment hearings in the Illinois state Senate. He decided to boycott the proceedings, claiming a denial of his due process, and instead is waging the public perception war for his image by making personal appearances on 20/20, Good Morning America, and whatnot. That's his right, and certainly lots of people who have screwed up royally decided to take a similar path. Why admit any wrongdoing, when you can shed a few tears in front of Barbara Walters and get a few sympathetic people on your side? It's as American as apple pie, these days.

However, that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Falsehoods are falsehoods, no matter how they are spun. Getting back to the original comment, doesn't McKinnon think there was a single TV show host who would have loved to bring Bush 43 on the set and present him in a favorable light? His statement is that not a single event like that was possible for the eight years of the Bush administration, and that is impossible to believe. Were the shots of Bush relaxing on his Crawford, TX ranch not enough to humanize the man? What about the stills of Bush riding his mountain bike?

No, the real culprit here is not the fact that too many media choices exist to showcase a candidate's sense of humor. For too long, politics have revolved around the ability to show candidates in more open settings. Think of Bill Clinton appearing on MTV to field the infamous "Boxers or briefs?" question, or of him appearing on The Tonight Show to play the sax for Jay Leno. The real danger is that those fluff pieces can drown out more serious discussions on policy stances or political agendas.

Ask yourself this question: what was the alternative before these media avenues existed? Political machines like Tammany Hall used to pick our candidates for us, didn't they? Behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, they did. Would we really want to head back to that style of process?

No, the real culprits for not knowing enough about a candidate are those spin meisters like McKinnon himself. As access to the candidates improved with radio and television this past century, those candidates best able to work with the new technologies benefited the most. Think of JFK in the first televised debate with Richard Nixon. Anyone listening to that debate thought Nixon won; those watching on TV had a vastly different impression. Heck, think of those candidates (including Obama) now blogging and using the Internet to spur grassroots organizations and fund-raising machines.

But as access has increased, so has the worry (again, on the part of the spin meisters like McKinnon) that their candidate will say or do something stupid while a camera or like device is recording. The only alternative? To severely restrict access to a candidate and heavily script every appearance, every utterance, to make sure the candidate remains on topic and on message, lest any words that could be used in a negative campaign ad be caught on tape.

The same is true in sports, as well. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, at one point of their lives, were happy, confident young men who delighted in telling their own story to the press. As they realized the power (and lucrative nature!) of marketing themselves, they clammed up to the point of only saying the most droll of sound bites. It's also why Jordan never took up a side for a politician, using the old line that "Republicans buy shoes, too."

So, the problem is not that there are too many media outlets "...to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to." The problem is that the candidates' or President's handlers won't allow him (or her) to speak for him- or herself while on the campaign trail or while in office. Just give credit where credit is due. You can't blame mass media for every ill in society, as tempting as that might be.

Best Blog List

I'll bet no one expected a follow-on post to my last one! It's like getting two, two, two posts in one! I would link to a Flying Circus video on the Spanish Inquisition for the first reference, and a gum ad* vid for the second, but I don't want this to go on forever.

* That was a gum ad, wasn't it? Now everybody uses that catch-phrase ("...it's two, two, two __ in one!") for other purposes.

So, after taking a hiatus from blogging (and unplugging from e-mail and the Internet in general) over the Thanksgiving break, I came back to discover that one of my oldest* friends gave me a Superior Scribbler Award. Awww, thanks! His blog is called "beyond assumptions," which I think is terrific. All too often, people stop with what they assume to be true, without examining events, situations, or press releases (or fill in your own blank) for deeper meanings. True, without mistaken assumptions, we wouldn't have Jack Tripper moments, but it was some guy who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

* Please note I did not say eldest.

Now, I do have a sneaking suspicion that this award was created (and very recently, too!) with the intention of giving props to little-known and obscure bloggers toiling away in anonymity. You know, people just like me. Why? Just to make me (us) feel better about the time we spend on these posts. Lord knows we're not getting paid for this.*

* There was a very funny multiple-strip segment recently drawn by Doonesbury's Gary Trudeau when his intrepid reporter of integrity, Rick Redfern, was downsized from his newspaper job. What was Rick's only alternative? Joining the ranks of the 35+ million strong blogosphere, where about 97% of the people do it for free, with no expectation of actually being paid for their words.

What is the Superior Scribbler Award, you ask? The rules are below, and they spring from the original post from "The Scholastic Scribe" on 18 Oct 08. Like I said, it's recent. Oh, and I'm #426 on the Mr. Linky List, if you're checking.

Here are the rules as I understand them:

* Each Superior Scribbler must in turn pass The Award on to 5 most-deserving Bloggy Friends.

* Each Superior Scribbler must link to the author & the name of the blog from whom he/she has received The Award.

* Each Superior Scribbler must display The Award on his/her blog, and link to this Post, which explains The Award.

* Each Blogger who wins The Superior Scribbler Award must visit this post and add his/her name to the Mr. Linky List. That way, we'll be able to keep up-to-date on everyone who receives This Prestigious Honor!

* Each Superior Scribbler must post these rules on his/her blog.

So, I'll play along and try to be nice. It can be hard to do sometimes. Once you let the cat of cynicism out of the bag, he can be hard to pop back in! Hmm... "cat of cynicism." I like that! Maybe I'll trademark it. It's already copyrighted by appearing here. Yowza! Gotta love those Internet IP rights rules.

Since I'm limited to just a top five list, I've been wracking my brain for blogs that would truly fit my top five. I'd love to include my Dad's blog, but it's so far out there, I never visit it. I figure it's enough to have his blog near the top of my links list on the right side of my blog. It's a similar story with my sister's blog; I link to it, but I'm not going to list it in my top five. My brother's site is also linked, but his website is less of a blog than it is a merchandising site with bloggy characteristics on the news feed.

I also thought of all the websites I've visited in the past that would more qualify as blogs, but which I no longer visit or have been taken down. I thought Drew Curtis' FARK website was hilarious for a time, until I realized that it was just a news aggregator with snarky comments. The PhotoShop contests are way cool, but you can get in trouble with NSFW links.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I regularly followed the LT Smash website. He was an Army Intel Reservist (I think!) who was supporting the troops marching on Baghdad, and his insight into OIF was very enlightening, even for those of us who are prior military. After rotating back to the U.S., he changed the blog to be Citizen Smash, and now I think that's been taken down.

I would have loved to follow Bat Girl for two reasons: 1) she had undying love for the Twins, and any baseball fan who is that dedicated and knows her stuff is worthy of admiration. 2) she regularly did baseball game scene recreations with LEGOs, which were pure genius! Alas, she took her blog down several years ago.

I never really got into "Faith and Fear in Flushing", a NY Mets blog from two guys who wrote The Daily Fix column (later converted into a blog) for the WSJ Online, mostly because I'm not a Mets fan. I always liked the name, though. It sounds like a sly reference to Hunter S. Thompson, and I'd love to know the etymology behind naming a town Flushing.

I also never got into "Deadspin", which might be heresy for sports fans who want a different opinion than what is being offered up by the MSM, which in the case of sports, means ESPN. I did see H.G. "Buzz" Bissinger tear into Will Leitch via YouTube (since I don't get HBO, so could not have seen the Bob Costas Show), and that was revelatory. That diatribe was also the source of my comment tucked away within my profile paragraph on the right side of this blog.

Having said all of that, and because it would smack too much of nepotism or paybacks to name Steve's "beyond assumptions" blog in my top five, here are my top five. Currently. They're always open to change in the next week, month, or year. Keep in mind that several of my top five are written by professionals, which again probably goes against the intent of this Superior Scribbler Award. What do I know? It's not my award idea, so I'll pass it along to whomever I feel is most worthy.

• Joe Posnanski is a professional sports writer currently working for the KC Star and Sports Illustrated. His wonderful blog is writing he does on the side, so he probably doesn't get paid for it any more than the rest of us do. I discovered Joe's writing because The Daily Fix kept linking to his Star columns, which were terrific. When I discovered his blog, I was hook, line, and sinker. Only then did I find out he's originally from Cleveland, OH! So he definitely makes the list. I need to pick up his book about Buck O'Neil, and can't wait for his upcoming book on the Big Red Machine circa 1975.
  
• The Fantasy Football Librarian is a blog I discovered when I googled for "fantasy football draft prep kits" one day. I'm happy I did! Sara mostly posts links to other FFB content like start/sit lists on other sites, but hers is a very good news aggregator for FFB-ophiles. She also is willing to answer crazy e-mails from me, so that's a plus.
• I hate to say it, but there are excellent blogs being written on a regular basis at WSJ Online. Again, I'm giving more kudos to people actually being paid to write their blogs, but gosh darn it, they do it so well! Two I'd like to highlight from the Journal are "The Juggle", which is all about highlighting topics on the struggle to find work-life balance, and "The Daily Fix", which highlights the best sportswriting on the web every week day. Sorry, I just couldn't avoid listing those two in one space. I am sad that so many of the personal finance columnists I enjoyed reading so much on a weekly basis seemed to depart the WSJ shortly after Rupert Murdoch's News Corp took over, but perhaps the timing was just coincidence. The Juggle and The Daily Fix remain solid blogs, but I do miss "Buzzwatch", which kept track of what was hot on the Internet, Internet memes, and related information age currency.
  
• I almost didn't want to include this one, since I am restricted to just five top blogs. Anne doesn't update her "The Agile Mind" blog very often, but when she does, it's great stuff, especially because it is often relevant for my work in the Federal Government technology arena. I could have listed several others in this space that are also relevant to my work, such as GovExec's NextGov "Tech Insider" blog, or "The Danger Room" from WIRED magazine. Wait, have I busted the top five limit? Sue me.
• OK, last one. I just discovered this blog, so perhaps it is too early to be listing Jonathan Turley as a top five favorite. However, I used to check out the WSJ Online's Law Blog for many of the same reasons why I like Turley's blog. He tends to focus on crazy happenstances in legal cases, which sometimes smacks of News of the Weird. All too often, however, the cases Turley highlights are sad examples of authority figures overstepping their bounds in employment or termination decisions. Yes, I did link to that post just so I could link to the photos of the teacher's bikini pics. Seriously! Why do you think I found Turley's blog in the first place?! Sheesh!
• Exception: If you disqualify the Turley blog as too new, then I would throw in a blog written by a woman with whom I went to B-school. Eliza hadn't been writing much in times past, but now she's on the bandwagon along with the rest of us. She doesn't get many comments, so perhaps this little nod will bump up site traffic for her. One can hope!

So there you have it. My top five list actually comes out closer to a top ten. It probably should be a top ten list, because then I could throw in other blogs I've visited in the past but not so much now. That would include "A Million Shades of Gray" (which I like the content, but she hardly ever updates it!), "Life Family et al" (which has been taken down, apparently), "Recovering Straight Girl" (which is kinda fun, but what does it have to do with me?), the "McCain Blogette" (which hasn't been updated since John McCain's concession speech, for obvious reasons), Mike Florio's "ProFootballTalk" Rumor Mill (which really has some of the best NFL scoops on the Internet, veracity be damned), "Because I Said So" (Dawn is the mom of Ebay Pokemon card pack fame, and has been called the "Erma Bombeck of Our Generation" -- how do you fight that? But I've had too much trouble subscribing to her feed via google reader, so I quit trying), and a group blog called "The Sports Economist" (which I still want to get on their author list, but haven't found the time to write anything worthy of their attention).

I'm not even including some of the more spurious pseudo-blogs out there, usually done more for humor's sake, like "The Cold Hard Football Facts", "The Borowitz Report", "The Sports Pickle", and "Drivl.com". Have I provided enough links to keep you busy today? Enjoy!

Worst Blog List

I think we can all be thankful that our 35 million+ blogs are too small to attract the attention of MSM powerhouses like MSN.com, who came up with this list of the lamest blogs. They basically ripped on lame advertising or marketing attempts (Jack in the Box, Pepsi, Wal*Mart, etc.) disguised as blogs, and I'm OK with that. MSN also ripped (pseudo-) celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Rosie O'Donnell and Paris Hilton for their blogs, and I'm OK with that, too.

The one blog I thought was unfairly singled out was Dave Walker's Dullest Blog in the World. The premise of that blog was pretty clever, I thought. If something is intentionally lame, that makes it un-lame, right? It's like if you make fun of yourself, then no one else can. Call it the Louie Anderson corollary. The one drawback is that Dave lost interest in providing further updates back in 2006, so MSN really shouldn't be picking this as one of the current lamest blogs.

I also greatly appreciated the below comic strip from Stephan Patsis, who writes and draws "Pearls Before Swine,"* one of my favorite comics these days. Don't we all feel like Pig sometimes?














* You might be familiar with the expression, which dates back to the Bible. Patsis regularly uses his comic to rip the old, staid standbys of the comics page, like Blondie, Beetle Bailey, Hagar the Horrible, and Family Circus; when Blondie did its huge anniversary/birthday party using characters from other comic strips (and the other cartoonists drew their characters as getting ready for the party in the days leading up to the event), Patsis drew Rat and Pig as the uninvited party crashers. Surely there's another expression about biting hands that feed... ah, but I digress.

PBS Frontline - The Choice 2008

This is a post I've been chewing on, thinking about how to address, for quite some time. On 14 October, our local PBS station aired the Frontline documentary, The Choice 2008. I mentioned back in early October, when the show was first advertised, that I eagerly anticipated watching the documentary. My wife and I caught the last Frontline documentary in 2004, and it really helped us to make up our minds for whom to vote on the night before the election. Strange, perhaps, but true. Being undecided this year about whom to vote meant we wanted to see the documentary to see if the same would be true this year as well.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. We are both still undecided, and with election day just around the corner, I'm not entirely sure what will sway us at this late date. The problem certainly was not with the Frontline documentary crews, who created an excellent two-hour piece that was as informative as we expected it to be. If you haven't yet seen the documentary, I highly encourage everyone to watch it. The link above allows you to watch the video of the show, either in snippets or in its entirety. The quality of the production certainly was not the issue.

To me, the real problem comes down to simple dissatisfaction with the two candidates. Let me talk about John McCain first, since McCain was the one politician I really wanted to vote for in 2000. Eight years ago, McCain was younger, more energetic, more willing to take on the entrenched special interests on the far right, and more of a campaign finance reform maverick. The Choice captured all of that, and then showed how that version of McCain was destroyed in the 2000 South Carolina primary by Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

Sadly, that defeat in South Carolina transformed McCain into something of a shadow of his former self, something that the Candorville daily comic strip has captured over the past few weeks. The Choice detailed the concessions McCain had to make to become palatable, and thereby electable, to the right-wing base of the Republican party. McCain still wants to be the maverick who castigates members of his own party, and who effectively reaches across the aisle to work on and pass legislation that is important to the future of this country, but the sad fact is that McCain had to bow on bended knee to the right-wing evangelicals who supported George W. Bush if he ever wanted to reach the Presidency. It's sad, sad, sad. I still like McCain as a war veteran and as a person I would trust to do the right thing for the sake of America, but he is no longer the politician he was in 2000.

Which brings me to Obama. The Choice had plenty to say about Obama's background and how he burst onto the national scene by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 DNC, which was the first time most Americans (myself included) heard his name. Living in Illinois since 2005, I've personally seen Obama's influence on local and state politics, and he certainly is an incredibly smart and effective politician. There can be no doubt about that. As much as Obama preaches the mantra of creating a unified political landscape (and his 2004 DNC speech was nothing more than his regular election stump speech, Frontline said), he is cagey, crafty, and not averse to doing whatever it takes to get himself elected. He is a fighter, and if people don't recognize that in him, it is only because his personality and charisma are so overpowering.

What I found most interesting about Obama's history, and The Choice primarily focused on his adult life post-graduation from Columbia University, is that he is primarily driven by the pursuit of power. That's the only conclusion I could draw from everything I've seen. When Obama decided to run for the office of President of the Harvard Law Review, it was not because he wanted to pursue an agenda to improve the study of law, or even to alleviate the strife between the conservatives and liberals that engulfed Harvard during his time there. Apparently, it was enough just to be the first African-American to hold the office.

When Obama decided to first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, it was simply to gain the office of Illinois state Senator. The Choice did indicate just one reason for why Obama entered politics: he felt that he could not influence enough people working as a community organizer, the job he held before entering politics. He wants to have his hands on the levers of power. Why does Obama want to have as much influence as possible? The office of POTUS certainly would have the most influence, wouldn't it? Frontline seemed to indicate that Obama wants to help lift poor African-Americans out of poverty, and if you've ever been to the south side of Chicago, that is a laudable goal.

My next question, then, was what really is the best method of reaching people and helping them get out of poverty? Is it the New Deal version of helping people who had been tossed about by market forces beyond their control during the Great Depression? Is it the Great Society of entitlement programs and government-sponsored handouts propagated by LBJ Democrats? Or is the trickle-down economic ideal of Reagonomics the best way of helping people create value in their own communities and take ownership of their lives?

OK, so those three choices are incredibly simplified and each one carries its own baggage with political thinkers from either side of the aisle. What I really thought about was Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Yes, the brilliant basketball player who announced he was HIV-positive way back in 1991. Since his retirement from the NBA, Magic Johnson invested his own personal wealth, time and energy to create self-sustainable businesses in poverty-stricken predominately African-American communities across America. He took his social obligation to his fellow man, and instead of simply lending his name and likeness to a not-for-profit foundation, Magic understood the way of creating substantial change in these communities was to provide jobs, careers, paychecks, educational opportunities, and sustainable businesses. Investing in peoples' lives in this manner really creates the change that so much of America needs these days. He wrote a commentary along these lines for USA Today back in May, and it's well-worth the read.

Coming back to Obama, I know that he did not have the personal wealth of Magic Johnson when he decided to run for Illinois state Senator. I tend to think he's doing pretty well for himself these days, however. For as much grief as McCain has taken for marrying the daughter of a very successful beer distributor in Arizona, and for all the various real estate holdings of the McCain family, Barack and Michelle Obama also own numerous houses or condos. Not as many as the McCains, to be sure, but more than the average American family.

Ah, so who to vote for in two days? As I said before, I still trust McCain would do right for the country, no matter how unpopular a particular decision might be. If that meant touching the "third rail of politics" and creating fundamental change on Social Security and Medicare, I think McCain would find a way to work across the aisle and get it done. With Obama, I can understand why he wants to win the office of POTUS. I know lots of people who are driven to succeed, but their only goal is to be successful. Naked ambition and a desire for power is nothing new in America.

On the other hand, being the first African-American to hold the office would be pretty darn incredible. Obama has been that kind of trailblazer in the past, and he is comfortable in that role. But WHY does he really want to hold the office? Is it so he can engineer a massive redistribution of wealth, as the Republicans charge? Is it just so he can have the most influence possible, so he can drive the national discourse on the issues of race, poverty, and social entitlement programs? Is it just so he can bring U.S. troops home from Iraq?

For all the campaigning, I don't think I can answer that question about Obama. Neither McCain's campaign nor the MSM are helping to clarify these things, either. The MSM isn't really asking the questions of either candidate that would expose their underlying philosophies and explain to the American public why each wants the office of POTUS so badly. It's almost just understood that these two men want the office, and that we don't need to understand why. I'm a person who always wants to know why.

One last addendum, which is slightly off-topic: Living in the state of Illinois, I hate that we live in a very safe state for Obama. I would much rather live in a battleground state, even though that would mean being forced to see all the attack ads on TV ad nauseum. Why? My sister, mother, and brother all had the opportunity to see Obama live, in person, at various political rallies for the candidate. My sister even saw Bruce Springsteen play live on stage, before Obama took the stage. I've never seen the Boss once, and I'd love to see him play live! I'd love to meet McCain and his family, especially Meghan McCain, who has an absolutely wonderful blog that provides an unequalled behind-the-scenes look at the campaign. I would absolutely love to meet them in person! There is something to be said for being able to look a man in the eye, shake his hand, and hear him speak in person. In this election, I never got that chance.

Early Voting SNAFUs?!

As Election Day in America draws near, I'm really starting to hope that my previous prediction about Obama winning this election by a relatively large margin is correct. In just the past week, however, the polls show a tightening race in key battleground states, which makes me worry that we won't have a clear, decisive winner. I've told friends of mine that I see three potential outcomes in this Presidential election:

1) Obama could win in a Reagan-style electoral college landslide, not crushing McCain in the popular vote, but winning each state by just enough votes to turn the majority of the map Blue on Tuesday.
2) McCain could pull off a shocker on the magnitude of Dewey Defeats Truman (pictured below), and don't you believe for a second that the MSM won't be shouting from the rooftops that Obama won the election by 8 pm EST, long before all the results are in.

Or,

3) We could have another 50-50 split in the popular vote along the lines of the 2000 and 2004 elections, where each state becomes a battleground and perhaps the winner of the electoral college does not win the popular vote.




I'm really hoping that version number three does NOT come to pass on Tuesday, and here's why:

During the last two Presidential elections, when the popular vote was as close as it was (and with W. actually losing the popular vote in 2000 to Gore), the tightness of the vote caused people to charge the elections were stolen. There were the hanging chads in Florida in 2000 and charges of voter disenfranchisement, followed by legal challenges galore, which meant the election formally wasn't decided until the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. I'm sure everyone remembers that result, and no one wants a return to 2000. Certainly, the Democrats will never let go of the idea that the 2000 election was stolen, which instantly reduced the legitimacy and authority of the Bush 43 Presidency by 50%.

Here's another reason why I don't want to see a very close vote: In my home state of Ohio, the Democrats have been very aggressive in getting people to vote early (if not often!) using the early voting procedures in that key battleground state. Ohio almost always plays a key role in determining the outcome in the electoral college, and this year should be no different. Here's the key problem with voting early in Ohio, however: As far as I can tell (no, I'm not going to read the Ohio voting regulations line by line to verify this, but numerous sources on the Internet seem to support this conclusion), early voting in Ohio is legally considered another version of absentee voting. In years past, Ohio required those voters wanting to cast early ballots to submit a reason why they could not vote on election day itself, like any other absentee voter must do. That law was changed in 2005, so now anyone can vote early, even without justification. But, the early vote cast STILL COUNTS AS AN ABSENTEE BALLOT!

Why is that so important, you ask? In most cases, absentee ballots are simply not counted after an election. I can't possibly provide statistics on this, but here's an illustrative example: If one candidate wins by 250,000 votes, and only 225,000 absentee ballots were cast, then there is no reason why election workers would open each absentee ballot and count them. They couldn't possibly change the result, even if each absentee ballot were cast for the losing candidate. Again, in most elections, absentee ballots are discarded after the regular ballots are counted. People still had the chance to vote, but their votes never get counted.

What I worry about with this election is that we will, once again, have a very tight electoral college race between Obama and McCain. If it really comes down to which candidate wins in Ohio and Florida (again!), then the status of those absentee ballots in Ohio could be very significant. I seem to remember absentee ballots in Florida submitted by U.S. military service members serving overseas being discarded after 2000 without ever being counted, according to the scenario I posed in the paragraph above. If a similar thing happens again this year, and all those Democrats who voted early in Ohio feel like their votes are not being counted, Hoo Boy! Watch Out!!!

You'll see cries of voter disenfranchisement, legal challenges, and people claiming the election is being stolen in Ohio that are orders of magnitude far greater than in 2000 and 2004!!!

The ironic part would be that the Democrats did it to themselves this year, actively encouraging thousands upon thousands of Obama supporters to vote early. My sister voted early and encouraged so many other Obama supporters to do likewise. If -- IF! -- the status of those absentee ballots turns out to be a key determinant in who wins the overall election, I don't think I want to hear the outcry.

Maybe I'll move to Canada.

The Darndest Thing

Wouldn't you say this is the darndest thing? MLB and Bud Selig adjusted the start time of a possible game six in the World Series to accommodate a half-hour ad buy from the Obama campaign.

Forget for a minute that not many World Series' have made it to six games recently, as that article pointed out. Also forget that since game five was suspended last night due to rain, they will take an extra day in Philly tonight to determine the outcome of that game. There's more rain in the forecast for tonight, so there's no telling if they will actually play a game six on Thursday this week, even if game six becomes necessary. (And weren't they wishing for the indoor comfort of Tropicana Field last night?!)

What really makes me scratch my head is the fact that Obama still feels the ad buy is necessary, with less than a week to go until polls close. What more could he say to the American people that he hasn't already said through campaign stops, town halls during the primary season, his speech at the DNC, and during the Presidential debates with John McCain? Does Obama feel a little desperation creeping in, even though the MSM already crowned him the presumptive next POTUS?

NPR yesterday spoke with some voters in Missouri, a state that traditionally picks the next POTUS. I think they said that the only time (maybe it was the only time since 1900... ?) that the residents of Missouri didn't vote for the next President was in the 1956 election. Missouri this year is split in pre-election polling, almost exactly 50-50 between McCain and Obama.

It just makes me wonder... even with the issues of the crumbling national economy, the meltdown on Wall Street, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with people's worries about the advancing age of McCain -- even with all of that! -- Obama still hasn't sealed the deal. He still feels the need to make one last pitch to the American populace. Which makes me scratch my head, just a little bit.

The Hill's Speech

This blog will not be focused just on fantasy football; that would cover ground already well-covered by many other writers much more talented than I. Plus, I have many more passions and interests than pro and college football, and I fully intend to write about whatever strikes my fancy on a given day.

Which brings me to the DNC currently happening in Denver, CO. My first reaction when I learned that the Democrats were holding their convention this week was pure fatigue. My wife and I just finished watching days of Beijing Olympics coverage on NBC for whatever reason (normally, I couldn't be bothered by running, swimming, or gymnastics, but for some reason, this Summer Olympics found its way into our TV viewing schedule. And we were not alone; the ratings numbers even surprised NBC, I think!), and I really didn't want to jump into another week of every night extended TV coverage of a "big event." Couldn't they have given us a week off before starting the national conventions? Oh, and the Republicans REALLY should give us a week off before starting theirs in Minneapolis next week! Talk about viewer fatigue! I know the networks have dead time during the summer they need to fill with programming before starting their fall schedules, but this is rediculous.

Having said that, I was interested in watching the Michelle Obama video and speech. I read someone else say yesterday that they wanted to vote for Michelle's dad for President. Her back story certainly is interesting and compelling, and she delivered a very solid speech in support of her man. She would make a heck of a first lady, if they win the general election.

And then Hillary took the stage yesterday, and I couldn't help but think she's in full image recovery mode. Her speech enabled her to save face within the Democratic Party. I don't doubt that she was sincere in pushing for her supporters to back Obama, but it must have been tough to get so close to the nomination only to come away empty-handed (not even the VP!). She was also able to deliver the quippy one-liners that were sure to be clipped into sound bites by the MSM: "No way, no how... no McCain!" Plus the one about Bush and McCain being together in the Twin Cities. It almost looked like Bill had given her that one to use during her speech. He certainly seemed to be bursting with pride as she delivered; the Clintons will not go quietly into the night!

I do take exception to some of the comments she made, however. If nothing else, she is setting up Obama to fail if he does ascend to the Presidency. Many of the evils she mentioned (the Halliburtons and Exxons, the companies offshoring their jobs, etc.) are simply easy targets to scapegoat during the current economic downturn. These have been the Democratic drum beat for the past eight years. But NO President has control over rising energy prices, rising healthcare costs, the move to cheaper manufacturing locations, or even the move by many companies to incorporate offshore in Bermuda, where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes. None of these things would change under any new administration without significant new laws being passed, and oh by the way, that has to be done by Congress.

Let's review what the President does have control over: some elements of Fiscal Policy, although let's be honest, the annual President's budget generally is DOA when it arrives at Congress every fall. Some amount of Monetary Policy, only insofar as the Pres can appoint a new Chairman of the Fed Reserve, whose policies he then has to live with. Everything else revolves around running the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, which only very indirectly impacts the economy as a whole. Sure, FCC and FTC policies have an impact on specific elements of the telecommunications sector, but it's not like the President has a whole lot of levers he can pull to effect change. The next Pres won't even appoint a new Fed Reserve Chairman (confirmed by the Senate, natch) until 2010, when Ben Bernanke's term expires. So for the first half of the next President's term, either McCain or Obama will be stuck with the guy appointed by Bush.

So, for Hillary and Obama to make calls for ending the war in Iraq (seems like the Iraqi PM Maliki is giving them less fodder there, since he is calling for a definitive timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal--independent of actions proposed by the POTUS), universal healthcare (how do you propose to pay for that?!), more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. (I guess that could be a possibility, if Honda and Toyota build more plants for small, fuel efficient cars here; again, not something the Pres has any contol over), and whatever else makes up the Democratic Party platform this year seems to me to be nothing more than empty campaign promises. As always.

Not that the Republicans will do any better next week. Are you sure we can't get a week off in between the two conventions?! Talk about viewer fatigue. I just wonder who McCain will tap to be his running mate?