Amazing Race lays Hanoi-sized egg

If you have ever watched "The Amazing Race" TV show on CBS network, you know the protocol. A diverse collection of two-person teams race around the world at breakneck pace, stopping at various tourist traps, landmarks and special events. At these colorful pit stops, they are usually required to participate in various contests and exercises: scaling mountains and walls and ladders into the stratosphere; dancing some intricate local tribal dances or engaging in some arcane ceremony; answering questions and quizzes about the history of wherever they are, and so forth. After they perform some telegenic activity (whilst inevitably arguing with each other about who is going to do it, who is right, etc)... they pick up the sacred clue to the next location, and off they go. The last pair to arrive at each locale is eliminated, until finally, there is one pair left, who are thereby proclaimed the winners.

Needless to say, it probably isn't easy to find distinctive, cool places to send the contestants. There is a bit of a travelogue on each show, as narrators quickly explain local history and customs, and provide interesting details, such as how many feet into the air they will have to climb, or how far away they are from such-and-such or so-and-so. It all tends to run together, so the challenge is to make each new location stand out and become uniquely interesting to the viewer.

Sometimes a locale is obviously chosen strictly for its emotional or political value, to stop viewers from getting bored and picking up that deadly remote. Or to get some drama going from the contestants' reactions to such a place.

On the March 17th show, it was Hanoi. HANOI.

H.A.N.O.I.

I was somewhat dumbfounded.

As soon as I saw the smashed-up B-52, I thought, oh shit. I saw that coming like a freight train.

And then I instantly wondered... who is working for CBS? Who is working for "The Amazing Race"? Do they not associate with regular people out here in the American heartland? Do they understand the emotional reaction to a downed American B-52 from The Vietnam War? Good Lord.

Well, John McCain did, and a bunch of other veterans did, too. The shit hit the fan in short order.

From Yahoo:

Usually, it is "Amazing Race" contestants with loose lips that stir up controversy for being insensitive, offensive, or ugly Americans while dashing around the less scenic or underprivileged countries of the world on the competition reality show. But with last week's Vietnam-based episode, it was the producers and network that found themselves on the receiving end of public backlash.

Veterans, conservative newscasters, politicians like Arizona Sen. John McCain, and plenty of the show's fans were upset that the show filmed at the site of a crashed U.S. B-52 bomber, and featured a segment where players had to listen to a pro-communist anthem being sung in front of a portrait of Ho Chi Minh and then find one of the song's lyrics in a sea of propaganda posters. Vietnam War veteran and American Legion National Commander James E. Koutz sent a letter to CBS Thursday, asking that the network apologize for "its disgraceful slap-in-the face administered to American war heroes. We only wish that the network would not be so eager to broadcast anti-American propaganda."

And yes, they got their official apology.

From the National Post:

Senator John McCain is among those who have accepted CBS’ apology for a passage on The Amazing Race where contestants visited the wreckage of an American B-52 bomber in Vietnam, writing on Twitter that the “issue is closed.”

The national commander of the American Legion, James Koutz, has also accepted the apology. Commander Koutz said said he believed it was sincere and heartfelt.

The segment aired March 17 and angered many veterans, particularly those who served in the Vietnam War. As part of its scavenger hunt game, contestants on the show had to visit the site in Hanoi, which Vietnamese authorities turned into a memorial.

Before this Sunday’s edition of The Amazing Race, host Phil Keoghan read a statement apologizing to veterans and families who may have been offended.

For my part, I continue to be amazed at the mainstream media's general cluelessness about such matters. I could have easily predicted this reaction, as everyone I know could too.

As I asked, above: WHO works for these people? Didn't anybody on the show's staff speak up and say, "Hey, ya think maybe this isn't such a good idea?"

Huckabee claims he could have won SC primary

Mike Huckabee, currently out pimping his "book" (read: presidential campaign preview) titled A Simple Government, told Greenville Online that he would have won the South Carolina Republican Primary in 2008, if not for a "deal" between candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain.

In the primary, McCain was the clear winner, with Huckabee placing second and Thompson third.

According to Greenville Online (apologies if link doesn't work, they always nab me by the end of the day!):

Huckabee, who may run for the White House again, said Thompson had planned to drop out of the presidential race following the New Hampshire primary, but McCain persuaded him to stay in — a move that split the conservative vote in South Carolina and helped deliver the election to McCain.

...

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, said Thompson spent most of his South Carolina campaign in Greenville and Spartanburg, a stronghold for Huckabee.

Thompson “didn’t have a significant vote, but he had just enough, and our polling showed that it was coming off of me,” Huckabee said. “And it kept me just a couple of points under McCain, and you know the rest is history. But that’s life.”

Huckabee said he doesn’t have any hard feelings “for the deal they made. I know they did it because I’ve had close aides to both of them who told me.”

Campaigns are about winning, so “it’s never been something that I was upset about because I would have done the same thing if I could have,” Huckabee said.

Dean Rice, Thompson’s national campaign manager in 2008, couldn’t be reached, nor could Trey Walker, McCain’s campaign manager in South Carolina that year who now works for Gov. Nikki Haley.

Interesting, indeed! If Huckabee had won South Carolina, he would have taken the lead.

McCain won the support of more than 33 percent of South Carolina Republicans in 2008 on his way to secure the party’s nomination.

Huckabee won every county along the Interstate 85 corridor except Oconee, but it wasn’t enough to overcome McCain’s advantage in the rest of the state. Huckabee claimed just under 30 percent of the vote statewide.

Thompson garnered 15.6 percent to take third and push former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney into fourth.

Presidential aspirants tend to pay special attention to South Carolina because of its first-in-the-South primary.

Other Republicans eyeing a White House run who have visited the Upstate in recent months include Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, another potential Republican candidate, spoke in Spartanburg on Saturday.

This year, the Fox News Channel has agreed to televise two GOP presidential debates from South Carolina, the first set for the Peace Center in downtown Greenville on May 5.

And YES, friends and neighbors, I plan to be outside the Peace Center on Cinco De Mayo to welcome them in my own special way. (grins)

I have been chatting with the energetic youth at Suite 8 in Greenville, and some of them will be there also. We may actually have a REAL DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE GOP DEBATE IN GREENVILLE! ((faints)) That's a bit optimistic here in DeMint country, but I just wanted you to know: talks are underway. We may require a permit. Also, I am quite familiar with the terrain of the Peace Center, and it will be ridiculously easy for them to cordon us off into various alleyways. But I am ON THE CASE, and wanted DEAD AIR denizens to know that!

In addition, DEAD AIR will be blogging the next SC primary and the next election to a bloody fare thee well. STAY TUNED, SPORTS FANS!

Good riddance

As most political junkies know by now, Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska.

Now, if only we could get rid of Sanford...



I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. Why did she quit? The real reason, I mean. (Personally, I don't believe a word of her flaky-ass excuses.) From THE STATE:

But with all the thorny issues enveloping her in Alaska, Palin's quitting may be more about something simpler: cutting her losses.

Things weren't likely to improve, if she stayed in office. She faces a potential veto override of nearly $29 million in federal stimulus funds for energy efficiency programs, money she had rejected in fear that it could bind the state to federal building mandates.

"The drumbeat of adverse news coverage from Alaska would likely have continued and intensified had she remained governor," said Juneau economist and longtime Alaska political watcher Gregg Erickson. "It would have become an increasing liability to her national campaign."

A day after abruptly announcing she would soon give up her job as governor, Palin indicated on a social networking site that she would take on a larger, national role, citing a "higher calling" to unite the country along conservative lines. In the last few months, Palin had laid the groundwork for a possible presidential run, establishing a political action committee.

Erickson said that while Palin has received an adulatory reception from social conservatives in the Lower 48 states, in Alaska she's become a lightning rod for criticism and controversy.

It's easier to govern in Alaska when oil prices are high, but they are down from last year's historic highs and the budget is much tighter. And this year, Palin's signature project, getting a natural gas pipeline, moves into a critical phase: whether North Slope leaseholders will commit to shipping gas in the pipeline, which is still at least a decade away.

Palin has said stepping down as governor was about doing the right thing for Alaska - not wanting to be a lame duck governor if she knew she wasn't running for re-election in 2010. She also has hinted that her decision was a strategic move aimed at gearing up for a run for president.

But many political observers in Alaska say it was obvious her heart wasn't in the job.

Palin no longer delivered bagels to lawmakers. She limited her access to the media, and when she did hold news conferences, and she relied on notes and her commissioners for backup. One legislator quipped after her state of the state address in January that the only eye contact she made in the legislative chamber was with the television camera.

State Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, says it's an unfair rap on Palin, one that was used by critics against her two predecessors.

"The detractors will always use that as a criticism because it's hard to evaluate. It's not surprising it's being used against the governor," he said. "It's an easy criticism to level, because you're never asked, 'Where's the proof?'"

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who will be sworn into office July 26, told Fox News Sunday that Palin had spoken to him about "the concern she had for the cost of all the ethics investigations and the like, the way that that weighed on her with respect to her inability to just move forward Alaska's agenda on behalf of Alaskans in the current context of the environment."

Erickson, the Juneau political watcher, said the governor's resignation makes sense.

"Politically, I see it as a smart move. With the complete breakdown of her alliance with Democrats that marked her first two years as governor, she has no ability to move her policies forward in legislation. Indeed, her Alaska agenda, the gas pipeline in particular, is likely to fare much better with her out of the picture," Erickson said.

Palin has also faced growing criticism within the Republican party.

Last week, Vanity Fair magazine published a highly critical piece on Palin, with unnamed John McCain campaign aides questioning if Palin was ever really prepared for the presidency.

And it's a great piece.

Some highlights from the Vanity Fair article, written by Todd Purdum:

At least one savvy politician—Barack Obama—believed Palin would never have time to get up to speed. He told his aides that it had taken him four months to learn how to be a national candidate, and added, “I don’t care how talented she is, this is really a leap.” The paramount strategic goal in picking Palin was that the choice of a running mate had to ensure a successful convention and a competitive race right after; in that limited sense, the choice worked. But no serious vetting had been done before the selection (by either the McCain or the Obama team), and there was trouble in nailing down basic facts about Palin’s life. After she was picked, the campaign belatedly sent a dozen lawyers and researchers, led by a veteran Bush aide, Taylor Griffin, to Alaska, in a desperate race against the national reporters descending on the state. At one point, trying out a debating point that she believed showed she could empathize with uninsured Americans, Palin told McCain aides that she and Todd in the early years of their marriage had been unable to afford health insurance of any kind, and had gone without it until he got his union card and went to work for British Petroleum on the North Slope of Alaska. Checking with Todd Palin himself revealed that, no, they had had catastrophic coverage all along. She insisted that catastrophic insurance didn’t really count and need not be revealed. This sort of slipperiness—about both what the truth was and whether the truth even mattered—persisted on questions great and small. By late September, when the time came to coach Palin for her second major interview, this time with Katie Couric, there were severe tensions between Palin and the campaign.

By all accounts, Palin was either unwilling, or simply unable, to prepare. In the run-up to the Couric interview, Palin had become preoccupied with a far more parochial concern: answering a humdrum written questionnaire from her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman. McCain aides saw it as easy stuff, the usual boilerplate, the work of 20 minutes or so, but Palin worried intently. At the same time, she grew concerned that her approval ratings back home in Alaska were sagging as she embraced the role of McCain’s bad cop. To keep her happy, the chief McCain strategist, Steve Schmidt, agreed to conduct a onetime poll of 300 Alaska voters. It would prove to Palin, Schmidt thought, that everything was all right.

Then came the near-total meltdown of the financial system and McCain’s much-derided decision to briefly “suspend” his campaign. Under the circumstances, and with severely limited resources, Schmidt and the McCain-campaign chairman, Rick Davis, scrapped the Alaska poll and urgently set out to survey voters’ views of the economy (and of McCain’s response to it) in competitive states. Palin was furious. She was convinced that Schmidt had lied to her, a belief she conveyed to anyone who would listen.

And she wanted to make her own concession speech:

Election Night brought what McCain aides saw as the final indignity. Palin decided she would make her own speech at the ticket’s farewell to the faithful, at the Arizona Biltmore, in Phoenix. When aides went to load McCain’s concession speech into the teleprompter, they found a concession speech for Palin—written by Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully, who had also been the principal drafter of her convention speech—already on the system. Schmidt and Salter told Palin that there was no tradition of Election Night speeches by running mates, and that she wouldn’t be giving one. Palin was insistent. “Are those John’s wishes?” she asked. They were, she was told. But Palin took the issue to McCain himself, raising it on the walk from his suite to the outdoor rally. Again the answer was no.

Purdum wisely notes that Alaska is its own thang, something the McCain campaign didn't fully understand:

The first thing McCain could have learned about Palin is what it means that she is from Alaska. More than 30 years ago, John McPhee wrote, “Alaska is a foreign country significantly populated with Americans. Its languages extend to English. Its nature is its own. Nothing seems so unexpected as the boxes marked ‘U.S. Mail.’” That description still fits. The state capital, Juneau, is 600 miles from the principal city, Anchorage, and is reachable only by air or sea. Alaskan politicians list the length of their residency in the state (if they were not born there) at the top of their biographies, and are careful to specify whether they like hunting, fishing, or both. There is little sense of government as an enduring institution: when the annual 90-day legislative session is over, the legislators pack up their offices, files, and computers, and take everything home. Alaska’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, maintains no full-time bureau in Juneau to cover the statehouse. As in any resource-rich developing country with weak institutions and woeful oversight, corruption and official misconduct go easily unchecked. Scrutiny is not welcome, and Alaskans of every age and station, of every race and political stripe, unself-consciously refer to every other place on earth with a single word: Outside.

So, of all the puzzling things that Sarah Palin told the American public last fall, perhaps the most puzzling was this: “Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.”

Believe me, it is not.

But Sarah Palin herself is a microcosm of Alaska, or at least of the fastest-growing and politically crucial part of it, which stretches up the broad Matanuska-Susitna Valley, north of Anchorage, where she came of age and cut her political teeth in her now famous hometown, Wasilla. In the same way that Lyndon Johnson could only have come from Texas, or Bill Clinton from Arkansas, Palin and all that she is could only have come from Wasilla. It is a place of breathtaking scenery and virtually no zoning. The view along Wasilla’s main drag is of Chili’s, iHop, Home Depot, Target, and Arby’s, and yet the view from the Palins’ front yard, on Lake Lucille, recalls the Alpine splendor visible from Captain Von Trapp’s terrace in The Sound of Music. It is culturally conservative: the local newspaper recently published an article that asked, “Will the Antichrist be a Homosexual?” It is in this Alaska—where it is possible to be both a conservative Republican and a pothead, or a foursquare Democrat and a gun nut—that Sarah Palin learned everything she knows about politics, and about life.

Like they say, read the whole thing.

And BTW, Palin is now attempting to silence a BLOGGER, Shannyn Moore. (((Daisy reaches for shotgun--runs off to join newly-formed Blogger Militia))) We are behind you, Shannyn! HANDS OFF THE BLOGGERS.

As Matt Drudge would undoubtedly say: Developing...

The Palin Papers

No, doesn't have the same ring as "The Pentagon Papers"--but far more dishy!

From NEWSWEEK:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

You may also have heard that Palin didn't know Africa was a continent. This was initially reported by Carl Cameron of FOX NEWS, so not exactly a liberal smear.

From Huffington Post:

[One] of the most astounding and previously unknown tidbits about Sarah Palin has to do with her already dubious grasp of geography. According to Fox News Chief Political Correspondent Carl Cameron, there was great concern within the McCain campaign that Palin lacked "a degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, a heartbeat away from the presidency," in part because she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA, and she "didn't understand that Africa was a continent, rather than a series, a country just in itself."

Palin was apparently a nightmare for her campaign staff to deal with. She refused preparation help for her interview with Katie Couric and then blamed her staff, specifically Nicole Wallace, when the interview was panned as a disaster. After the Couric interview, Fox News reported, Palin turned nasty with her staff and began to accuse them of mishandling her. Palin would view press clippings of herself in the morning and throw "tantrums" over the negative coverage. There were times when she would be so nasty and angry that her staff was reduced to tears.

When I wrote my nasty piece on Palin, this was definitely the vibe I was getting... In my working lifetime, I have been screamed at by several stupid conservative female supervisors, who put me in mind of Palin. My intuition told me she was one of these. I assume she is now being outed as an idiot by various pissed-off underlings who graciously covered for her ignorance and profligacy, only to be screamed at, instead of thanked. (Ah, if only we ALL could get even with nasty bosses!)

The entire Fox News report:



And she was ALMOST only a heartbeat away!

Live blogging, long lines, Lindsey wins... the Big Day!

Live blogging the election over at FEMINISTE!

A bit overwhelmed by the technology. It's like a chat room, but you are blogging. WILD! I am flattered to be included.

Also, check out Lotus's excellent rant about the election process in the US. Having just stood in line an hour and a half, I can relate:

It has been said any number of times but it merits repeating: If the US were a "third world" nation, we would condemn our election system as a travesty.

It is a disgrace. An utter, shameful, disgrace. And this doesn't have a damn thing to do with who you want to win or whether you are content with two parties (I'm not) or urge support of third, fourth, fifth parties to keep the ideas flowing (I do). It has nothing to do with pulling the lever or filling in the oval or whatever for Barack Obama or Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader or, hell, Bob Barr.

Having to stand in line for five, six, even eight hours in order to vote is unacceptable. More than merely unacceptable: It is a threat to the very concept of the vote. Again, this has nothing to do with being capitalist or socialist, blue or red or Green. It has to do with having a functioning republic.

Preach it, preach it!

In election results, John McCain has just taken my state, South Carolina, as expected.

And his #1 lackey, Senator Lindsey Graham has handily won re-election.

----------------
Listening to: Grateful Dead - I Know You Rider
via FoxyTunes

Odds and Sods - down to the wire edition

Politico says McCain is getting hosed by the press. (Obviously, they haven't been watching Faux News.)

John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei write:

Reporters obsess about personalities and process, about whose staff are jerks or whether they seem like decent folks, about who has a great stump speech or is funnier in person than they come off in public, about whether Michigan is in play or off the table. This is the flip side of the fact of how much we care about the horse race — we don’t care that much about our own opinions of which candidate would do more for world peace or tax cuts.

If that causes skeptics to scoff, perhaps they would find it more satisfying to hear that the reason ideological bias matters so little is that other biases matter so much more.

This is true in any election year. But the 2008 election has had some unique — and personal — phenomena.

One is McCain backlash. The Republican once was the best evidence of how little ideology matters. Even during his “maverick” days, McCain was a consistent social conservative, with views on abortion and other cultural issues that would have been odds with those of most reporters we know. Yet he won swooning coverage for a decade from reporters who liked his accessibility and iconoclasm and supposed commitment to clean politics.

Now he is paying. McCain’s decision to limit media access and align himself with the GOP conservative base was an entirely routine, strategic move for a presidential candidate. But much of the coverage has portrayed this as though it were an unconscionable sellout.

Since then the media often presumes bad faith on McCain’s part.

Some of us regard this as a CORRECTIVE to all of the mindless media fawning over McCain that I mentioned here.

Meanwhile, piggy Michael Savage said on his radio show yesterday:

[Barack Obama] benefited from affirmative action, stepping over more qualified white men, I actually lost as a result of affirmative action, many times in my life. ... [W]e have America's first affirmative action candidate about to become president.

I would answer with that famous punchline: Whatcha mean WE?

~*~

Excellent feminist campaign reading:

Check out Blowing the "Sexism" whistle (mirabile dictu)

Bint shows compassion and understanding in her post How Many Times Should John McCain be Allowed to Mention he was a POW? (My Private Casbah)

Season of the Bitch addresses the topic of Obama the Socialist Boogeyman (Global Comment)

I have been terribly delinquent in my lack of coverage regarding California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, so you might want to have a look at Stand Up Against Proposition 8 for more details, with linkage. (The Curvature)

And The Girl Detective tells us about her Phone Banking Adventures (Modern Mitzvot)--she ALMOST got to talk to Zach Braff!

EDITED TO ADD:

Sarah Palin: Marxism For Me, But Not For Thee (bastard.logic)

What the Election Means (elle, phd)

~*~

Speaking of elections: GOT NERVES?

Note: I have not been paid for this commercial. As Lily Tomlin's housewife-character (Mrs Judith Beasley) used to say: "I am not a professional actress, I am an ordinary citizen like yourself."

TENSION RELEASE, by Megafood, is one of the best supplements I have ever encountered. Unfortunately, like most good things, it is terribly overpriced. But it is fabulous and totally delivers on its promise and name... a really boffo combination of Ashwagandha (in the extract patented as Sensoril®), Reishi Antler Mushroom, Purple Kculli Corn, Skullcap and Lemon Balm.

If you are a nervous wreck waiting for Obama to win---check it out! ;)

~*~

Settling an argument with Mr Daisy regarding exactly WHO is playing on the original TRAIN KEPT A ROLLIN, and I find this very weird, stylized excerpt from Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow Up--which yes, shows us that BOTH Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page are playing. (Now, was this true for the studio recording, or did the original Yardbirds get together for the movie? Does anyone know? Comments and trivia welcome.)

Weird = EVERYONE IS STANDING SO STILL. This is the YARDBIRDS, people! How can you stand so BLOODY STILL, I thought this was SWINGING LONDON in the 60s and all like that? And they are just looking comatose. Was this some direction of Antonioni's? You know: Look alienated and bored! You are not in touch with yourselves, be postmodern! Same reason David Hemmings brings that enormous PROPELLER back to his flat. Heavy symbolism, whammo, over the head. (I liked him better in Barbarella!)

In any event, Jimmy looks like he needs a shave. Who knew he would go on to form Led Zeppelin in a few years and become richer than God Almighty?

Jeff finally smashes up his guitar (he's no Pete Townshend) as the band continues playing, seemingly not even paying attention. More alienation! When he throws guitar-detritus to the audience, they suddenly come alive and dive for it, like piranhas. Keith Relf looks half-glazed over as he continues singing without a pause, may his soul rest in peace.

Hemmings battles the crowd for a shard of the guitar, is chased out of the club brandishing it like a weapon. When he gets outside, he looks at it, puzzled, and throws it down. Then dashes off.

An onlooker pauses, picks up the guitar-piece for a second, then also throws it down.

Genius! Weirdness and heavy symbolism or not, I've watched this hypnotic clip about a half-dozen times now. This short sequence sums up our love of novelty, glitz; our infatuation with NEWNESS for its own sake... this kind of existential brilliance is obviously how he got to be Michelangelo Antonioni.

More memes, for your edification

View from my cousin Bethie's house.

More photos on my Flickr-for-Cheapskates account.

~*~

Rachel Maddow recently said there is one way to know for sure that you are a Democrat: Do you still expect Obama to lose?

Well, there's my answer.

I do expect that; I'll believe it when I see it and only after the final vote is tallied in the deepest, darkest corner of Florida.

~*~

Natalia tagged me with her fun 8-Homes meme:

Where would you have yours, if you were as insanely rich as the McCains?

List them. You don’t have to list your reasons, but if you do at least for a few of them, it would be more fun. And remember that the only rule is: the homes must be within the borders of the United States of America or else, within the borders of the country you live in, so as to utterly emulate the McCains. When you’re done, tag 8 people, so that they may join in the self-indulgence, forgetting about the crappy property market and the equivalent of The End of Pompeii on Wall-Street. You could spend your time hammering your doors and windows shut in preparation for the apocalypse instead, but it would be much less fun.

Yes, she's right, of course!

1) Columbus, Ohio, my hometown. To be specific, German Village, where I briefly lived as a child, before it got all tarted up. Mr Daisy would especially enjoy living within walking distance of The Book Loft.

2) Asheville, North Carolina, preferably on Biltmore Avenue, down near the French Broad Co-op and Orange Peel.

3) Hendersonville or Black Mountain, North Carolina, (general vicinity) in the Blue Ridge mountains. I love it there.

4) Athens. Georgia, not Greece.

5) Berserkley, California. Lots of reasons, several I won't get into now, due to a profound lack of nerve. Suffice to say, it is probably the only city as consistently lefty as I am.

6) Like Natalia, I'd love to have a house in Buckhead (Atlanta), but I could never clean one of those things. "Call me pretentious, whatever," says Natalia.

Okay, me too!

7) New York City, a modest co-op would be fine. I don't know the neighborhoods, but is anyone working-class even LEFT in Manhattan these days? Or do the service workers arrive and depart with the rest of the bridge-and-tunnel crowd?

Wait, this meme assumes I'm rich, I forgot. And it's bloody hard to think that way!

Confession: I would not particularly enjoy being surrounded only by OTHER rich people! For this reason, I might not do so well as a rich person, so I guess it's a good thing I'm not, huh?

8) One of the South Carolina islands--Kiawah, Pawley, Folly, St John's, St James, Seabrook--any one of those would be utterly terrific, except of course during hurricane season!

~*~

I was also tagged by Renee and Sarah, for a Seven things meme:

* Link to your tagger and list these rules on your blog.

* Share 6 / 7 facts about yourself on your blog - some random, some weird.

* Tag 6/ 7 people at the end of your post by leaving their names as well as links to their blog.

* Let them know they have been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog

RANDOM FACTS ABOUT ME:

1) I'm allergic to avocados, an allergy that has recently worsened considerably. I am upset since I love guacamole, which I could handle in small amounts every month or so. NO LONGER! Bah. :(

2) I've seen DAYS OF HEAVEN about 20-30 times. Estimate. Maybe more.

I know Linda Manz's narration by heart.

3) And THE WILD BUNCH too.

4) As I recently stated in my comments on Pop Feminist's fabulous blog, I get an involuntary chill whenever I hear the first few notes of Remember, Walkin in the Sand, by the Shangri-Las.

5) I have oodles of meaningless certificates that certify (natch) I know how to do various and sundry things, such as: fiddle with DOS and Wordperfect; Medical Transcription; consult with people about herbs and enzymes; "customer service specialist", and other illustrious pieces of paper that I have long-since misplaced or lost.

6) I've seen lots of famous, legendary bands, including The Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Bob Marley and the Wailers, Ramones (three times), Patti Smith, Frank Zappa, Muddy Waters, and of course, the collective namesakes of this blog.

7) I've also seen a collection of non-legendary bands such as Emerson, Lake and Palmer, J. Geils Band, George Thorogood and the Destroyers, Heart, Foghat, Todd Rundgren, The Cars, Cheap Trick, etc.

~*~

Tagging whoever wants to do this! But particularly my droogs, Jojo, Annie, Thene, Jenn, Chaos, Mike and John Powers!

Anyone else who wants to, go for it. And if yall don't want to, conversely, don't worry about it.

HIPPIE MEMES, always! :P


----------------
Listening to: The Who - Heaven and Hell
via FoxyTunes

The Governor's New Clothes

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, looking suitably color-coordinated. Photo from her #1 fansite, Fox News.

~*~


The Obama campaign needs to hammer at the Palin Family's clothesgate, which I initially blogged about here:

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

Certainly, most of us working class schlubs have at some point received "clothing allowances" on several gigs, but this is ridiculous.

Over at Politico, Drew Westen astutely comments:

If the economy continues to tank and the stock market continues to plummet, nothing McCain or Palin can do or say will make much difference. But it would certainly be helpful to the Obama team to connect the dots for voters—that as middle class voters are struggling to pay their mortgage, Palin and her husband are spending hundreds of thousands on their wardrobes on a shopping spree at “elite” stores, courtesy of contributors big and small, and that this is just one more example of how out of touch with what the average American family is going through that McCain and Palin are. The impact of a story like this depends on the story you tell about it, and if it’s just “Palin bought nice clothes,” it will have no effect. If the story is that this is yet another index that they don’t “get it,” it would have a very different meaning to the average voter, since that’s already a concern they have about the GOP ticket.

Meanwhile, McCain sounds like he had to get Palin up to snuff in a hurry; as an Alaskan ragamuffin, she didn't possess the necessary bling to be a good Republican:

John McCain defended the Republican National Committee’s decision Thursday to spend more than $150,000 dollars on clothing and accessories for running mate Sarah Palin.

“She needed clothes at the time,” McCain told a group of Florida reporters.

The Arizona Republican said that the clothing will be donated to charity and that there was nothing unusual about spending the committee’s money on Palin’s look.

“They'll be donated at end of this campaign. They'll be donated to charity,” McCain said.

“It works by her getting some clothes when she was made the nominee of the party and it will be donated back to charity,” he added. “It works that the clothes will be donated to charity. Nothing surprises me.”

According to financial disclosure forms, the RNC shelled out thousands of dollars in the days following the announcement that Palin would be McCain’s running mate.

Since the news broke Tuesday, the RNC has taken heat for choosing to spend so much to clothe Palin during such a daunting year for GOP candidates across the country and in the midst of an economic meltdown.

While McCain defended the decision Thursday, he does not have Republican donors pay the tab for his shopping.

“I pay for my suits,” McCain said in an interview with WSLS, a Roanoke, Va. television station.

“I pay for all of my own clothing.”

And so, I guess the answer to the question posed as the title of my first post about clothesgate is now apparent: Does she get to keep the clothes? No.

I'll bet she's pissed to find that out now.

----------------
Listening to: Grateful Dead - Jack-A-Roe
via FoxyTunes

Stuck in Moderation? Here's what to do!

Left: from postmodernbarney.com





Yes, we've all been stuck in moderation at some point, particularly if we frequent certain circles: uptight feminist prigs, right or left wing absolutists, hard-core religion blogs, etc.

(Hmmm, this begs the question of what these censors have in common?)

Certainly, I back the right of any blogger to get rid of anyone they think is obscene or harassing. However, the idea that any opposing view is automatically harassment is simply wrong. I don't understand why anyone blogs if they can't stand an opposing view, presented politely and respectfully, with no obscenity, sexism, racism, personal attacks, threats, etc.

In my opinion, this means they can't handle opposition.

Concern trolling is disturbing, but then again, there is concern trolling that is nasty and deliberately divisive and there is concern trolling that is basic yammering, and pretty easy (and even fun!) to refute. Some concern trolling gives one the opportunity to present new information or clarify one's views. Some makes the troll look like a wanker (yes, I've picked up some British slang from Caroline at UNCOOL)...and actually underscores your point for you without any additional efforts.

In any event, I am terribly honored to be the one to kick off a BRAND NEW BLOG, brought together by the aforementioned fabulous Caroline, titled IN THE MODERATION QUEUE

The intention of this blog is to publish comments censored on various blogs, because they are ideologically unacceptable, or challenge the view of the blog-owner in a way they can't handle or properly respond to:

Some blogs moderate comments to exclude trolls, some to allow a "safe space" for a discussion amongst like-minded people who can develop and strengthen their arguments without fear of ridicule or uninformed or inflammatory criticism. Other blogs, however, use these excuses to silence the 'opposition' and/or refuse them the opportunity of a platform to defend themselves against often distorted or completely untrue statements. This can be not only incredibly annoying, but also stopping questioning and challenging comments stunts any real discussion and even a chance of a possible solution to a problem.

So, this blog is for those who have attempted to join a discussion and been frustrated, either by having their words ignored or distorted. It is also for those who wish to challenge their own views or to inform their arguments.

AND SO, without further ado, I urge you to go to IN THE MODERATION QUEUE to read the two very simple, unadorned, boring comments of mine that were censored today on Women's Space, the blog run by Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, erstwhile presidential candidate.

Heart has been running some pro-McCain/Palin pieces on her blog, which I find rather WACKADOODIE for a (supposed) radical feminist. Her mindless fawning over anti-abortion, homophobic, right-wing fundamentalist Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been particularly disturbing, completely unfeminist, illogical and downright weird. (One of her bizarre posts I responded to, posited the "dream ticket" of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin!!! Excuse me?!?) Several posts have attacked Barack Obama, at a time when I believe feminists and lefties should be united against McCain. We have a real chance to bring the troops home (Heart, note: some are women!).

In these censored comments, I deliberately focused ONLY on the subject at hand, the election and Heart's posts; in addition, made these posts as tepid as I could, given my strong beliefs on the subject of Obama's election.

When I realized that regardless of my deliberately-boring, even wonky writing, I would STILL be censored by Heart (for reasons she has NEVER enumerated or explained to me), I wrote an email (only one, despite her recent post that she was being spammed to death, or something) to ask her if she was going to approve my comments. Period. No editorializing at all. I didn't want to assume this was due to her busyness (she usually manages several posts a day, often quite lengthy, so I assume she either works at home or has constant access to a computer at her workplace, which I don't) ...or preoccupation with other matters. I told her I would assume the answer was no if I didn't hear from her, and I gather, I won't. I haven't.

There is also the fact that Heart calls her site "Women's Space"--when in fact, most FEMINISTS (let alone most women) don't qualify for inclusion under her hyper-zealous moderation style.

I waited for other comments to be approved AFTER mine, before deciding that YES--it was time to be the first BRIGHT, SHINING EXAMPLE on the new IN THE MODERATION QUEUE blog.

As a sometimes-anarchist and dedicated free-speech purist, I am honored!

Note: If you have a post lost/stuck/or languishing forever in moderation, send it to our free-speech friends with the pertinent links.

Blow the horn and tap the tambourine

Annie posted a long statement from John Perry Barlow on her blog, which is just fabulous:

Ten years ago when I was a fellow at the Institute of Politics at Harvard's Kennedy School, I was on a panel with Senator Ted Kennedy and my tragically late sidekick John Kennedy, Jr. The focus of our discussion was determining when the Internet would likely have the pivotal role in shaping a presidential campaign that television had assumed in the 1960 election of their brother and father. Oddly, for a couple of guys who were deeply suspicious of Cyberspace, they both thought this would happen much sooner than I did, possibly as early as 2000. I said it would be a decade at least. It has now been a decade. And this will now be that election.

Among the many lines of division at contest here - between the 50's and the 60's, between football and frisbee, between a high regard for education and a contempt for it, between weed and whiskey, between Monotheism and Pantheism, between love and fear, between greed and responsibility - is the contest between the highly cybergenic Obama and the apoplectic old race-bating, fraudulently heroic, tail-hook gunning, womanizing, pathologically gambling, unindicted Keating 5 co-conspirator who is literally treasonous enough to possibly entrust the American republic during its darkest hour to a woman who has great legs and cheekbones, combined SAT scores lower than either one of mine, and who, with her "First Dude" were helping lead, until recently, the Alaskan Independence Party, a powerful pro-secession movement. (Imagine Lincoln choosing Jefferson Davis as his first running mate and you get the idea.)

McCain, that disgraceful curdle-brain, that grimacing little tantrum of spoiled Naval nepotism whose greatest military accomplishment (if you don't count crashing three multi-million jets while on joyrides, and contributing to a deck fire that almost sank the Forrestal) was in getting shot down and breaking under torture, spent the first part of the debate whining about Obama's low blows and then informed the women and children of America that his opponent had promoted an Illinois law that now legally requires doctors to refuse medical treatment to any child who somehow survives an abortion attempt. Given the abortion methods I'm familiar with, I'm inclined to think such a child would also survive the flame-throwers they'd be using against him toward the end of the movie.

But among his other qualifications for being a 21st Century President , Senator McCain remains proud that, like both Bushes before him, he is computer-illiterate and that he makes his wife Cindy deal with all that.

I thought George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had made me ashamed to be a Republican. But McCain and Palin have pretty well completed the job.

However, since God is merciful, McCain probably doesn't know what I'm talking about. He's watching the campaign on television where he's presented with an edit of reality that is far less damning to him and his campaign than the one I've been watching on the Internet. John McCain is blessed indeed to be spared the online version of himself.

On the Internet, he would see the "people's edits" immediately, like the YouTube condensation of all 3143 of his eye-blinks during last night's debate into a thirty second segment, or the highlighting of his reference to Obama's "eloquence" in a fashion that left no doubt that this was his painfully polite euphemism for the vile effluent one can squeeze out of an fast-talking sack of lying shit when he talks about the "health" - a word McCain enclosed in finger quotes - of the baby murdering "mother", who is unable to accept that a child is the natural punishment for her coozing around in fornication, which is pretty much all these black Muslim terrorist baby mamas do, if you know what I mean.

If he watched the much more elaborate coverage of the campaign on the Internet, even McCain would have to be in awe of the fact that Senator Obama has shown almost superhuman dignity, humor (as opposed to sarcasm), and that quality that Hemingway defined as courage, "grace under pressure" even while being carpet-bombed, first by the Clintons and now the McCain/Palin Golem, with six months of sucker punches, lies, trivialities, the guilt of distant or even non-existent associations (often involving black people behaving ungracefully), and now, finally, the direct incitement of murderous intent in crowds spiked with many people who are insane with racial hatred, well-armed, and trained by their government in the accurate use of long-range weapons.

He would have seen the look of enlightened acceptance on Obama's face tonight when McCain fiercely declared his pride in the people who attended his rallies, including, presumably, the ones who shout "kill him" and "off with his head." As he pronounced his appreciation for these unmasked Klansmen, someone like me who doesn't have an abused wife he can use as a computer interface could, with a slight enhancement of certain frequencies, make clearly audible the dry, cold wind that was whistling through McCain's dentures.

At this point, I must pause and ask any other digeratum who zoomed into the Senator's forehead pulse at such moments: Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 am in the White House: someone with unassailable poise and courage or someone whose rage-readiness and blood pressure make him a fine candidate to pop a valve, thus creating the scenario in which the more blink-resistant President Palin returns the call at 3:45 am?

Who do you want salvaging the economy, someone who believes that if the government is going to recover what Bush's and McCain's cronies looted from the public treasury, the very rich will have to pay some taxes, or someone who believes that we can spend extravagantly on war, greed, weapon systems we don't need, and subsidies for our friends, while taxing only the middle class and the poor?

Read the whole thing!

Outrageous, honest and wonderful, as anyone who has written the lyrics to several of the most poetic Grateful Dead songs would HAVE to be.

Thanks to Annie for the great missive!

----------------
Listening to: Grateful Dead - Cassidy
via FoxyTunes

Does she get to keep the clothes?

Photo from Access Hollywood.


For a small town gal, married to the First Dude, all in touch with Mr Average Citizen/Joe Six-Pack, it seems that Vice Presidential candidate and moose-hunting governor Sarah Palin is LIVIN LARGE:


RNC appears to shell out $150K for Palin fashion

By JEANNE CUMMINGS, Politico.com
October 21, 2008

The Republican National Committee appears to have spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.

Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.

“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.

The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.

Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.

A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.

What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.

The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”

It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”

September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).

Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.

The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.

An additional $4,902.45 was spent at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.

Obviously, she is deeply in touch with the working classes, as is the Republican party!

----------------
Listening to: Bruce Springsteen - Radio Nowhere
via FoxyTunes

Odds and Sods - last debate edition

A self-defined radical lesbian feminist writer named Julie Bindel has been nominated for a Stonewall award. The problem with this person is her hateful writing against transgendered people. Why has she been nominated? Did they even READ her work first?

I won't link her nastiness here, but Lisa at Questioning Transphobia (previous link) has chronicled it well. She proclaims "a world inhabited just by transsexuals" would look like the set of GREASE. Not sure I get that, but hey, that rhetoric reminds me of various offensive shit I heard growing up. Is the whole world clamoring to transition? We must POLICE the gender-borders to insure people aren't illegally crossing over! She sounds like she believes trans people are a GATEWAY DRUG! Or maybe it's the Domino Theory as applied to gender: First you let them transition and .... the whole world will want to do it!!! And then the whole world will look like GREASE!!!!!!

It's the Cold War all over again.

A Facebook group has been formed expressly for the purpose of protesting Bindel's nomination, and Bindel herself has joined it to "monitor" the "harassment" being directed at her persecuted personage. Yes, she has even barged into the group formed to talk about her, taking it over to defend herself! Some people really do amaze me in their abject cluelessness. A good lesson in how NOT to behave, is yours for free, so go over to Lisa's and read.

Momentary digression: I find Facebook distracting in a way I don't find regular blogs. Maybe it's because my eye is "trained" to read blogs, while Facebook seems like a free-for-all with too much going on. It's like when I used to have penpals and exchange "slam books" by mail in my youth--did anyone else do that, waaaaay before the advent of computers? It was terribly distracting, since I would end up writing book-length letters to people I barely knew...it was a lot like blogging!

And so, my attention is majorly diverted, particularly when there are lots of attractive people around of varying genders, all looking fabulous, as if they are dressed up to go see Iggy Pop. (I'd name names, but that would be rude.) Suffice to say, I end up going over to their blogs, Flickr accounts and suchlike, to see more pics and read about their interesting activities. FUN! But yes, as I said, distracting.

~*~

Christina Hendricks heats up the office on MAD MEN, photo from The Way of the Future.


And speaking of bisexuality (nice segue, yes?), my new celebrity crush is Christina Hendricks of MAD MEN, whom some of my fellow Scifi geeks will recall from the cult-series Firefly. I first saw her in one of those Lifetime TV-movies about anorexia, titled Hunger Point. Admittedly, I really enjoyed the movie, in a daytime-soapsuds sort of way... and then I see her on MAD MEN looking exceedingly VOLUPTUOUS, and I wondered if the movie had any influence on that fact, or was she cast in Hunger Point primarily for that reason?

Christina Hendricks' character is the fabulous Joan Holloway, who sizzles even (especially?) when she is firing some poor, hapless, weeping secretary... I don't mind telling you: I would LOVE to be fired by Joan! ("Hey, no problem, girlfriend, this job sucks. Can we get together for coffee later?") Interestingly and predictably, there is a lot of talk about her weight. Googling her name and the word "weight"--however, I see that there are lots of folks who feel just like I do, starved for a woman with real CURVES on TV. Since MAD MEN is set in 1962, it is completely historically accurate and realistic that a Marilyn-Monroesque woman would be the office diva. (In one episode, Joan and her typing pool sob after learning of Marilyn's death.)

Nonetheless, Christina's ample form has attracted attention from many quarters:

Christina Hendricks as Joan on "Mad Men" could single-handedly bring back hips. Real hips. The kind that will send a skinny man skittering across a dance floor. And I must admit that my jaw still drops when she sashays on screen with a rump as big as a holiday ham. My first reaction is always: She's huge! What a silly reaction to a woman who is probably a size 8 or 10.

Then I realize that most leading women on TV, such as Holly Hunter and Teri Hatcher, are pipe cleaners, and so I never expect to see prime-time zaftig. It's as odd to me as a virgin martini. Frankly, I am so accustomed to seeing protruding hipbones that I have to adjust my own visual definition of what is womanly. That's pretty screwed up, in fact.

Yes, I'd say so.

Well, not me, people! MORE CHRISTINA, MORE CHRISTINA! Christina, 24/7!

~*~

And finally, as everyone knows, the last presidential debate between the two candidates, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, was last night. Working my ass off and preparing for retail inventory, I scurried in only towards the last half, and found myself staying up late to watch the debate rerun on MSNBC.

(When it comes to politics, some of us are just plain junkies.)

I gotta ask: Is there STILL any question who should win? Who isn't ready to bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran? Which person is more thoughtful, careful, cautious? I don't want someone in the Oval Office who is eager to nuke other countries at the drop of a hat, you know? McCain's vengeful, angry, warmongering vibe radiated off the screen, in countless ways.

Barack Obama deserves major credit for not rising to the trash-Sarah-Palin bait...at first I thought he should let her have it, but after various commentators congratulated him on his cool and restraint, I realized, no, his instincts were perfect. (That's just what I would have done.) He is too smooth and smart to cave in to that pettiness.

Just think how EXCELLENT he will be on the world stage.

Novenas in triplicate for my favorite Chicago politician, ascending to heaven as we speak.

More:

Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light (Politico)

Put McCain out of his Misery (Huffington Post)

John McCain: Openly scoffing at your Health (Feministe)

Thank You, Right Wing Pundits (Daily Kos)

So much for McCain's outreach to women voters (Crooks and Liars)

Obama Three for Three: Short Takes on the Final Presidential Debate (AlterNet)

And McCain's "regular American"--Joe the Plumber--presented to us for our ongoing edification? Turns out to be an unlicensed plumber and tax evader.

Well, what did we expect? John McCain has had problems choosing his friends ever since the Keating Five scandal.

The Bradley Effect

Yes, you know who it is. (Photo from the Washington Independent)

~*~

It's getting pretty nasty.

I just learned a new political term--The Bradley Effect:

The term Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. Named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls, the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent.

One theory for the Bradley effect is that some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation.

This has me terrified. I wish I'd never learned the term.

In 1982, Tom Bradley, the long-time mayor of Los Angeles, California, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for Governor of California against Republican candidate George Deukmejian, who was white. The polls in the final days before the election consistently showed Bradley with a lead. Based on exit polls, a number of media outlets projected Bradley as the winner; early editions of the next day's San Francisco Chronicle featured a headline proclaiming "Bradley Win Projected." However, Bradley narrowly lost the race. Post-election research indicated that a smaller percentage of white voters actually voted for Bradley than polls had predicted, and that previously "undecided" voters had voted for Deukmejian in statistically anomalous numbers.

A month prior to the election, Bill Roberts, Deukmejian's campaign manager, predicted that white voters would break for his candidate.

The good news is that there is apparently a REVERSE Bradley Effect, in which African-Americans minimize their partisanship, or are uncounted in polling because they are voting for the first time.

The Bradley effect is named for former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, a black, who lost a close 1982 gubernatorial election in California after holding a solid lead in the polls. As the 2008 primaries played out, [Anthony] Greenwald and [Bethany] Albertson found that the Bradley effect only showed up in three states – California, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

However, they found a reverse Bradley effect in 12 primary states. In these states they found actual support for Obama exceeded pre-election polls by totals of 7 percent or more, well beyond the polls’ margins of error. These errors ranged up to 18 percent in Georgia.

“The Bradley effect has mutated. We are seeing it in several states, but the reverse effect is much stronger,” said Greenwald. “We didn’t have a chance to look at these effects before on a national level. The prolonged Democratic primary process this year gave us a chance to look for this effect in 32 primaries in which the same two candidates faced each other.”

Albertson and Greenwald believe the errors in the polls are being driven by social pressures that can operate when voters are contacted by telephone prior to an election. They said that polls from states in the Southeast predicted a large black vote for Obama and a much weaker white vote. They found that, in a few Southeast states, exit polls showed that both whites and blacks gave more votes to Obama than the pre-election polls had predicted.

“Blacks understated their support for Obama and, even more surprising, whites did too. There also is some indication that this happened in such Republican states as Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri and Indiana,” Greenwald said.

I was particularly worried about the Bradley Effect when I read about the unhinged-anger conservative crowds have recently exhibited. They seem to be going off the deep end. Is this good or bad for Obama? This current viciousness just FREAKS ME OUT:

With McCain passing up the opportunity to level any tough personal shots in his first two debates and the very real prospect of an Obama presidency setting in, the sort of hard-core partisan activists who turn out for campaign events are venting in unusually personal terms.

"Terrorist!” one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign’s new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: “Who is the real Barack Obama?”

"He's a damn liar!” yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."

At both stops, there were cries of, “Nobama,” picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers.

And Thursday, at a campaign town hall in Wisconsin, one Republican brought the crowd to its feet when he used his turn at the microphone to offer a soliloquy so impassioned it made the network news and earned extended play on Rush Limbaugh’s program.

“I’m mad; I’m really mad!” the voter bellowed. “And what’s going to surprise ya, is it’s not the economy — it’s the socialists taking over our country.”

After the crowd settled down he was back at it. “When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!”

Such contempt for Democrats is, of course, nothing new from conservative activists. But in 2000 and 2004, the Republican rank and file was more apt to ridicule Gore as a stiff fabulist or Kerry as an effete weather vane of a politician.

“Flip-flop, flip-flop,” went the cry at Republican rallies four years ago, often with footwear to match the chant.

Now, though, the emotion on display is unadulterated anger rather than mocking.

Activists outside rallies openly talk about Obama as a terrorist, citing his name and purported ties to Islam in the fashion of the viral e-mails that have rocketed around the Internet for over a year now.

Some of this activity is finding its way into the events, too.

On Thursday, as one man in the audience asked a question about Obama’s associations, the crowd erupted in name-calling.

"Obama Osama!" one woman called out.

And twice this week, local officials have warmed up the crowd by railing against “Barack Hussein Obama.”

Both times, McCain’s campaign has issued statements disavowing the use of the Democrat’s full name. A McCain aide said they tell individuals speaking before every event not to do so. “Sometimes people just do what they want,” explained the aide.

The raw emotions worry some in the party who believe the broader swath of swing voters are far more focused on their dwindling retirement accounts than on Obama’s background and associations and will be turned off by footage of the McCain events.

John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

OH, YEAH! I'm sure they will! I can't help but think this stoked-up, self-righteous fury is a media-nurtured head-game, deliberately planting doubts in the white electorate that a black president will "tear the country apart"--and other such sentiments I wrote about on Wednesday, describing the caller on Rush Limbaugh's show. And speaking of which, the Politico article quotes Rush Limbaugh, preaching to Senator McCain about the necessity of roughing up Senator Obama:

“You are running for president. You have a right to defend this country. You have a responsibility to defend this country and not just fulfill some dream you had eight years ago running for president against Bush. It's time to start naming names and explain what's actually going on, because, Sen. McCain, the people of this country are dead scared about what we face if you lose.”

Explain what's actually going on? That is code for --what? More about Bill Ayers?

Former Republican operative John J. Pitney Jr. is quoted as saying that the "crowds want a pit bull"--and McCain is falling down on the job:

“They know that when McCain has taken off the Senate mantle and put the stick to Obama (celebrity ad, as a case in point), we get movement in the polls,” said Rick Wilson, a GOP consultant not working on the presidential race. “They want McCain to call out Obama — on the Fannie/Freddie mess, on [Reverend Jeremiah] Wright, on Ayers, on guns, on [the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] — because they know that if McCain says it, it penetrates the MSM filter. ... Only McCain and Palin can really drive that message.”

The two have begun to get more aggressive on many of these topics, with both discussing Ayers in multiple venues Thursday. The RNC is also going up for the first time with an ad featuring the former domestic terrorist.

It was enough to stir hope that McCain may stay on the offensive, even in Limbaugh, who has often criticized the Arizona senator for working with Democrats more than attacking them. The radio host praised his sometimes-nemesis for singling out Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) as partly responsible for the credit crisis.

“McCain/Palin fired back today in Waukesha, and 15 years of frustration is coming out joyously in the voices of GOP supporters at these rallies,” Limbaugh wrote in an e-mail, arguing that Republicans were fed up with having been portrayed as the bogeyman for myriad issues since the Clinton years.

But to the exasperation of many in the party, Obama’s pastor, the most damning of all his associations, remains off-limits, at the express desire of McCain. Palin ignored Wright and focused on Ayers when she was asked about the two in an interview Thursday with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. And McCain focused on Ayers only when he was asked an open-ended question at the town hall about Obama's “associations.”

“It is a shame McCain took Wright off the table,” lamented one prominent Republican operative not working on the race. “He is a legitimate issue, and we may look back and realize he was the issue that could have changed the race.”

For now, though, party members don't seem to be looking back with regret as much as fearing what lies ahead.

“McCain is behind in the polls, and the Republicans have no chance of regaining control of Congress,” Pitney noted. “Republicans are facing the prospect of unified Democratic control of the government for the first time since the first two Clinton years. And even then, Clinton’s agenda had moderate elements (e.g., [the North American Free Trade Agreement] and deficit reduction). With Obama, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi in power, Republicans worry about a hard push for a hard-left agenda.”

Right now, Faux News polls give Obama a 7-point lead, and I am trying not to hyperventilate when I see Bill Ayers in anti-Obama commercials.

Are they kidding with the Ayers thing? He never killed anyone. Meanwhile, McCain hangs with people who approve of shooting abortion doctors and nobody says shit:

To be sure, there is nothing to suggest that McCain supports bombing abortion clinics. But there's also nothing to suggest Obama supports the Weather Underground bombings, which by the way were carried out when he was 8 years old. McCain at least was a sitting member of Congress who took a legislative position on clinic bombings when they were a current issue.

Today in Minnesota, McCain pleaded for civility at a rally and was BOOED by HIS OWN PEOPLE. (And I didn't see that on MSNBC but on Faux News!)

Stay tuned, sports fans.