BIggest Post-Election Stock Drop in History

From Bloomberg News (via Instapundit):

The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.

Hang on to that hope and change kids! Pretty soon, it may be all that you've got.

Non-presidential things to watch today

1. What will California do with proposition 8 (state constitutional amendment on gay marriage)? They say that as California goes, so goes the nation. The few other states that have enacted gay marriage haven't seemed to have much of an effect on the nation as a whole, but I think that California will be different. (For the record, I support gay marriage, but I don't like the idea of it being imposed by the courts- though I haven't read the CA constitution or opinion, so I'm not sure whether it was a leap or not)

2. Will Massachusetts do away with its state income tax? The other states that have no income tax are all well known for having at least some conservative/libertarian streaks (Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Alaska, Nevada). Massachusetts, aka Tax-achusetts, would be the first solidly blue state to make such a move. Could this be a good sign for supporters of the Fair Tax?

3. What will happen to John Murtha? I'm all for a long time congress member getting kicked out, and that it is for showing his true colors in such an obnoxious fashion only makes it more delightful!

4. What will happen to Ted Stevens? See above, re: long time congress member getting kicked out. I hate to lose another Republican given what we're facing right now, but I'm really not a fan of Stevens and I'm pretty glad to see him get what he deserves.

I Support Barack Obama

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t want Obama to win this one today. I cast my vote proudly for McCain-Palin, and I wish that I could have done more. I have very low expectations for an Obama presidency. But if he is going to win this thing tonight, and I think that he will, he will be president of my country, the greatest country that has ever been, the country that has given me and my family amazing opportunities, the country that I thank God every night that I am allowed to be a part of. I think that the leaders of this country deserve respect.

The American people are not perfect, and they have not always made the best choices. Such is a risk that you take with a democratic republic. In the face of this new presidency, we must remain vigilant that our freedoms do not expire, we must viciously protect our freedoms of economic opportunity and entrepreneurship, freedoms of expression, freedoms to defend ourselves, even our rights to just make bad decisions. We must viciously defend ourselves against accusations of selfishness for not wanting to from those that fail to do even the minimum without government coercion. We must be aware of those who hide from criticism behind accusations of racism. But these are things that we should always do. Government is a power that is always larger than you; even if that power is wielded by those with whom you agree, it can still be abused, and it will be.

But, if Barack Obama is to be my country’s president, I support him. I will remain vigilant; I will speak out when I think that he is wrong, as I have about Presidents Bush and Clinton before him, but I will also try to give him credit when I think that he is right. I will continue to criticize his supporters, if I think that they have crossed a line, but I will give him, and his office, my respect. If I see supporters on my side attempting to echo the immature behavior of the out of power party of the last 8 years, the name calling, the assassination fantasies, the ridiculous accusations, I will speak out. President Obama is far, far from my choice, but he is not my enemy.

On Obama's NPR "Socialist Bombshell"

The transcript comes from, and audio is available at, Hot Air:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

OK, so a lot of commentators are calling this a pretty big deal, but I'm not sure that I'm impressed.

There's nothing here that we didn't know about Obama already if we have been paying the least amount of attention.

Here's the problem- if you haven't been paying enough attention (or have been willfully ignorant of the signs up to now), you're not going to be swayed by anything here. This is a typical "early Obama" answer (by early, I mean before about September of this year- with Obama, there's not a whole lot of late). It meanders about and doesn't really say anything at all specific.

There are two things here that ought to scare the pants off of those of us who fear socialism:

1) Obama strongly implies that he thinks that the Supreme Court's role should, or at least acceptably could, include wealth redistribution (as well as "economic justice," whatever that means). This almost certainly means that the justices that he would appoint, if given full reign by a supportive Congress and still moonstruck press, will make Justices Bryer and Ginsberg look like Pat freakin' Robertson. And those justices will be around for decades. But the problem is, he doesn't ever come right out and say that that is what he supports. There's no sound bite that says this that can be used and echoed.

Look, I don't want us to be in a world where you have to have a sound bite, but we are where we are. Particularly for someone who is still impressionable at this point in the game. You have to have something that can be packaged and grabbed onto, and that's just not here.

2) He imples that the Supreme Court should be, or at least acceptably could be, "set up" in a way that would bring "major redistributive change." He doesn't say for sure what that would be, but the surrounding statements strongly imply that a) that change would involve "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution," and b) that going beyond the constitution would be a good thing (as he stated then that he was "not optimistic" that this would happen- surely he was not envisioning personally appointing justices at the time).

Now, if you already understand that Obama is a socialist, then you didn't have to go through that logical process to get there from here. But, if you already understand Obama is a socialist, you aren't who we need to be talking to right now. The only reason that things like "Joe the Plumber" and "McCain has 7 houses" work is because they are easy to grasp and easy to repeat. This isn't. So it won't help.

Look, the fact of the matter, and I think that this current election shows it, is that most people just don't fear socialism in the form that Obama presents it. We have next to no economic education, and there is little to no understanding that redistribution has to come from somewhere. I have spoken to a number of people that I would have called well educated and informed and am shocked to find out how little they know about the Constitution- even fellow law students want judges that will do what is "right" or "fair" (of course, always in the their estimation), rather than what the Constitution says (and almost as many of them are on my side of the political spectrum as not, I'm sorry to report).

I wish it were different. I'll try to raise my kids to think differently, and I'll try to spread the word through this blog and my general discussions, but the fact of the matter is, most people just won't get it.

Update: Jennifer Rubin and Glenn Reynolds also think that this is no surprise from Obama

So, I just got back from early voting . . .

Ok, so first off, you know that the line had to be about 97% McCain/Palin (I went to the small mall in Hixson, an older suburb of Chattanooga, TN- super middle class, suburbia, family oriented, etc, etc. Secondly, it was early voting- there were maybe 6 people there under 60, and at least half of them were housewives who brought their kids). But who do I get behind me? An ultra-liberal, ultra-poorly informed, loud talking, old man, gay couple.* Really! I have absolutely no idea how this happened.

So, from the moment they got behind me, the one started to remind the other that he must not forget to vote for Obama. The first time I thought that he was joking. But apparently not, apparently the fellow really needed reminding. The way I figure it, if you need reminding of who to vote for, you probably aren't prepared enough to vote. (yeah, he was older, and I'm sorry if he had some sort of dementia or something, but that doesn't disprove my point). Anyway, from there they started to discuss "the Catholics" as in, "the Catholics are going to vote for McCain because they're against abortion." That was the first time that I wanted to turn around. I mean really? Did these fellows not realize that first of all "the Catholics" actually more often tend to lean Democrat? Maybe they've not heard of that obscure political family known as the Kennedys? Were they not aware that one of "the Catholics" was on the Democratic ticket? I'm guessing not, because they made "the Catholics" the topic of the next several minutes of conversation.

The topic (logically) continued to abortion. Then I got to hear all about how if I don't want an abortion I shouldn't have one, but why shouldn't there be a choice. That was the second time I wanted to turn around. Really, as an actual women, the concern is not that a woman will have an abortion- it's that an innocent kid will get aborted. Poor kid, not bad woman. These geniuses went on to demonstrate their nuanced understanding of the issues by complaining that the Republicans wanted to put us back into "olden times" and that they complained about "these Islamic countries" when look at us, we are the ones who want to oppress women.

That was the third time that I wanted to turn around. Because really, what's being required to have four witnesses to prove a rape or risk a death sentence for adultery, or 10 year old child brides? Clearly, Republicans are much worse.

Anyway, they went on to wealth envy about how much has been spent on Sarah Palin's wardrobe (clearly a more important issue that the rampent voter registration fraud or Obama's faulty fundraising). I managed to make it through the line and happily cast my vote.

* I should add that I take no issue with the old man gay couple part- it just colors the story up a bit. It's the loud liberalism that I had trouble with. Of course, maybe if they just got married . . .

Crazy or not so much? Steven M. Warshawsky is quite sure that McCain is winning

He makes his case here. He brings up some thought provoking points. For example:

Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.

I actually can't say that I know any of these people. I mean, sure, I wish I did. I'd probably buy them a beer. And I'm sure that I know a few people who are still making their minds up, who will probably end up checking the McCain box. But I can't think of a single person who admits that he or she voted for Kerry last time, but will vote for McCain this go 'round. But hey, I'm a college student- maybe the real world is different.

Another statement that gave me pause:

There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)

Really? Him, and Colon Powell, and a number of others who have jumped ship on McCain? I agree that it's somewhat different, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's not the same thing at all.

That it's just going to get more and more interesting I have no doubt. But I am far from convinced that Mr. Warshawsky won't be eating his words come 11/5.

"I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings."

Says Charles Krauthammer, on why he's not jumping ship on McCain.

First, I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if McCain’s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the “erratic” is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the “dirty campaign” pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed McCain supports “cutting Social Security benefits in half.” And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain’s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What’s astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

. . .

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Debate Time!

OK, now for the debate. McCain has traditionally had the advantage in townhalls, but anything can happen right now. Will McCain continue to swing hard like he has been this week? Will the townhall format be destroyed by ringers? We shall see.

9:00- OK, now we get to see why Obama has refused to do townhall-style debates up to now.

9:06- McCain: "Now, I have a plan . . ." Good way to start.

9:10- Did anyone else notice that McCain is left-handed? Have we ever had a left-handed president before? I've always noticed that left handed people are more creative- is that a good explanation for the whole Maverick thing.

9:12- "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I'll bet that you've never even heard of them before this crisis." I'm not sure whether Oliver is amused or insulted.

9:18- Fox has a weird split screen going on, with the speaking candidate in the top right hand corner, and the listening candidate in the lower left. Obama is turned full body towards McCain while he speaks.

9:34- Obama says that Washington needs to lead by example on spending so that consumers will follow suit. Yes, I wasn't sure if I should buy that flat-screen TV on my credit card, but then I said "Hey, what would Congress do?"

9:19: Theresa asks: "How can we trust either of you with our money?" Obama's answer: "Oh, yeah, well Bush was worse." McCain: "I've been a reformer!" Correct answer: "You can't, but it's not like you've got a lot of choices here, honey. What are you gonna do about it, vote third party. Hah!"

9:27- Tom Brokaw keeps asking them to keep within the time limit, but doesn't seem willing to do anything about it but nag.

9:22- McCain tells Theresa to check the watchdog groups, they all say Obama is the most liberal big spender. I don't know why that seems like such an interesting tactic to me.

9:24-hehe- TPM says: "We're told this audience was selected to be a cross-section of the local community. But is it not obvious that it's weighted to bald men?"

9:25- McCain seems to be having a difficult time talking about how he's work across the aisle- he keeps stumbling over words. This is odd for him, because its the same talking points we've heard from him a hundred times before.

9:38- Obama wants to respond, but Tom Brokow smacks him down. GO TOM!

9:46- The computer caught on because it was a better way to do things, like, well, compute. Green energy just seems to be about feeling superior to others.

9:48- Hah- we should really start referring to Obama as "that one."

9:50- One of the most commonly asked questions of Obama is whether Healthcare should be a commodity? Really?

9:54- "Senator Obama will fine you." How has this not been a campaign commercial yet?

9:56- Tom asks: "Is healthcare a right, privilege, or responsibility?" Is there any good answer to that? Obama says "right"- so others are obligated to provide it if you choose not to do so for yourself?

10:04- Tom Brokow's defining the "Obama doctrine," right up front. You hear that, future vice presidential candidates? No confusion next time.

10:07: Hehe- Jac says: "9:55 - Tom Brokaw asks: "Is health care in America a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?" Are single-word multiple-choice answers in a presidential debate simplistic, patronizing, or ridiculous?"

10:09: Poor Katie asking about Pakistani sovereignty. She looks really really nervous. And Obama just plants himself right in front of her and stares at her the entire time that he answers the question.

10:11- Obama looks really unnatural when he says that we will kill Bin Laden. Like it's really difficult for him to say.

10:13- Oh, Brokow went down this time. I take back my prior "go tom."

10:16- I hate when politcians say that they know how to do something that the government has been trying to do all along. Well, if you know how so well, tell somebody why dontcha?

10:21- Obama's response on Russia is completely incoherent. Wait, did Obama just say that the Bush policies are making us more safe? I don't understand him at all here.

10:30- "What don't you know, and how will you learn it?" Well, I don't know why anyone thought that that was a clever enough question to make the cut.

10:32- Obama says that there are young people that have the grades and the will and the drive to go to college but don't have the money. I'd like to meet just one person who has all of those things, but financial difficulties prevent him or her from going to college. Any college. While working part-time. I was one of those students; my parents gave me nothing for college. But with a little grades, will, and drive, I managed just fine.

10:34- I think that the last question should have just been "What would you like to talk about, and what would you like to say about it?" Would have been the same result, most likely.


The End. On the whole, a pretty good debate, but nothing exciting at all. McCain threw out a lot of insults, but none of them really led to sparks.

When I was eight years old . . .

Neil Boortz makes, I think, an exceptionally good point about the argument that Ayres’ activities don’t matter because they happened when Obama was 8 year old:

While we're at it, I'm getting tired of this asinine argument that Ayers threw
his bombs when Obama was only eight-years-old and that this somehow excuses
Obama for any friendship the two may have had. Actually ... this makes the
situation worse. It is not as if a friend of Obama's went off the deep end and
started planting bombs. This man's record was there when Obama found him. It was
not a question of what Ayers might become ... it was the fact of what he already
was, an unrepentant terrorist, when Obama embraced him. An 80-year-old could use
this mindlessly stupid "but I was only eight years old" argument to excuse a
friendship with Hitler today.

Right on. For more, see this (by way of instapundit): "Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me."

What does size have to do with presidency?

Ann Althouse has a link to a very interesting chart comparing recent candidates.

The answer: we like them tall and not too thin. In all of the races where the shorter candidate won, he was stockier than the tall guy (think GWB and John Kerry).

So, what do we have here- Obama is tall, but very thin (at 6 foot 1 1/2 and 180 lbs), but McCain is very small, (5 foot 7, 165 lbs).

Is anyone else shocked that McCain is that short? My husband is 5'8", and I think of him as a pretty little guy (which I like, quite a lot). But I've always thought of McCain as pretty tall. He seems tall. And, maybe because he's skinny, and young, but I always thought Obama seemed somewhat short.

Does perceived size matter?

Why Does Joe Biden Hate the Obama Campaign?

Obama Campaign ad "terrible":

In light of several negative ads put out by both campaigns, CBS’s Katie Couric asked Biden if he is disappointed with the tone of campaign, noting the Obama ad that derides McCain for admitting he doesn’t know how to use a computer.

"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden replied.

"Why'd you do it then?” responded Couric.

"I didn't know we did it,” Biden answered, “and if I'd had anything to do with it, we would have never done it.”

At the end of the ad a picture of Biden with Obama is displayed as Obama says “…and I approve this message.” Couric pointed out that – as with every campaign ad – Obama did approve it.

“I don't think anything was intentional about that,” said Biden. “They were trying to make another point.”

Well, it was, but even so, you're not supposed to say that.

Three hours after the interview aired, the Delaware senator tried to walk back the comments in a statement saying he had never seen the ad, that he was merely reacting to reports in the press and he knew there was nothing intentionally personal in it.

Oh, wel that's better, then.

What's the Plan?

William Galston has some strong words for Barack Obama:

I'll get right to the point: You are in danger of squandering an election most of us thought was unlosable. The reason is simple: on the electorate’s most important concern – the economy -- you have no clear message, and John McCain has filled the void with his own.

But just yesterday my liberal friend told me all about Obama's reponse to yesterday's economic problems, a great six point plan for the economy. (He didn't know what the points were, but still, it was great.) So, what are those six points?

So, I googled "obama six point plan economy" I got some notes about a Bush six point plan from 2003, and an article from last March with an Obama six point economic plan. The only recent reference I could find was this:

Obama reiterated a six-point economic plan affecting Wall Street that included more oversight, transparency and streamlining of regulatory agencies, cracking down on market manipulation, and regulating institutions for "what they do, not for what they are."

Sounds pretty standard to me. What's McCain's economic plan? His site says:

John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers. Read each of the sections below to learn how the McCain Economic Plan will help bring reform, prosperity and peace to America.

It goes on to outline plans for: workplace flexibility (I'm all for this, but not sure what the government's role in it can be without mandates), lower taxes on gas, government reform, support for small businesses, lowering barriers to trade, simpler taxes, etc. Again, sounds fine enough, but pretty standard.

What does Barack Obama's site say about his economic plan? (Off topic, but the first thing that I notice is that BarackObama.com takes me to a site where I have to register my name and contact information. I search around and low on the screen and very small is the button that allows me to skip this step- annoying. Moreover, his site is fancy and full of pictures of him and Biden bathed in heavenly light, and it is slow!). His plans involve basically what we have heard before- middle class tax cuts, windfall profits taxes, something about a Job and Growth Fund that I can't quite figure out, simplify tax filings, etc. Here's an interesting one: eliminate taxes on seniors making over $50,000/year. I can't quite follow that one- how much do seniors making that little pay in the first place? It can't be much, if anything at all. And even so, I would think that a family w/ kids in that pay range is probably better suited for needing such a tax break. Anyway, it goes on and on (and on and on). I didn't see any mention of a 6 point plan, though.

So, on the whole, I can see what Mr. Galston was saying- thereis no coherent message here. Unlike McCain's site, there is no summary and point by point issue, just pages of information that I can't imagine anybody sitting down and reading just out of curiosity.

McCain Lies?

Ann Althouse, who voted Obama in the primaries, takes a look at Byron York's defense of McCain's allegations about Obama's support for comprehensive sex education for little kids.

Read the whole thing, but take note, Obama does not come out looking good.

More Obama Camp Attempts to Shut Down Dissent

Here. Note that his side was offered the chance to respond, and refused.

What will become of the First Amendment under an Obama Administration?

If McCain Wins

As things begin to look better and better for McCain, I’m actually starting to get worried about the reactions that will follow if McCain does pull this one off. If he loses, oh, well, I don’t think that people on the right will be all that distraught- they’ll make a big deal about it, they’ll complain about it, but they’ll move on. Conservatives don’t put all of their trust in the government or worship their candidates, as a general rule, so the idea of having one that they dislike is tolerable to say the least. But, if McCain wins, as Russ Smith puts it:

I have no clue if or when that could happen, but I do have an opinion of what will follow in this country if McCain pulls off what so recently seemed the miraculous feat of becoming the country’s 44th president. Voter fraud, conspiracy, “sleazevertisements” (the preferred term of many left-wing bloggers), disenfranchised voters, the return of redneck chic; those will be the immediate cries of Democrats who thought the election was in the bag. Once again, scores of celebrities will claim they’re moving abroad (and inevitably won’t). And then the depression will kick in hard.

Silly and irrational as all of the Bush 2000 election rhetoric wound up being, I do think that it really hurt the country that so many people were so tied up in hatred of everything that he stood for the entire two terms. Had liberals not been able to tie themselves up emotionally in the idea that Bush’s entire presidency was illegitimate and unfairly won, then I think that the country would not have been so divided, and perhaps we could be in a better place, in terms of world support and the war efforts.

Here, if McCain wins, even if it is decisively, there are already too many ready made arguments (racism, redneck-ism, etc) that liberals can cling to in the same way that they have during the Bush presidency, and they are so tied up in Barack our savior that many simply cannot believe that he could lose this election on the merits. And the crying, and fussing, and gnashing of the teeth will be nearly intolerable.

Finally, Tucker Carlson, the witty veteran of cable television shows, who’s been mercilessly and unfairly maligned by left-wingers, expressed an opinion that’s close to my own. “Even those who supported Hillary in the primaries will scold the rest of us for voting against a black man. They’ll be shrill and self-righteous, more even than usual, and they’ll never stop. It’s almost enough to make you want to vote for Obama, just so we won’t have to hear them.”

Tucker’s a card, but you can’t argue that a McCain win, for liberals, will be the political equivalent of Black Friday back in 1929.

WTF?!

Joe Biden, you are an odd, odd man.

BOSTON -- Joe Biden said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton might have been a
better choice for the Democratic ticket.
Biden was defending Clinton after a
questioner at a fund-raiser said he was glad she wasn't selected as Barack
Obama's running mate.
''Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified
than I am to be vice president of the United States,'' Biden said. ''She is
qualified to be president of the United States of America. She is easily
qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite
frankly, might've been a better pick than me.''
Clinton lost to Obama in the
party primary and some of her backers have resisted embracing Obama. AP

Of course, Obama knew that when he picked you, so what does that make him?

Issues I'm to the left of Barack Obama on

I'll be the first to admit that the anti-gay statements are a big motivator, but I definitely think that the trend (can you call avoiding a topic a trend?) of liberatarianism on the gay issues is a good one.

It's a bad time to be Barack Obama

From Hot Air:

With both Rasmussen and Gallup showing Barack Obama moving backwards even before the Republican Convention dropped its balloons on Andrea Mitchell, one can excuse the Democratic nominee for hearing footsteps. How desperate has he gotten? Looks like he’s playing the race card once again:

“I know that I’m not your typical presidential candidate,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told executives and employees of the Schott glass company Friday afternoon, “and I just want to be honest with you. I know that.”
“And I know that the temptation is to say, ‘You know what? …The guy hasn’t been there that long in Washington.,’ You know, ‘he’s got funny name,’ You know, ‘we’re not sure about him,’” Obama continued. “And that’s what the Republicans, when they say, ‘This isn’t about issues, it’s about personalities,’ what they’re really saying is, ‘We’re going to try to scare people about Barack. So we’re going to say that you know, maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’

Once again, Obama has resorted to a smear campaign against the McCain campaign. They have never –never — even hinted that Obama has “Muslim connections”. They have never made even a slight attempt to make his race an issue, despite this fourth repeat of this particular smear. Neither has the RNC nor any mainstream Republicans. In fact, the McCain campaign let go one staffer who only Twittered a link to a Jeremiah Wright video earlier this year.

If Obama wants to argue that some misdirected bloggers have made these kind of
attacks, he might have a point. But by that standard, the Democrats have
attacked Bristol Palin, smeared Sarah Palin about the maternity of her youngest
child, and questioned the mental capacity of John McCain. If Obama wants
to start making these kinds of accusations, then maybe he ought to get his own
house in order first.

More on Palin and Sexism

From The Volokh Conspiracy:

Daddies, Mommies, Politicians and Double Standards:

I was driving my baby daughter Eden to her four-month doctor
appointment this morning, when I heard reporter Anne Korblut of the Washington
Post on The Diane Rehm show defending the media's coverage of Sarah Palin and
her family. She said something along the lines of, "If Barack Obama had a
four-month-old special needs baby, and a seventeen year-old pregnant daughter,
I'd be the first to ask whether this is the right time for him to be running for
president."
Balderdash! Obama has two daughters, one born in 1998, the other
in 2001. Even if we acknowledge that mommies tend to do more of the parenting
than daddies, can we all agree that little girls need their daddies, and that
fathering little girls creates some moral obligation to spend time with them?
Good.
Since January 2005, Obama's family has lived in Chicago, while he
initially spent much of his time in D.C. working as a Senator, and then, since
last Spring, he has spent almost all of his time on the road campaigning. I'd be
surprised if he's seen his kids more than once a month during campaign
season.
Does this make Obama a less-than-ideal father? You bet it does. But
he's not running for Father of the Year, he's running for president. So it's
entirely proper that this has NOT been a political issue.
Enter Sarah Palin.
If any reporter, Anne Kornblut or otherwise, has asked Obama how he feels about
not participating in the raising of his children on a day-to-day basis, or what
will happen when he's president if one his girls is sick in the middle of the
night and is calling for daddy (as people have asked about Palin), I've missed
it.
I agree that it's hypocritical of the "traditional values" crowd to
suddenly lionize Palin, when they've been arguing for years that a mother's
place is with her small children. (Dr. Laura, to her credit, has been consistent
on this, and is duly critical of the Palin pick.)
But for the media to claim
that there's no double-standard in how they treat Palin's family obligations and
how they treat Obama's (or other male politicians, for that matter) just can't
withstand scrutiny. Either it's okay to delegate one's parenting
responsibilities to pursue political ambitions, or it's not.

I do disagree on one point: maybe some traditionalists think that it should be the woman that stays home, but I'll bet that most just want someone to stay home. Surely in the White House, Todd would stay home with the kids at least most of the time, so I don't see a problem there.

And moreover, John Edwards' wife is dying. If he had become president (and we're putting aside the issue of the affair, since we didn't know anything about it at the time), there is a good chance that she would have died while he was in office. They have two small children, who would have no mother at all in this case (and would surely be pretty distraught to boot). But I never heard anyone, anyone discuss or dare to ask what would happen in that case- whether Edwards would be too distracted to pursue his duties. Why? Because Edwards has a penis.

Running the speeches through the word cloud

This is just really neat.