Daily Kos: State of the Nation

With the Democratic convention opening tomorrow, and just over two months left until Election Day, it seems to be a good time to take stock of the current Senate races around the country, and provide a baseline for what to expect as the general-election campaigns begin in earnest. If the election were held today, Democrats would win five Republican-held seats, in Virginia, New Mexico, Alaska, New Hampshire and Colorado. They would also hold the only two Democratic-held seats considered even slightly vulnerable, in Louisiana and New Jersey. This would give the Democratic Party a total of  56 Senate seats controlled, including Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. Following is a breakdown of each competitive race at the moment, ranked according to Democratic chances in the state, and rated on the conventional scale of "Safe Democratic" to "Safe Republican". Safe Democratic Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana: No surprise here. Republicans had casually targeted four long-serving Democratic senators in these states - Tom Harkin in Iowa, John Kerry in Massachusetts, Carl Levin in Michigan, and Max Baucus in Montana. They've come up with no competitive races out of the four. Virginia (OPEN-R): Virginia's race, however, was considered at least somewhat competitive for a long time. However, for the past month, Swing State Project has ranked this race as "Safe Democratic", and frankly, it is difficult to disagree with their analysis. Pollster's average puts Democratic candidate Mark Warner's edge at a whopping 25 points. This is a margin every bit as wide as many seasoned incumbents have against no-hoper candidates (like Kerry in Massachusetts, or Levin in Michigan, or Jeff Sessions in Alabama). Governor Warner enjoyed a cash-on-hand advantage of nearly $5 million at the end of the second quarter over his Republican rival, Jim Gilmore. Absent some kind of horrendous scandal, there's no way Gilmore will have the resources to catch Warner. New Jersey (Lautenberg - D incumbent): This remains a "race to watch", but it appears that incumbent Democratic Senator Frank R. Lautenberg has taken command of New Jersey's Senate race. Pollster's average indicates a 13-point lead for the four-term Senator, a margin larger than any of the margins of victory in his previous elections. New Jersey polling can be notoriously deceptive, but Lautenberg's advantage - and proven electoral viability - work strongly in his favor. New Jersey has not elected a Republican to the Senate since 1972, largely thanks to Lautenberg. The GOP has also nominated much, much stronger candidates than current nominee Dick Zimmer, whose last major race was his 1996 Senate loss to Robert Torricelli. Finally, Lautenberg sported a 3-1 cash advantage over Zimmer at last filing. It's difficult to see Zimmer, a candidate with limited appeal and resources - finding a way to beat Lautenberg. Likely Democratic Alaska (Stevens - R incumbent): At this point, the only thing that can save indicted Alaska Republican Ted Stevens is an acquittal at his September 24 trial. Orange to Blue candidate Mark Begich, the Democratic Mayor of Anchorage, now sports an impressive 18-point lead over Stevens, per Pollster's average. His leads over Stevens' primary opponents are even wider, and since April, Begich has been outraising Stevens quite substantially. It's unlikely that Stevens will lose his primary, and almost certain that he will not remove his name from the ballot if he wins (thus enabling the GOP to nominate a potentially stronger candidate). I do not expect Stevens' reelect numbers to remain mired in the thirties, as they are now. Still, Begich has evidently taken control of this race, and he is sufficiently popular in his own right that he should be able to maintain his advantage over the coming months. Stevens is an Alaska institution and a 40-yar incumbent, but an outright acquittal may be the only thing to save his bacon. And even an acquittal may not be enough. New Mexico (OPEN - R): The last poll on this race was the closest we've seen pretty much all cycle, and even that poll showed Democrat Tom Udall with a double-digit lead (with leaners excluded) over Republican Steve Pearce. That poll, by Rasmussen, may well be an outlier. Even if it is not, Udall still enjoys a healthy 15-point lead via Pollster's average, and has a large cash advantage - nearly $3 million at the end of Q2, to Pearce's $500K. Udall has been hit by a series of negative ads lately, both from Pearce's campaign, and the notorious right-wing nutjobs at the Club for Growth. So there's some reason to expect that Rasmussen's latest poll, even if it is not dead-on, speaks to a tightening race.  But whether or not the race is tightening - and there's no reason to expect it wouldn't, at some point - there's no good reason yet to remove this race from the "Likely Democratic" column. Leans Democratic New Hampshire (Sununu - R incumbent): Save for one poll in December 2007 (an ARG poll, at that), Democratic former Governor Jeanne Shaheen has led in every single poll commissioned since before she entered the race against Republican Sen. John Sununu. Shaheen has frequently enjoyed a double-digit lead, with the incumbent Sununu consistently mired at or below 45% reelect - obviously terrible numbers for an incumbent. Indeed, Pollster's average shows Shaheen leading by nearly eleven points. So why is the race "Leans Democratic" and not "Likely?" First, Sununu enjoyed a cash advantage of nearly $3 million as of last filing. Second, one can expect third-party organizations to target this race hard, including the NRSC if they have the resources. Sununu is a very good vote for the GOP considering he hails from a slightly Democratic-leaning state, and they'll be eager to keep him around. Third, New Hampshire is a difficult state to poll, and there's some reason to believe the race might be closer than the polling average indicates. Most of the polls showing Shaheen with a huge lead come from either Rasmussen, or the unreliable ARG. Nevertheless, Sununu's inability to climb above 45%, as an incumbent, is a clear indicator that the race leans Shaheen's way. Louisiana (Landrieu - D incumbent): This is, and has been, the hottest race featuring a Democratic incumbent for the entire cycle. Sen. Mary Landrieu has generally earned favorable marks in an increasingly Republican state, but she has won two Senate elections by the very skin of her teeth, and seems to be perpetually endangered. Republicans were initially excited about their recruit, former Democratic State Treasurer John Kennedy, who ran as a Democrat for the Senate in 2004. Several polls favorable for Kennedy indicated that he would have a strong chance against Landrieu (though only Zogby's dubious polling ever gave Kennedy a lead). In Rasmussen's latest poll, however, Landrieu has opened up a substantial lead, 56% to 39%. This is perhaps due to a series of excellent anti-Kennedy ads from the Landrieu campaign, such as this one, and this one. That's one poll, of course, and it may well be an outlier. However, this race would have been considered "Leans Democratic" even prior to this latest poll. Landrieu has maintained a polling edge over Kennedy through the race, and had $3 million more to spend at last filing. If the latest polling result is confirmed, it may merit moving this race up. If it isn't, LA-Sen should stay right where it is. Colorado (OPEN-R): There's little to report in Colorado's Senate race, frankly. Polling has been remarkably consistent so far, giving Democrat Mark Udall a significant, if not overwhelming lead, anywhere from three to ten points but usually around six points. Pollster's average pegs the race at Udall 47%, Schaffer 41%. That dovetails pretty well with the ranking of "Leans Democratic". Udall would win the race if it were held today, but nothing is certain for November. Republican candidate Bob Schaffer has been mired in every kind of scandal imaginable since the beginning of the race. Schaffer is an old Abramoff pal, and a business associate of a felon convicted of defrauding the government. He's managed to weather them all pretty well, up to this point. We'll see if Udall gets any bounce from the Democratic convention, which will obviously be held in his state of Colorado. Leans Republican Mississippi (Wicker-R incumbent): This race could have been considered a tossup until fairly recently; most of the polling on the race indicated a dead heat, with Wicker and Democratic candidate Ronnie Musgrove trading statistically insignificant leads. Rasmussen's last two polls, with leaners included, have given a nine-point edge to the Republican incumbent. The race is much closer without leaners included, and the last non-Rasmussen poll - a Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos, taken roughly a month ago - showed a deadlock at Wicker 45%, Musgrove 44%. Wicker's got the money advantage, although as Mississippi is a relatively cheap state in which to advertise, third-party spending from the DSCC or other groups could be a major factor here. Due to a few factors - the DSCC's cash edge over the NRSC, the prospect of unprecedented black turnout in Mississippi due to Obama's candidacy, and Musgrove's superior abilities on the stump - I'm still optimistic about this race. Swing State Project's James L. is not as sanguine as I am, writing: I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer here, but Musgrove has some serious challenges -- most seriously, a recent guilty plea from a business executive who admitted that he attempted to bribe Musgrove with a $25,000 campaign contribution in connection to a failed beef plant project -- an unsuccessful business venture that left Mississippi taxpayers carrying the tab in 2003. Now, there's no evidence of any wrongdoing on Musgrove's part, but this is clearly the type of smoke and mirrors game that the GOP will love to exploit. I'm not saying that this race is undoable, but it's going to take an extraordinary amount of sweat. It's difficult to argue with that analysis, but I'd still place the race as "Leans Republican", and slightly ahead of similarly tiered races in North Carolina, Oregon and Minnesota. North Carolina (Dole-R incumbent): The recent trend in this state has been strongly in favor of Democratic challenger Kay Hagan, as she seeks to take out incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole. Three successive polls have put the race within five points, after a June advertising blitz jumped Dole's numbers significantly. Dole has been hit by several third-party ads of late, including the DSCC's masterful "Rocking Chairs" ad. Meanwhile, Hagan is up on the air with her own ads, both of them positive ads aimed at raising her profile and favorability statewide. The worst news for Dole, however, is that she can't count on the NRSC to save her bacon. After reserving $6 million in ad time across the state, the NRSC wound up dropping that reservation, and it appears that Dole will have to fend largely for herself in this race (even as the DSCC strongly backs Hagan). Dole has proven to be a largely ineffective Senator, and as 2006 NRSC chair she was generally useless as a fundraiser and strategist. The NRSC leaving her to her own devices is awfully bad news for the Senator. Oregon (Smith-R incumbent): This race has been "Lean Republican" for quite some time. Democratic candidate Jeff Merkley is steadily gaining on Republican incumbent Gordon Smith, with Pollster's average pegging the race at 49% for Smith, 42% for Merkley. Merkley's campaign has really rounded into form over the last several months, with Merkley enjoying a truly impressive fundraising quarter in Q@, when he outraised Smith. While Merkley still trails by single digits, the recent strength of his campaign and Oregon's Democratic tilt give him a reasonable shot at knocking off the incumbent. Minnesota (Coleman-R incumbent): After a few rough months, DFL candidate Al Franken's campaign has shown recent signs of life, with Pollster now giving Republican incumbent Norm Coleman a six-point edge. Franken's recent campaign staff shakeup has resulted in a harder-edged campaign, with his most recent ads going on the offensive against Coleman. Coleman's own recent ethical problems have also served to bring his numbers down somewhat. Coleman is still an exceptionally canny politician and fundraiser, as well as a first-class fundraiser. Still, with recent trends favoring the Democrat, and the polling relatively close, this race should remain "Leans Republican". Likely Republican Maine (Collins-R incumbent): This has always been a difficult slog for Democrat Tom Allen, as he faces one of the Senates most popular Republicans in incumbent Susan Collins. Initially, many hoped that Maine's blue tint would be enough to carry the day for Allen, as it helped Sheldon Whitehouse defeat well-liked incumbent Lincoln Chafee in 2006. This hasn't proven to be the case. Allen had made steady, if slow, progress in polling results until recently, but as Pollster indicates, his numbers seem to have flatlined in the low-to-mid 40s, with Collins' own numbers consistently in the low-to-mid 50s. There's still time for Allen to catch up, and the DSCC has reserved fully $5 million of ad time in the state, indicating their belief in Allen and their commitment to the race. Allen himself is on the air with a strong initial ad, and that should help his numbers somewhat (there has been no polling since Allen's ad went up). Kentucky (McConnell-R incumbent): Kentucky is the first in a troika of "Likely Republican" races (along with Georgia and Oklahoma) that all bear some similarity to each other. Each race is in a Republican-leaning state (albeit to different degrees in each case), featuring a supreme Republican villain facing a surprisingly strong Democratic challenger. In this case, the villain is none other than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrat Bruce Lunsford has run a strong race, but is still something of the David in this race to McConnell's Goliath (despite Lunsford's formidable financial resources). McConnell, one of the best fundraisers the GOP has, has a war chest fit for a small country, and sports a consistent 10-12 point polling lead. McConnell is also one of the canniest and most ruthless GOP Senators out there, making a difficult battle for Lunsford. Still, Lunsford's wealth and aggressive campaign put this race slightly ahead of Georgia and Oklahoma. Georgia (Chambliss-R incumbent): This race is firmly on the radar for the first time all cycle, as not only have Democrats nominated their strongest candidate in former state legislator Jim Martin, but two successive polls have come out showing Martin trailing incumbent Saxby Chambliss by single digits. Chambliss has considerable advantages in the race - he is reasonably popular in Georgia, though not overwhelmingly so, and he has vast financial resources with which to hammer Martin over the next two months. Still, the numbers indicate that this is a competitive race right now, and Martin's own fundraising has been quite respectable considering that he got into the race very late. In addition, the DSCC is evidently watching this race, and should be able to help Martin out on the financial end, should he remain competitive. OK-Sen (Inhofe-R incumbent): Few states are more inhospitable to Democrats than Oklahoma. Fortunately, few young candidates are as impressive as Orange to Blue candidate Andrew Rice, and few incumbent Senators are as thoroughly ridiculous and unpleasant as Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Rice started this race as a serious underdog, but his strong campaign has pulled the previously little-known state Senator to within single digits of 14-year incumbent Inhofe, according to a poll commissioned by the DSCC. Inhofe still has a considerable cash advantage, not to mention a name recognition advantage. And a nine-point polling deficit with two months to go is not insignificant. However, if that poll is accurate - and there's little reason to suggest it isn't, as the DSCC's previous polling was directly in line with independent polling done around the same time - Rice has a fighting chance to be the first Democratic senator from Oklahoma since David Boren retired. Races To Watch Idaho (OPEN-R): The most recent poll on this race, by Research 2000 for Daily Kos, gave Republican Jim Risch a mere 10-point advantage over Democrat Larry LaRocco. If another poll comes out confirming the previous result, it will justify moving this race to "Likely Republican". Idaho has traditional been uber-Republican territory; Bush pulled 69% of the vote there in 2006. LaRocco was the last Democrat elected to Congress from the state, when he served as the First District's Representative from 1991 to 1995. LaRocco has faced Risch twice before, having lost badly in 2006 in the Lieutenant Governor's race. However, Risch has to deal with a very well-funded independent challenge from the right in the person of wealthy rancher Rex Rammell. If he is in fact leading by only 10, with just 42% of the vote, LaRocco may have a chance at a shocking upset. Texas (Cornyn-R incumbent): Orange to Blue candidate Rick Noriega has stayed relatively close in polling to Republican Sen. John Cornyn, a certain and unmistakable indicator of Cornyn's vulnerability. Noriega's problem is fundraising; he reported less than $1 million in the bank as of Q2 filings, in one of the most expensive states in the country in which to advertise. Cornyn sports nearly ten times the cash that Noriega has, enough money to bury him going forward. Cornyn's seeming inability to climb above 50% in polling keep this on the list of races to watch. Nebraska (OPEN-R): Democratic candidate Scott Kleeb has proven an excellent fundraiser, outraising former Governor Mike Johanns, his Republican opponent, in the second quarter. Kleeb is a personally appealing candidate as well, on several levels; he proved his political skill in 2006 when he ran a highly competitive race in Nebraska's Third District, one of the reddest in the nation. Kleeb's problem is Johanns' popularity in Nebraska. Johanns maintains a significant polling edge - he has pulled 55% to 60% in every poll on the race so far, while Kleeb has topped out at 40% and generally been mired in the low 30s. Kansas: For a while, it seemed as though this might provide a solid flanking race for the party, as Democrat Jim Slattery was consistently polling within 10-12 points of Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. Unfortunately, Roberts has regained momentum, having hammered Slattery in TV ads running statewide, and now polls roughly 20 points ahead of Slattery on average. Slattery's fundraising has been quite good, but he's got a tough hill to climb.

As expected, Republicans didn't waste a moment before launching the full concern troll attack on Obama's selection of a running mate. No matter who was chosen, they would have professed concern that they know much better than Democrats who the Democratic nominees should have been. In this case the goal is to sow discord among Democrats by riling supporters of Hillary Clinton. Here's Rudy Giuliani concern trolling this morning on ABC: "You almost have to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid [Clinton] as the vice presidential pick of the party." How touching that Republicans care to interfere offer us advice. McCain is so concerned that the Democratic ticket isn't as strong as he'd like that he spent his own money on an attack ad to make the case belatedly for Clinton. McCain even claims to know Obama's thinking in the matter. Surprising for a man so confused he can't even remember how many homes he owns, that McCain has such precise insight into his rival's thoughts. Ad's narrator: "She won millions of votes - but isn't on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth, on his plans...The truth hurt, and Obama didn't like it." Actually, as David Axelrod explained this morning, the reason Obama made the choice he did is that "he felt Senator Biden would be the best fit for him". Odd that the McCain campaign didn't bother to ask first what basis the Democrat had used. Even odder that Republicans are so concerned about helping to improve the Democratic ticket. And oddest of all in that the ad ascribes Truth to whatever opinions Hillary Clinton expressed about her rivals for the presidency. Because Clinton is highly critical of McCain: Clinton’s team immediately dubbed the ad misleading. "Hillary Clinton's support of Barack Obama is pretty clear,” said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. “She has said repeatedly that Barack Obama and she share a commitment to changing the direction of the country, getting us out of Iraq, and expanding access to health care. John McCain doesn't. It's interesting how those remarks didn't make it into his ad." I guess we're all deeply concerned about the research and writing skills of the Republican attack machine. At some other time in the future, maybe, we can suggest the people they ought to have hired instead of the bums they've got. For now, why don't we content ourselves with helping the GOP to select John McCain's running mate?

This'll be a short one today: most of the Daily Kos contributing editors are on their way to Denver as we speak, to take part in Big Tent activities. Oh, and maybe visit the actual convention, if there's time, but from the way things are looking the Big Tent's going to be the place to be.

• This is hilarious. I love it, because Kristol's not even trying to mask his concern trollery, and the end result is just a lumpy mess of Suck. The Democrats have a problem with a "Glass Ceiling", because Obama didn't pick Clinton? Excuse me, but were you watching the Republican debates?
• Give it up, McCain. It's getting creepy to watch.
• No, seriously -- give it up. When you've lost Maureen Dowd, you've lost everyone.
• The wingnut campaign to find something at the Democratic convention to get freaked out about has one of its first entries. Scary imaginary flag desecration!

That's all I got. Open thread time.

Ever wonder if the US is still capable of technological innovation? Follow me here, and you might be surprised at what's happening behind the scenes of something as non-technological as philanthropy. Can a company as wildly successful as Google leverage their tech wizardry to do good by doing well? In this Jan '08 article by Julie Fagnani for the onPhilanthropy blog, the question is addressed: In 2004, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin made a commitment to address some of the world's most significant challenges. The commitment included a considerable contribution of both capital and man power. There's a definite tech slant to Google's mission: Like a traditional nonprofit, Google.org operates by supporting partners with targeted grants.  But its unique structure also allows for Google.org to make for-profit investments and to lobby for policies that support its philanthropic goals. Google.org is separate from the Google Foundation. Established in 2005, the Foundation is a 501(c)(3) private foundation that is managed by Google.org and supports its mission and core initiatives through grants.  Thus far, Google.org and the Google Foundation have committed more than $75 million in grants and investments. Two aspects worth commenting on are energy and public health. On the energy side, Darksyde wrote this yesterday: Google to Invest 10 Million in Alternative Geothermal Energy and on the public health side (also from Jan '08), Larry Brilliant, of Google.org: Internet 'is pandemic early warning system'. So what has the internet got to do with pandemics (beyond this, anyway: Pandemic Flu Preparation and the Role of Internet Communities)and who's this Larry Brilliant guy? Here's a nice description from Bruno Giussani, the European Director of the TED Conferences (Al Gore is a TED speaker, and Bill Clinton won a TED prize in 2007): I had never heard of GPHIN until Larry Brilliant made it a key part of his "wish speech" at the TED conference [TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design] in February [2006], where he received the TEDprize and was therefore entitled to express a "wish" asking the attendees (a very high-powered and tech-oriented crowd) to help him realize it. Here is what Larry wished for: To build a powerful new early warning system to protect our world from some of its worst nightmares. (Read: from deadly pandemics). The system should be transparent, with basic information freely available to everyone, preferably in their own language, and will be housed in a neutral country, independent of any single government, any single company, any single UN agency, but will offer its alerts, data, access to all. Brilliant pointed to an existing Canadian system, GPHIN, as the nucleus that could form the basis for what he dubbed INSTEDD, for International System for Total Early Disease Detection (of course, the TED in the word is a hat-tip to the prize). Here's Larry, giving a TEDtalk, if you have 26 minutes to spare: Having met both Larry and Peter Carpenter (of InSTEDD) at various times, I wrote Peter and asked him what they're up to these days. Peter wrote back: InSTEDD is dedicated to harnessing the power of information and communications technology (ICT) to address the challenge of improving collaboration and information flow for early detection and response to emergencies, emerging infectious diseases, and natural disasters.  We are developing a software platform designed to enable communication and virtual teaming among worker in the field, interoperable information sharing between users of different databases and software applications, and collaborative decision-making among health and disaster experts.  We are currently testing and evolving these technologies at our first Field Innovation Laboratory in Phnom Penh, Cambodia and we are working closely with the Cambodian Ministry of Health to develop custom ICT solutions for event reporting in remote rural locations,  early and accurate outbreak detection, and coordination of rapid response teams. InSTEDD plans to expand field operations throughout Southeast Asia and into Africa in the near future. So, all those guys out in the field tracking ill patients and sick birds would actually have a better way to communicate with each other, whetehr it's using simple and durable hand-held communication/recording devices, or allowing database and software communication to easily take place. InSTEDD, btw, also was the driving force for written pandemic flu preparation instructions for this Citizen's Guide .pdf designed to help anyone figure out what's going on and what to do, including this English version for American citizens. Note the emphasis on natural disasters; the techniques could prove useful whether it's a tsunami or a pandemic. That's what we call the all-hazards approach. So, in the end, Google and InSTEDD have been involved with collecting data, collating it and making it easy to use for both professionals  and ordinary citizens. That sounds like something Google should be good at. And doing what you do best to help others? It doesn't require a tech degree to figure out that that just might turn out to be a good thing.

As we all know, this November brings major opportunities for Senate pick-ups. And if we get enough Democrats in the Senate, there's a lot of legislation we might be able to get passed that seemed like pipe dreams just two years ago. That's precisely one of the reasons some business groups will be fighting tooth and nail to prevent Democrats from picking up Senate seats. The Employee Free Choice Act is one of the most important such bills -- and practically every competitive Senate race is being targeted by anti-union groups with millions of dollars in funding from undisclosed sources: The two groups, which will not disclose the sources of money behind their campaigns, may spend as much as a combined $50 million by November. The extent of the media effort has sent Democrats scrambling for ways to respond to what they call misleading advertisements without getting thrown off their own message. Party leaders are also sharply critical of the secrecy behind the spending. "The fact that these expenditures are not only so large but are undisclosed is extremely troubling," said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who said the groups "are trying to influence the elections with millions of dollars that the public can’t trace." These groups (which I've previously written about here) have already gone on the air with millions of dollars in ads against candidates whose names will be familiar to you: Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Allen, Al Franken, Mary Landrieu, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall, Bruce Lunsford, Ronnie Musgrove. In fact, to prevent this bill, Wal-Mart has already engaged in the kind of abuses that it is designed to prevent. At the beginning of the month, the Wall Street Journal reported that: Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart. In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized. --snip-- The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states. "The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said. The AFL-CIO, Change to Win, American Rights at Work, and WakeUpWalMart subsequently filed an FEC complaint arguing that Wal-Mart's actions constituted illegal electioneering. But whatever the ruling from the FEC, there's no question that by going this close to the line of legality, Wal-Mart showed just how terrified they are of the Employee Free Choice Act. So what's the fuss about? The main components of the Employee Free Choice Act include requiring certification of a union once a majority of employees in a workplace have signed up for the union. As laws are currently enforced, after a majority of employees have requested a union, employers can force an election.  This may sound democratic enough, but in fact it allows employers to use their power over workers to campaign against the union, often harassing and firing union supporters in the process. As labor scholar Gordon Lafer writes: For an election to be "free and fair," both sides must have equal access to media and the voters. But not under labor law. Anti-union managers are free to campaign to every employee, every day, throughout the day; but pro-union employees can campaign only on break time.  Furthermore, management can post anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls — while prohibiting pro-union employees from doing the same.  By law, employers can force workers to attend mass anti-union propaganda events.  Not only are pro-union employees not given equal time, but they can be forced to attend on condition that they not ask any questions.  Recent data show that workers are forced to attend between five and 10 such one-sided meetings. If, during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democrats could have forced every voter in America to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or if the Republicans could have forced everyone to watch the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth video), with no opportunity for response from the other side, none of us would have called this "democracy." To put this in further context, under the system we have now 30% of employers illegally fire workers during union organization drives; 23% of workers in majority sign-up elections, the kind the EFCA would allow, "report management coercion to oppose the union"; and 46% report similar coercion in what Wal-Mart and their allies would like you to call "secret ballot" elections. The bill also prevents employers from dragging out negotiations on a first union contract by creating provisions for mediation and arbitration, and strengthens penalties on employers who fire union supporters. Such firings are illegal, but the current penalties are too small to serve as effective deterrents -- if a fired worker wins their complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, a process that may take years, they are awarded the difference between what they ultimately earned in that time period and what they would have earned had they not been fired. That means that someone who is illegally fired and goes out and gets an equivalent job may get almost no money. There is therefore very little disincentive for employers to illegally fire union-supporting workers. That the Employee Free Choice Act will afford workers greater freedom to join unions would doubtless be reason enough for Wal-Mart and other anti-worker corporations to oppose it. And it should be reason enough for us to support it. But if, despite being a Daily Kos reader, you're not a big fan of unions (and if that's the case, shame on you), I'll refer you to Trapper John's appeal to your baser interests: I'm writing today for those breeds of Democrats who -- for whatever reason -- just don't care that much, or at least that passionately, about labor.  I'm writing for folks like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln -- two good Democratic senators who have yet to commit to voting for EFCA.  I don't want to appeal to your better angels and try to convince you that EFCA is a civil rights bill, or that its passage is a moral imperative. No -- my message is simple, and is an appeal to your baser instincts: Passing EFCA will get more Democrats elected. That's right.  Put aside, for the moment, the many, many reasons that passing EFCA makes sense from a policy perspective.  EFCA is a political winner for Democrats.  Why?  Because EFCA will increase the number of union members in the US -- and union members (and, for that matter, non-members living in union households) are more likely to vote Democratic than non-members. We have no way of knowing whether the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the "Employee Freedom Action Committee," and other corporatists are more opposed to Democrats because they would pass the Employee Free Choice Act, producing more union members, or are more opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act because it would produce more Democrats. Whichever it is, we have to be prepared to counter their tens of millions of dollars of advertising and their employee intimidation aimed at defeating Democrats this November.

Reports of a surging McCain are greatly exaggerated. While Obama and McCain are mobilizing supporters and maintaining a close race, the numbers on this most recent ABC/WaPo poll have changed about as much as the other national polls - by a point or two, Obama leading. Presidential choice RV 8/19-22 (July) (June) Obama 49 (50) (49) McCain 43 (42) (45) The Registered Voter numbers (prior to the Biden announcement) are +6 Obama, but WaPo also offers Likely Voter numbers with trends (who is a likely voter this year remains unclear). This is a good example of current LV screens favoring McCain, whose demographic of older voters fits better into LV classification [more on LV's here from Mark Blumenthal]: Presidential choice LV 8/19-22 (July) (June) Obama  49 (49) (47) McCain 45 (46) (48) As for particulars: The focus on foreign policy crises over the past month, including the Russian invasion of Georgia, has played to McCain's perceived strengths among the electorate. He holds 2 to 1 leads over Obama in the new poll as the candidate with better knowledge of world affairs and the one who would make a better commander in chief. He is also regarded as superior to Obama in combating international terrorism and has a slender advantage on international affairs generally, the latter thanks to a clear edge among independents. But on the question of who is better equipped to deal with specific foreign policy problems, McCain's advantages are less apparent. Voters rate McCain and Obama evenly on handling the situation in Iraq, and McCain has a negligible advantage in dealing with U.S. relations with Russia. And it is Obama who continues to hold a lead on dealing with the nation's flagging economy, although his margin on that crucial question is somewhat narrower than it was a month ago. Where Obama is strongest is in public assessments of his candidacy and personality. He has a better than 2 to 1 edge as the more optimistic candidate and a 21-point advantage on who would do more to stand up to special interests. Although both candidates have tried to stress their desire to govern in a bipartisan fashion, voters by a 12-point margin see Obama as the one more likely to work cooperatively with Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Usual enthusiasm gap: Nevertheless, McCain's candidacy cannot match Obama's on enthusiasm. More voters are enthusiastic about Obama's run than McCain's, and while almost all of those who support a candidate are enthusiastically behind their pick, Obama's backers are about twice as likely to call themselves "very enthusiastic," 52 to 28 percent. This is a bit different, though: As for the general tenor of the campaign, about two-thirds, 64 percent, said Obama is primarily focused on addressing the issues; 45 percent said so of McCain. On McCain's campaign, about as many, 48 percent, said he was instead mainly focused on attacking Obama. Our friends, the ex-Republicans: Independents overall remain about evenly split in their vote preferences: 45 percent support Obama, 43 percent McCain. Each candidate garners an identical 59 percent favorable rating from independents, underscoring some voters' tough choices ahead. Separately, Polling Report has a good summary of the Biden reaction with the voters. Between Fox and ABC/WaPo polls, the Biden choice makes no difference among 75% of responders (ABC/WaPo), and is a wash among Fox responders (Dems like the choice 3:1, opposite with the GOP). [Gallup and Rasmussen agree, but note that older voters like Biden, complementing Obama's appeal with younger voters.] Bottom line is that, for now, the electorate remains polarized. Perhaps the best way (and maybe the only way) to break through is to elect a Democrat and show they can govern effectively. If the election were held today (and it won't be) the polls suggest that is what would happen, particularly if new and younger voters show.

Joe Biden edition. As usual, the pundits are unanimous, left, right and center: WaPo/multiple authors: Assessing Joe Biden. Ed Rogers wins Pinocchio award for "Whew, as a concerned citizen and McCain supporter, I am relieved and encouraged by the Biden selection." CBS: "I know that Joe will campaign well for Senator Obama, and so I think he's going to be very formidable," McCain added. "Obviously, Joe and I have been on different philosophical sides, but we have been - I consider him a good friend and good man." Reid Wilson: Experienced, intelligent and savvy, Obama's choice, in retrospect, could not have been anyone else. Jay Nordlinger: The verbiage ticket, this is, and the arrogance ticket, and the emptiness ticket. McCain and his running-mate-to-be should really take them. Don’t you think? And let me just say I was shocked that Biden was picked. That says it all about my own judgment. Debra Saunders: Biden? Meh. John Judis: Biden a reassuring pick Charles Hurt:   As a white-haired straight-shooter, he casts a strong balance to John McCain's long-held claim to run the only "straight-talk express" in Washington. And in the process, he gives Obama considerable cover when the young freshman senator has to unleash harsh attacks on McCain. So what if he's a blowhard? He's a fun blowhard. Tom Bevan: There goes change. As if. Anyway, if he does well, it's because the press likes him, so don't expect fair treatment. CNN: Biden gives Obama old-school cred Liz Sidoti: Barack Obama says Joe Biden is ready to step in as president. He's not bad in the role of attack dog, either, wasting no time gnawing at GOP rival John McCain. "He will have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at" when considering his own economic future, Biden said — a blistering reference to McCain's embarrassing admission, particularly during a period of financial turmoil, that he didn't know how many homes he and his ultra-wealthy wife own. CSM: Perhaps most importantly, he’s nobody’s idea of effete. With a blue-collar background and tough campaign style, Biden could counter GOP efforts to frame Obama himself as an elitist. "Biden fills gaps many people see in Obama’s credentials," says Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. The reverse is also true: Obama’s strengths are Biden’s weaknesses. Biden has twice run for president himself, including this cycle, to widespread disinterest on the part of national voters. And where Obama’s rhetoric soars, Biden’s mouth can get him in trouble. ABC: 'Dream Ticket' No More: No Obama-Clinton. Sniff. Sniffle. Waaaah! What'll we do for pretend news?

Full Lineup and other goodies below...

This evening's Rescue Rangers are yashua, jlms qkw, HansScholl, a synthetic cubist, Larsstephens, and srkp23, with watercarrier4diogenes wearing the flowing Robes of Objectivity on a glorious sunny afternoon in Oregon, where Jeff Merkley's in the ascendancy and "Salmonkiller" Smith is a fading ghost. The Rangers have sifted and sorted through 436 diaries to bring you these 14 great examples of the excellent writing and breadth of subjects that Teh Orange has become known for.

• Els shares personal and national narrative in The Unsettling Role of Zeitgeist. (jlms qkw)
• With "The American West's canary in the coal mine", JohnnyRook introduces us to the quietly vanishing tipping point bio-indicators of encroaching global climate change, and its old "friends," official government obfuscation and denial. (Larsstephens)
• teacherken is one of the dedicated educators heading back to the classroom this fall and lays out what it takes, day in and day out, to be the kind of teacher everyone wants in On Monday the students report. (HansScholl)
• TomP plants the seeds for social and economic awareness by giving us an overview of California's Harvest of Shame (and Good News on Gaining Justice). (Larsstephens)
• Killer of Sacred Cows brings us a thought-provoking essay on the use of humor against the privileged by the oppressed in How To Handle Justified Anger. (Yashua)
• In Rehashing the Gate? Part II - News Values & DK, wide aperture places the context of our shifting media narratives and frames into a sharper perspective. (Larsstephens)
• Bill Prendergast updates a classic in The Grapes of McCain (a screenplay). (jlms qkw)
• Jan Barry calls attention to Democratic plans for doubling the size of the Peace Corps as an alternative to endless spending on military solutions to international problems in Support Our Peacemakers. (HansScholl)
• nightowl1724 pens a harrowing personal story of being sick in America without health insurance in Health Care Series: Uninsured and Lucky to be Alive Part 2. (Yashua)
• The allmost liberal european explains how our nation's decades-old embargo does nothing to stop it, and why Cuba getting fast Internet access...via Venezuela, may, or may not, be a good thing. (Larsstephens)
• BobboSphere uses a plethora of links to answer Why does the Rightwing Hate Small Business? (jlms qkw)
• sheddhead shares Chicago Treasures: Urban Adventures Tours and gives us a small peek at some neglected views of the gems hiding in the windy city. (Larsstephens)
• TheWurz shares an expert's wrap-up of the premiere sporting event in The Olympics from an Olympics Obsessive (with Poll Vault). (jlms qkw)
• Taking a hands on approach in Reiki for Veterans? Military and VA Testing, Already Using Ancient Touch Therapy, ilona explores alternative healthcare strategies from long ago and modern day evaluations of their effectiveness for our warriors, and us. (Larsstephens)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - August 22, 2008. carolita has Top Comments 8-23-08 -- Go Joe!! Edition. Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

Our nation has been through so much These last few thousand days. Our battered hearts and weary souls Look now for warming rays. Our confidence is shattered; Our discourse in the muck; And so I have just one request: Please, Obama -- please don't suck. From Enron to the oil kings Our country has been sold And to the lowest bidders, And we all have gotten rolled. More tax cuts for the rich, While the barons pass the buck; It seems impossible to ask But Obama: please don't suck. Our soldiers in Iraq will stay For many months, at least, Because we thought preemptive war Was a more docile beast. Our diplomacy has become farce Our policies, amok; If you want to be in charge of it Then Obama -- please don't suck. It would be very simple To let it slip away; A pardon here, a bill, a law, A tactical delay. The lobbyists and crooks remain, Always looking for a schmuck, But we have few chances left, So Obama: Please Don't Suck.

Two stories about planned coverage of the Democratic National Convention hit me upside the head this morning. First, from U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers column: Rocked by warnings that it will cost news organizations $50,000 more per reporter to cover Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain, a growing number of journalists and press pundits are questioning why the media is staffing up coverage of the political conventions where little major news is expected. At least one paper and several Washington bureaus, we're told, have budgeted only $100,000 for political coverage, and their convention teams will eat most of it, leaving little to put reporters on the campaign trail. [Emphasis added.] Seriously? A convention team will eat "most" of a $100,000 newspaper budget? In other words, $50,000 plus? Good Lord. No wonder traditional media outlets are tanking. Not only are they filled with sycophantic stenographers, they are working with outrageously bloated budgets. How can you possibly send a reporter or two to a five-day convention and rack up a $50,000 bill? Now maybe each outlet is sending ... I don't know ... 20 reporters each, in which case the per-journalist cost is obviously less but the decision exponentially more stupid. Contrast this with a story about bloggers going to the convention in the New York Times today, an article entitled The Year of the Political Blogger Has Arrived: "Send the Blend to Denver" reads the ChipIn widget on her blog’s home page [Pam's House Blend] that tracks donations from readers; so far they have pledged more than $5,000 to transport Ms. Spaulding and three other bloggers to the convention. ** Through contributions as small as $5 or $10, Mr. Anderson [The Albany Project] said, he was able to raise about $1,500 for his Denver trip. ** Now a yellow "donate" icon on his site [Green Mountain Daily] links to a separate PayPal account, where readers can contribute toward Mr. Odum’s estimated $1,000 travel costs. He said he had received enough support to pay for the $400 air fare. Do you see where I'm going with this? Traditional media outlets are claiming it costs in excess of $10,000 a day per reporter. Bloggers? Heh. An average, it looks like, of about ... $200-$300 a day, tops. Now before I get inundated with emails and comments that I don't understand the overhead of traditional media, let me stipulate that, in fact, I do. You see, I've been a newspaper publisher, sweating over allocation of editorial budget and monthly P & L statements. I know full well there are non-obvious costs to the outsider of fronting a news organization: health care, professional dues, brick-and-mortar property costs, equipment, employee expenses that bloggers don't face. So I'm willing to ... say ... triple, even quintuple,what it should cost a professional news organization to send staff to an event. But there is no calculus in the known universe that can justify nearly 50 times the cost (unless newspaper management, in talking to Washington Whispers, fudged a bit and didn't pro-rate its annual costs). What it does reflect is either management lying to reporters about how much they "burden" the outlet, or businesses that truly are the cumbersome, establishment, jacked-up-expense-report outfits they appear to be. Neither explanation bodes well for the future of traditional media, and visions of behemoth, slow-responding dinosaurs and scurrying little mammals come to mind. This winnowing-out imagery may be shared by the dinosaurs as well, which might go a ways toward explaining why the New York Times has chosen to place its story on bloggers (And hey! It's even "The Year of Us!") on the front of its Fashion & Style section. What? We're a fad, like hot pants or mohawks? They can only hope so. At least we now know that the ridiculous slot in the same section that was awarded to coverage of the BlogHer conference may not have been due to sexism; hey, gang, it may have just been belittling of bloggers in general! What comfort! And as an aside, it's hard to imagine anything more hilarious than Phillip Anderson of The Albany Project--aka Daily Kos's own lipris--posing with a brew, a dog, a Mac, and a baseball cap in his usual (how shall we say this?) casual apparel under a blazing Fashion & Style masthead. Funny thing is, if the traditional media doesn't get its expense act together and learn how to cut costs and compete in the new media environment, the guy in the baseball cap--and all of us he represents--is going to have the last laugh.

The philanthropic arm of commercial search engine giant Google announced it will invest 10.25 million dollars in a variant of Enhanced Geothermal Systems, or EGS. Even the late night Republican pizza partiers might like this one; they can literally drill all the way to hell and back! The technology differs from "traditional" geothermal in that rather than exploiting existing wells of earthbound steam and hot water, EGS drills deep — miles down — to access layers of heated granite that exist underfoot everywhere on the planet. Water can be circulated downward for heating, and then upward to drive turbines and generate electricity. ... Of course, $10 million in R&D support is measly against the roughly $1 billion the Energy Department suggests would be needed to really deploy EGS on a mass scale, but the three beneficiaries of Google’s venture are surely not complaining. And of course, one-billion dollars to tap into a global ocean of clean, unlimited subterranean energy is measly compared to the trillion or so tax dollars President and Vice-President shit-for-brains, Exxon John McSame, and their merry band of neocon clowns are 'investing' in Iraq at the rate of half a billion a day. How's that investment return going fellas? Oh, yeah, right. Wake me when November ends.

Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....

• DemFromCT will cover google.org's high tech contribution to philanthropy, from energy to pandemic surveillance.
• brownsox will provide the latest "State of the Senate" installment.
• What piece of legislation strikes so much fear into the hearts of Republicans and big business that they're spending $50 million to defeat Senate candidates who might vote for it? MissLaura will explain why it's the Employee Free Choice Act.
• georgia10 will examine the courage of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones in the context of election reform.
• On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, Hunter will try to convince himself to be peppy and cheerful, and fail utterly. This should be gruesome to watch.
• smintheus will discuss which prisoners get released from Gitmo, and when. Guess what, it has little to do with what they're actually accused of.

KStreetProjector and Atrios have both pointed to one of the things liberals should really be cheering about Joe Biden being on the Democratic ticket: The man is one of Amtrak's biggest supporters. That support comes in several forms: Biden commutes to work each day on Amtrak and has been a strong supporter of the beleaguered rail service.  He is an original co-sponsor of the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill (National Defense Rail Act), S.104, introduced on January 7, 2003.   Introducing an earlier version of the bill with Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) on March 6, 2002, Biden stated, "For 30 years, I have witnessed Congress dangling a carrot in front of Amtrak's eyes, funding it just enough for it to limp along.  And I'll tell you, this has to stop.  Now is the time to commit politically and financially to a strong, safe, and efficient passenger rail system."   Biden has been particularly concerned with rail passenger security, and has, in the words of communications director Norm Kurz "worked furiously" to secure funding for Amtrak to upgrade its tunnels, hire more cops and bomb-sniffing dogs, build more fences, and add lighting to terminals. Amtrak president George Warrington presented Biden with a "Champion of the Rails" award in June 2001 and the American Passenger Rail Coalition (APRC), a national association of railroad equipment suppliers and rail businesses, presented him its "Rail Leadership Award" in March 2002. Moreover, his younger son is on the Amtrak board, and in that capacity is a major advocate for the railroad. Especially in this moment when rising gas prices have set Amtrak ridership records, having one of the rail service's supporters handed a bigger soapbox creates a real moment of potential. This country needs more public transit -- more miles of service, funding to repair and upgrade equipment (train tracks in particular need work, but Amtrak's cars also need refurbishing or replacing in many cases -- and can you even imagine how many people would opt for Amtrak over the New York to DC shuttle if Amtrak had wifi?), and, as Atrios tirelessly points out, we need public transit to become an organizing principle of new development of residential and commercial areas. This is one of the most important components of improved energy policy. (And, like Atrios, I think it's a path to improved quality of life as well.) Let's hope Biden is able to move things forward on this one.

Last November, as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton said that she'd be happy to have Joe Biden as her running mate. I would consider Joe Biden for anything," Clinton said. "He's a friend of mine, he's a wonderful senator. I'm one of Joe's biggest fans." Today Clinton praised Barack Obama's VP choice, saying Biden is "an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant". If there's any sense at all in political debate in this country, the nomination of Biden ought to put an end effectively to complaints that Obama is short on experience. It's the only consistent criticism of Obama that I've heard this year from truly persuadable voters. Biden's nomination also will make it difficult for Clinton's supporters to feel aggrieved that she wasn't chosen instead. All along her candidacy was based on claims of (a) experience, and (b) expertise. Joe Biden has more of both than Hillary Clinton does, as even her more ardent supporters would have to admit. If you believe that the choice of a vice president should just be a question of merit, as many Clinton supporters have been arguing, then the selection of Joe Biden is highly merited. That won't preclude a few PUMAs from continuing to nurse their grudges. Extremists aren't amenable to reason. But Biden's nomination will show their complaints to be ridiculous, in the extreme.

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are Louisiana 1976, PaintyKat, a synthetic cubist, dopper0189, Larsstephens and drbcladd, with Got a Grip as editor du jour. Illumination

• Johnny Venom brings us another installment of his excellent economic series, complete with charts: Manufacturing Monday: Numbers, Tesla, world trade reversal, and China overtakes US. (a synthetic cubist)
• 8ackgr0und N015e exposes criminal security weaknesses by juxtaposing complex technological systems during the Infowars: Free subway rides AND stealing elections!!!. (Larsstephens)
• Boxer7 explains the shifting geopolitical emphasis due to global warming by telling us What the Coast Guard knows: Battleground Arctic. (Larsstephens)
• gmoke attempts to productivly reframe our vociferous progressive discourse with Attitude Advertising Versus Practical Solutions. (Larsstephens)

Contemplation

• Seneca Doane ponders just how many sins modern politicians ought to confess if planning to run for public office in Secrets and Lies (and Sanctimonious Columnists). (PaintyKat)
• ScottyUrb writes a very personal 100th diary about his Values. Why are you progressive? (drbcladd)
• Tula Connell perfectly captures the essense of the corporate elite's belief system in Chamber of Commerce Staff Gets Drunk, Blames Workers. (dopper0189)

Inspiration

• In McCain buzzkill antidote: Cullen Jones shatters stereotypes, saves lives, davidkc muses on the unique significance of one of our gold medalists. (a synthetic cubist)

jotter shares the High Impact Diaries. asimbagirlhasTop Comments - Favorite Summer Vacation Edition.

A poll released today from Public Policy Polling shows Obama holding a slim lead in Colorado, and Udall's lead for the open Senate seat closing in a bit. Public Policy Polling [pdf]. 8/5-8/7. Likely voters. MoE 3.2% (7/14 results) Obama 48 (47) McCain 44 (43) McCain leads just 48-46 with white voters, while Obama has a 51-36 edge with Hispanics.  Both candidates are polling in the mid-80s among folks within their parties while Obama is leading 50-35 with independents. Senate Udall 47 (47) Schaffer 41 (38) It's Colorado week, with the primary tomorrow and the state taking such a prominent role in November's presidential election, from the upcoming convention to its unusual status as a swing state. Colorado has only voted for one Democrat for president in 40 years, for Clinton in 1992 (with Perot taking a whopping 23% of the vote). There's a lot brewing in Colorado now that could affect who comes out to vote next November. The state is in the middle of the energy wars, where the pressure to drill more is butting up against another powerhouse economic force in the state--tourism. But it's not just the recreational industry that's energizing to oppose more drilling--it's the Coloradans who appreciate having public lands as their backyards to do some of that recreating. Environmental issues have played out in Democrats' favor in the last few elections in Colorado, but with industry putting on a full-court press, including a massive PR job, and with the country in a ginned up "energy crisis" mode, that could change. An even more hot-button issue for the state will be on the ballot this fall. That's Amendment 48, which would confer constitutional rights on fertilized eggs--the whackjobs have spoken, and have managed to get on the ballot. Colorado Independent's Wendy Norris (you might better know her as Kossack em dash) has the scary backstory on the mastermind behind this initiative, including his links to the most violent anti-abortion groups. The problem for Democrats with this initiative on the ballot will be the mobilization of the hard-core Republicans and evangelicals who might have otherwised stayed home. Whether those folks would also mark their ballots for McCain and other Republicans is unclear, but their potential impact makes mobilizing votres against it even more critical. With a right to work initiative also on the ballot, the right has done its best to stack the ballot for a mobilized Republican and evangelical vote, despite their flawed candidates. Obama's and Udall's best chance to keep Colorado on its blue streak will be in matching that mobilization effort and widening their advantage with the state's huge population of unaffiliated voters.

Akaka points out the painfully obvious to people who don't know how to count the number of stars on the US flag: Saying our 50th state is somehow 'foreign,' does a great disservice to the hard working, patriotic Americans who call Hawaii home. For months people have been asking me, 'when is Sen. Obama going to come home?' I'm so glad he found time to visit his sister and his grandmother, show his daughters more of his home state, and relax a little. Hawaii is a great U.S. destination, just ask the 5.5 million Americans who visited last year for business and pleasure. Seriously, you have to be a special kind of moron to think that going to Hawaii is an international trip. Of course, the state is only 24.7% non-Hispanic white, so perhaps that's what Cokie was thinking?

Bush today: "Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state.... Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.... We have no doubts about it. This is a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire country and change the regime." Right. Invading a sovereign state to destroy a country and change the regime isn't acceptable in the 21st century. Good to know. Which leads us to precisely the problem, as expressed today by Charles King, Russia expert and professor in the School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government at Georgetown University, in an interivew with Glenn Greenwald: Given the US's precarious condition militarily - where we're occupying two countries, fighting two wars - versus Russia's strength, and then you look at the aspect of soft power or moral credibility, there's that exchange in the UN where the US ambassador to the UN said that Russia had intended 'regime change' in Georgia, to which the Russian ambassador replied that that was an American concept, obviously referencing Iraq. Even if the US were inclined to do more, and Georgia's expectations of what we would do had been accurate, what would really our options be to intervene in any meaningful way in this conflict in a way that would influence Russia? The U.S. has no moral authority, Bush's having "looked into Putin's soul" notwithstanding.

Nobody outside Georgia tried harder to get the US to rush precipitously into the conflict with Russia than John McCain - even though by Monday he'd retreated to the point of merely urging more diplomatic pressure. His first reactions tell you what kind of president he'd be, however. And clearly he's bellicose in a way that makes even Dick Cheney look like a wuss. On Friday as soon as fighting broke out McCain put all the blame on Russia and called for the involvement of NATO. His campaign, via Georgian-lobbyist turned foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, also immediately set about politicizing the crisis by trying to use it to score points against Barack Obama. [Scheunemann] also criticized Obama for calling on both sides to show "restraint," and suggested the Democrat was putting too much blame on the conflict’s clear victim. Of course Georgia was not merely a "victim" in provoking this crisis, and the only country Obama actually singled out for blame was Russia for invading Georgia's sovereign territory. "I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis." But Obama did call for restraint and that was so inexcusable that the McCain campaign has inflated its attack further. In fact, the initial response from the Obama campaign was characterized by precisely the kind of rhetoric that the leaders of these nations warn against--a meaningless statement that equates the victim with the victimizer by calling on both sides to show restraint. Asking the Georgians to show restraint is like asking the Hungarians to show restraint as Russian tanks rolled into the country in 1956, or for restraint from the students in Prague in 1968. The reaction of the Obama campaign to this crisis, so at odds with our democratic allies and yet so bizarrely in sync with Moscow, doesn't merely raise questions about Senator Obama's judgment--it answers them. Except that Obama's statements, unlike McCain's, were in fact in sync with the statements of America's allies and of McCain's personal ally, George Bush: "We urge restraint on all sides — that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters. What's more on Sunday, two days after McCain began denouncing Obama's call for "restraint", Dick Cheney praised Georgia for its "restraint". "The vice president praised President Saakashvili for his government's restraint, offers of cease-fire, and disengagement of Georgian forces from the zone of conflict in the South Ossetian region of the country," the statement said. With even the blustering Cheney on board, it looks like just about everybody thought the Georgians needed to show some restraint - except John McCain. That shows the kind of president he'd make.