John Edwards?

Whatever

Limp Brained

The Carpetbagger Report

Republicans won’t have an incentive to get smart if deliberate stupidity wins.

Amen. It's like I said about the tire-gage crap. Yeah, it's crap, but it's the kind of crap that has worked for Republicans. So well, in fact, that they have becoming intellectually atrophied. They don't have to be deep thinkers about how to solve the problems we face. They only have to be clever about how to belittle those who are.

Playing Defense

Josh covers some of the recent complaints people have that Obama is getting into a "McCain-attacks-Obama-responds" mode that appears to be defensive and weak.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately. One of my central complaints about Democrats over the last several elections is that so few of them play good offense. More often then not, Democrats rely on answering smear attacks with facts and figures in the (naive) belief that if they just explain "the truth" they will defeat the attacks. They also appear to be constitutionally incapable of hitting Republicans with anywhere near the relish we see coming from the other side.

It's why, I believe, Democrats have repeatedly lost their natural advantage with the people who, in survey after survey, overwhelmingly support Democratic policies.

It's also why I held off so long in supporting Obama during the primaries. I was concerned that he was going to follow the same failed play book.

But, watching Obama over the course of the primary, and the last few weeks of the general election, I've come to see something important about him: he's very good at playing defense.

Let's use an analogy. Basketball teams generally are broken into two categories: those that emphasize offense and those that emphasize defense. The offensive teams hone their fast break skills. They practice rapid passes and rushes to the basket with a manic fury. And they also offer some of the most exciting play-by-play in the league.

Defensive teams, on the other hand, focus on spreading out the field. They concentrate on getting rebounds, forcing turnovers and making those 2nd and 3rd chance shots. They slow the clock down to a more leisurely pace. And they also tend to offer some of the more boring play-by-play in the league.

But, here's the thing. A really good defensive team OWNS pretty much everyone else out there. Nothing frustrates an offensive team more than a defensive team that erects a WALL between them and the basket. The Boston Celtics, this years NBA champs, were a defensive team. They shut opponents down with efficiency. It may not have been exciting (for non-Bostonians), but it worked.

One reason strong defense works is because it understands that even the best offensive teams make mistakes. And THAT is when the defensive teams make the other side pay for their mistakes.

I still prefer offense vs. defense. But I've now concluded that playing defense can have its merits as long as the player who does it actually proves adept at it. Obama is adept.

I mean, think about it. McCain has thrown some of the wildest junk at Obama that we have ever seen. And what has been the result? A perhaps marginal shift downward in Obama's numbers. But not anything of any real statistical significance. The race is still pretty much the same, fundamentally, that it was two months ago: a choice between more of the same or something new.

And as long as that remains the dynamic of this race, McCain cannot win.

McCain is the anti-Christ?

Ross Douthat thinks that anyone who thinks McCain is deliberately trying to appeal to the "Left Behind" crowd by implying that Obama is the anti-Christ is as loopy as those who actually believe that Obama might be the anti-Christ.

Let's lay it out real simple Ross:

1. There are a significant number of people who believe in the general story told in the "Left Behind" series: that a charismatic political figure will rise who will promise to unite the world but who will actually be the representative of Satan on earth meant to destroy us.

2. I think it is a given that more of these people are likely to vote for McCain than Obama.

3. McCain needs these people to win. The margins are close enough that he can't afford for them to be sidelined this election.

4. This crowd generally doesn't like McCain. Some of them outright hate him.

5. What's the best way to win these people over? Scare the bejeesus out of them. How do you do that? Play to their worst fears.

Would McCain do this? Of course he would. To me there is little doubt on that point. Ross apparently thinks otherwise and to such an extent he considers anyone who even suggests the idea is as f*cked in the head as those who buy into the whole anti-Christ complex.

Now, was this ad actually an attempt to dog-whistle the Left Behind crowd. I can't say for sure. But dismissing the idea as being equivalent to kooky end-timers is irresponsible.

It's a moron thing

The perennial campaign for the moron vote has begun.

Living Now

End Times Mania (courtesy Amanda of pandagon)

Is there a sense that apocalyptic fantasizing is in a big upswing in our society? I say yes. The amazing growth spurt in belief in the End Times in our society is unmistakable, in fact. Why is this? I think it’s a reaction to modernity. The more people move around, the more we move from the extended family model to the individual/nuclear family model, and the less attachment we have to our work because our jobs become more about being specialized cogs in the machine, the more obvious it is that we’re going to be forgotten the second the ground turns cold. Personally, this doesn’t bother me, because all that means is that you’re facing up to the inevitable sooner. Plus, why do I care what goes on after I’m dead, since I won’t be around to see it? But being remembered as some sort of mediator against mortality matters to a lot of people, so the ugly facts laid bare by modernity are getting to people. Thus, you see more cuddling up to the End Times fantasy, the belief that history will end when you do.

There is an advantage to coming to terms with being "forgotten the second the ground turns cold". If you realize that all you really have is what you have now then you can devote more of your time to using the now you have been given as well as possible. A good discussion.

I love lightning

And this has to be the coolest lightning footage I have ever seen.

Paris in '08

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

Paris Hilton actually does a better job of presenting the argument for off-shore drilling than does John McCain. And she's much better at reading a teleprompter.

Maybe it's not to late for the Republicans to reconsider their nominee?

Why am I reminded of this:

Comment heard on another blog:

Paris/Rihanna '08

Now that's a ticket I could get behind.

The dynamics of a change election

I think this column by Lydia Saad, Gallup Poll Senior Editor, gets at an important point, but it may be obscured by the length of the piece. The launching point for her thoughts is a Charlie Cook column that suggests that this election is All About Obama. Cook presents compelling evidence that the ultimate results in November will depend on whether voters are comfortable going with Obama. Their comfort level with McCain is of considerably less significance.

I think this is partially correct, in that this election is more about Obama than it is McCain. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that this is ultimately about Obama specifically.

This is a change election. People want a change. But change is scary. So they want to feel reassured that voting for change won't be as risky as it sounds. This was the case in 1980 when voters wanted to move away from years of failed Democratic leadership (Carter), but they had to choose to vote for the scary, risky governor from California who had a reputation for being a bit of a firebrand (Reagan). They ultimately felt comfortable enough with Reagan to give him the presidency.

Obama's candidacy is going through much the same evaluation that Reagan faced in 1980. The mistake is in thinking that the dynamics of this race are based more on Obama specifically rather than this just being yet another change election.

The campaign styles of each candidate contribute to this (Obama is more expansive and broad reaching in his rhetoric. McCain is all about scaring voters into not voting for the risky Obama.) But those campaigning styles are dictated as much by the candidates characters as it is by the circumstances of this election. Obama has to run a reassuring campaign while McCain has to run a "be afraid" campaign.

The question is which one will be better at their assigned tasks?

The value of mockery

Atrios and other don't understand why the Republican response to Obama's energy plan is to pass out tire gauges. I think the answer is obvious: they don't have a serious response to it because they know Obama is right. But they have to knock down Obama somehow so the fall back on the obvious tactic of mockery.

Most people won't pay attention to the details of the Obama proposals. But if the GOP can get all the reports on it to hilight the "inflate your tires" proposal then they can make it seem, to the casual viewer, that that is the sum-total of Obama's proposal. It sounds silly. It makes Obama sound silly. Especially when compared against the "serious" plan of the Republicans to drill for more oil.

Atrios asks how Obama's tire-inflation proposal is an hilarious gaffe. The answer is that it isn't. But if the GOP can laugh at it anyway as if it were a gaffe then more people will start to see it that way and no one will talk about the real meat of Obama's plan.

When you can argue on the facts, you argue on the facts. When you can't argue on the facts, you argue on the emotion. Why are the Republicans mocking Obama? Because they can't do anything else.

The Republicans are clowns. But you can't just laugh them off. It may be crap. But crap works.